“Russia is the only country in the world that is really capable of turning the United States into radioactive ashes,” proclaimed the “herald of the Kremlin’s will,” Dmitry Kiselyov, at the peak of the “Russian Spring.” Then, three years ago, no one in our country even thought about a war with America - is it a joke to fight a superpower?
Today the situation is fundamentally different - according to VTsIOM, less than half of our compatriots consider such a war impossible. Meanwhile, the situation in the world is heating up, and the topic of the coming war with Russia and China is no longer leaving either overseas television screens or the editorial pages of local periodicals. Is a clash in battle inevitable? And if so, what will it be like?
An April poll by VTsIOM exploded like a landmine: 30% of Russians assume a military clash between our country and the United States, and 14% believe that the war between us has already begun. At the same time, only 16% of our fellow citizens consider the military scenario absolutely implausible. In other words, our society is already mentally prepared for war. At the same time, the vast majority of people have no idea what it will be like. Either a copy of the Great Patriotic War, with full-fledged land battles of armies, or “hybrid actions”, as in the south-east of Ukraine, in Iraq or Syria, or an exchange of nuclear strikes. Our experts, as a rule, do not go into such details, but those overseas have sucked every possible scenario of a military clash between Moscow and Washington like a bone. People started talking seriously about the upcoming war in the United States in 2008, after the RAND strategic research center proposed reviving the American economy with the help of war. Our press ignored this signal, but the Chinese press sounded the alarm: all the leading publications in the Celestial Empire reported that RAND analysts were lobbying for the start of a war with a major foreign power - Russia or China - in order to prevent the impending recession and stimulate the American economy. The date of the future collision was also very clearly outlined - “the next decade.” Now this decade is just coming to an end, and deadlines are running out, because, according to military analysts, the United States has a chance of success only if it starts a war before 2018. To be late means to lose the chance to win, because the rearmament of the Russian army will be completed in 2018, and the Pentagon will lose its advantages.
Scary predictions that are already coming true
It seemed that with the victory of Donald Trump in the US presidential election, the topic of war with Russia was exhausted, or so the majority of Russians believed. But overseas the situation was seen completely differently. In December, Kissinger’s National Interest, which is maximally loyal to Russia, publishes Robert Farley’s study of five probable military conflicts in the coming 2017 - and the first scenario, North Korean, comes true in less than four months. It is noteworthy that Farley directly pointed out the reason that makes a future major war virtually inevitable: America has entered the most unstable and most uncertain period in its history. And the new owner of the White House, Trump, who has virtually no political experience, “will find it difficult to maneuver between Russia, China, numerous satellites and opponents of the United States.” Here are five military scenarios that can hardly be avoided. The clash with Pyongyang is what we are witnessing today. The second scenario, the Syrian one, is also developing before our eyes. The recent missile attack on Shayrat marked a transition from words to deeds. And here’s what the National Interest wrote about this four months ago: despite the fact that the war has been going on for five years, its escalation, fraught with a direct clash between the American and Russian military, is possible right now. “While Trump does not appear to be seeking confrontation, it could ensue if incidents such as the US Air Force strike near Deir ez-Zor are repeated... A repeat of such an incident by one side or the other could lead to retaliation.” Is this why Moscow refrained from responding to the attack on Shayrat?
The third military scenario did not directly affect Russia, it would seem - it assumed military action between India and Pakistan. And in December, it seemed to many that Moscow would be on the same side as Delhi. Alas! On the eve of the May summit in Beijing with the participation of President Vladimir Putin, fundamentally new outlines of the future Eurasian military alliance - China, Russia and Pakistan - are emerging. This is surprising, but the National Interest expert anticipated the events, warning about Delhi's offense and a possible preventive military strike by the Indians on Pakistani territory. Robert Farley believes that in addition to the Chinese and Americans, our country will also be drawn into this conflict.
It is hardly worth dwelling on the fourth scenario in detail, because it is, so to speak, virtual - we are talking about a cyber war between Russian and American hacker groups. But the fifth one is quite tangible. These are clashes in the Baltic states. It is not without reason that Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn have recently been increasingly shouting about the Russian military threat: Trump’s desire to reduce the military presence in Europe and shift security in the region from the United States to the shoulders of European NATO members, Farley writes, could become a signal for Moscow. “Russia may go into confrontation, and then the Americans will have to intervene, which will lead to war.” It is noteworthy that the Ukrainian conflict, according to National Interest experts, “is not capable of becoming a catalyst for a major war.”
Sergei Glazyev, economist, adviser to the President of Russia:
– There is no point in discussing whether we will fight with the United States or not; in fact, we are already in a state of hybrid war, which Washington is waging against all the territories that the Americans seek to control. The center of attack in this hybrid war falls on Russia. The center of US aggression is Ukraine and Syria. At the same time, we clearly underestimate the consistency of the American strategy for starting a war. They say: Trump bombed a Syrian airbase because his emotions got the better of him. But this is not so; such reasoning is, to put it mildly, frivolous. It's not about the emotions of the US President, but about the economy. Its epicenter today is moving from the United States and Europe to Southeast Asia. China has overtaken America in terms of production and investment. The growth of the Chinese economy is five times higher than the growth of the American economy. The American elite has already lost. But the United States remains the first in the military field, and it will certainly use this primacy to restore its economic hegemony. They simply have no other options but to start a world war. Even if it’s a hybrid one.
This is not the first time that Russians and Americans have fought each other.
Other publications are not far behind the National Interest. In Forbes, analyst Lauren Thompson comes to the conclusion that the American army will undoubtedly lose the war with Russia, while experts from the British Independent, American generals William Hicks and Mark Milley, assure the opposite. Thompson makes the following arguments: the forces of America and Russia are approximately equal, but if the war takes place in Eastern Europe (read - in the Baltics), the Yankees will have problems with logistics. In addition, it will be impossible to use the fleet, and this, according to the expert, is the most combat-ready branch of the Americans. And most importantly, Thompson writes: it is not clear whether NATO member countries will be involved in the Russian-American conflict. After all, their intervention could force Moscow to use nuclear weapons. In general, the Yankees have practically no chance of winning the war with Russia. But the generals think differently: Hicks and Milley are convinced that while a future war between the United States, Russia and China is “virtually inevitable,” it will be “short, costly, and victorious for the United States.” At the same time, there is a risk, Hicks believes, that the United States will lose its advantage in the air, and Milley fears “a breakthrough by Moscow and Beijing in the latest military technologies.” However, the same Milly is convinced that a Russian-American war in the very near future is “virtually guaranteed.”
It should be noted that after the American missile attack on Shayrat, the eyes of Russian experts were finally opened. Thus, political scientist Maxim Shevchenko cuts from the shoulder: “This is the beginning of a big war that can engulf the whole world. Trump is testing how Moscow and Tehran will react. Will they intervene?
Declaring war on America is crazy, obviously. Not declaring war on America, pretending that nothing happened means that politicians are simply running their mouths.”
Such a reaction could be attributed to the ardor of the commentator, but here is how the head of the Center for International Security at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Alexei Arbatov, known for the extreme balance of his assessments, comments on current events: “Everyone was happy about the arrival of Trump. And so Trump won. In the White House there was a politician, to put it mildly, ignorant of either international relations or international law. He is capable of sudden, unpredictable, even, I would say, terrorist actions.” Can Trump start a war? Yes, easily! “Trump’s policy is unpredictable,” explains Pavel Podlesny, head of the Center for Russian-American Relations at the Institute of the United States and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences. – And his foreign policy doctrine is quite capable of provoking a global crisis. So it’s hardly surprising that the United States launched preemptive strikes against its potential opponents. But the consequences of such attacks can be very different – even to war.”
Are you scared already? It will feel better now. It just seems that the military confrontation between America and Russia will inevitably end with nuclear strikes, scorched earth and an all-out war in which there can be no winners. Let's remember how many times in the last century Russians and Americans shot at each other. Let's cross our fingers: Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Somalia, Angola - off the top of my head. By the way, in Angola, Soviet military experts were opposed not only by their American, but also by their Chinese colleagues. In general, we have fought already, not for the first time.
Andrey Klimov, Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on International Affairs:
– How many times over the last 100 years has there been talk about a possible war with America - but it never started! Yes, we have an increased number of those who believe that war between Russia and the United States is possible, but even overseas, a much larger number of people are convinced that such a conflict with our country is possible. I think our indicators are still quite peaceful. People of my generation lived through the Cold War era, when everyone was sure that World War III would begin any day now. But now there is no trace of anything like that, no one hides a gas mask under their pillow or dries crackers in case of war. But my generation also influences the survey results, and, understandably, a certain percentage of respondents express concern that a military scenario is possible. Diplomatic war - yes, probably, local, hybrid conflicts - probably too. But I would be careful not to talk about a direct clash between Russia and the United States.
“The bomb is already ticking” - much more terrible than just war
Well, since we, one way or another, have to fight, then let’s figure out how we will do it. Nuclear warheads - 7,700 American (1,950 missiles ready for deployment) versus 7,000 ours (1,800 missiles ready to launch) - let's put them aside. The Americans have deployed 598 military facilities in 40 countries and 4,461 bases in the United States - this is such a force that, it would seem, you cannot argue against. But, as military experts note, this is the case when a ship can sink to the bottom under the load of its cannons and cannonballs. This whole thing needs to be serviced. And now we count: 1,400,000 military personnel and 850,000 reservists in the United States versus 845,000 military personnel and 2,500,000 reservists in Russia. But we have practically no large military bases abroad; all human resources, so to speak, are at hand. The same cannot be said about the Yankees, who will have to pull in their military from everywhere. Here is a British political scientist, professor at New York University Mark Galeotti, who concludes: although Russia is not able to fully resist NATO, one should not be mistaken about the prospects for a direct Russian-American clash. Yes, the Americans have excellent aircraft, the best radars and electronics in the world, but our fighters are no worse, and even better in handling. However, it may not even come to air combat, warns military expert Ruslan Pukhov. It is known that due to the lag behind the United States in the air, the USSR relied on the development of air defense systems, in which it succeeded. Today our S-300 and S-400 systems are the best in the world. “It’s like in boxing,” explains the expert. “The right hand is weak - we work with the left.”
However, it may well turn out that Moscow and Washington will not come to war this time either. For example, a representative of the expert council of the board of the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation, Viktor Murakhovsky, having analyzed the statements of American generals, came to the conclusion that behind their menacing escapades there is nothing but banal populism: “It seems that American generals are completely divorced from reality and live in some imaginary world. They talk about some kind of “fleet war” with Moscow and Beijing, but at the same time they are unable to win either quickly or slowly in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We see that the wars are protracted and no high technology allows America to end them quickly.” What if you have to fight not with the “steppe armies”, but with well-oiled Chinese or Russian military machines? Economist Mikhail Khazin also believes that Moscow and Washington will not have a war in the traditional sense: “Trump’s bombs and missiles are 90% a spectacle for American domestic consumption. This is how Trump solves his internal problems. However, the bomb is ticking primarily under the global economy, but it can explode in such a way that any war will seem like a child’s prank.”
This article may seem scary. But we all live in a time when the start of a new war on a global scale is becoming a real prospect. In the article we will answer the question of whether the start date of the Third World War is predicted or not.
Modern warfare
In the minds of most people who grew up watching films based on the Great Patriotic War, the standard of military operations looks like a cutout from a film. Reasoning logically, we understand that just as ridiculous a saber from 1917 would look in the hands of a Soviet soldier in 1941, it would be strange to observe the picture of barbed wire cut at night by partisans in our time.
And you must admit, having weapons of mass destruction in the form of nuclear charges, bacteriological crops and climate control, it is paradoxical to expect a repetition of the classics in the form of a bayonet and a dugout.
The quiet panic, gradually eroding Internet users and skillfully fueled by the media, is felt in the thousands of requests received hourly. People are so convinced of the inevitability of trouble that they hardly ask questions - will it happen? The clumsy formulation sounds much more relevant: when is the exact date set for the start of the Third World War?
And this is already scary.
Battle for resources
The era when the main contribution to the winner were forests, fields, rivers and the defeated people has passed forever. Today, the greatness of a country is dictated not by population or rich history of victories, but by the possession of underground treasures: oil sources, natural gas deposits, coal seams, uranium deposits.
The date of the start of World War III is not kept silent. It simply passed so long ago that its exact date is unlikely to remain in our minds. The dream of the drivers of trade policy has come true - the economy and the struggle for first place in the leadership elite have become at the forefront of the main life values.
Here it is worth recalling the main method of trade relations, which works everywhere and at all times. The most choice piece never went to those bargaining and fighting for it - there was always a third person standing on the sidelines and sympathetically watching the fight.
Based on events: how can this be
Many will interfere, but only one will get it. It is no secret that the main threat to Russia is attributed to the United States, but the events unfolding around the world's largest leaders suggest that the general tension creates only the appearance of a real threat. The flow of information masterfully maintains the highest bar on the scale of mass hysteria, while the war unleashed by a powerful power (read - the USA) began a long time ago.
Events in Ukraine, Iraq and Syria speak not of spontaneous, but of carefully thought-out actions, which were worked on by hundreds of analysts with such a wealth of strategic experience that simply does not exist in any of these countries. After all, we are not talking about random clashes reminiscent of previous “yard to yard” fights - we are talking about a war that drags on the masses. And here all sorts of peacekeeping missions with the introduction of friendly troops armed with friendly weapons only fuel the hostile mood.
The EU readily accepts information in the form in which the United States presents it; the European Union, apparently, has neither the time nor the initiative to investigate. Like a bull to a red rag, the leaders of the European Union will react to the slightest movement by the United States towards military action against Russia.
This will give the Chinese government, which has been restraining itself for a long time, a reason to talk. The stagnation of American troops in the Pacific region has long been poisoning the existence of the patient Chinese, whose hand is already tired of trembling over the nuclear button. Israel's reaction is also predictable - the long-awaited nod of consent from the United States will allow them to attack Tehran, but how long Israel itself will survive after this is a big question. The last salvos on Iraq will hardly have time to die down before the Libyan, Omani, Yemeni and (where would we be without them) Egyptian bombs will simply sweep away the hapless aggressor.
Anyone else curious about the start date of World War III? Then we discuss further.
A look from the outside - how it will be
It is useful to listen to what retired Colonel General Anatoly Lopata, former Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and First Deputy Minister of Defense of Ukraine, thinks about the events, scary to say, coming. Looking ahead, we note that the former Secretary of Defense's remark about the location of the future battlefield completely coincides with the opinion of British Air Force Colonel Ian Shields.
When asked by journalists what World War III essentially is and when it will begin, Anatoly Lopata calmly explained that the war is in full swing and the aggressor country in it is called - who do you think? - of course, Russia. And even in relation to America, at least in the fact that it responds with sympathy to the Assad regime in Syria (!). At the same time, the Colonel General admits that the United States is forced to reckon with the Russian Federation and this will remain unchanged, due to the latter’s enormous economic and military potential.
The date of the start of the Third World War, according to the expert, thus belongs to the distant past, but its development to the scale of epic battles belongs to the future, which we still have to live to see. Anatoly Lopata even shared a mysterious figure - 50. In his opinion, it is after this number of years that warring powers will collide in the vast expanses of space.
Analysts' forecasts
Joachim Hagopian, known since 2015, warned that the recruitment of “friends” by the countries of the USA and Russia is not accidental. China and India will follow Russia in any case, and the EU countries will have no choice but to accept America’s policies. For Korea, Hagopian predicted military neutrality in relation to both powers, but a rather violent internecine war with the likelihood of the activation of nuclear charges. It can be assumed that the day when the powerful weapon is activated is the date the Third World War began.
Alexander Richard Schiffer, an interesting personality and former head of NATO, in his book: “2017: War with Russia,” predicted the defeat of the United States due to financial collapse, followed by the collapse of the American army.
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, as always, is unambiguous and says what the majority is delicately silent about. He is confident that America will not begin any open action until all the countries involved in the military conflict squabble among themselves to the point of collapse, and, exhausted, lay down what remains of their weapons. Then the US will magnanimously gather the dejected losers and emerge as the sole winner.
Sergei Glazyev, Advisor to the President of the Russian Federation, proposes to create a coalition that does not fundamentally support military policy against Russia. According to him, the number of countries that are officially ready to speak out in favor of abandoning armed conflict will be such that America will simply be forced to curb its appetites.
As Vanga believed
Vanga, the most famous Bulgarian seer, either could not or did not want to predict the date of the beginning of the Third World War. In order not to confuse minds with specifics, the clairvoyant only said that she sees religious strife around the world as the cause of the war. Drawing a parallel with current events, we can assume that the date of the start of the Third World War, which Vanga never predicted, falls during the period of terrorist acts of the ISIS group disguised as offended religious feelings.
Using exact dates
How not to mention the world-famous American Horatio Villegas, whose vision of fiery spheres striking the earth from the sky became a sensation in 2015. Adapting completely materialistic tasks to the act of clairvoyance, Horatio hastened to announce that he knew the date of the start of the Third World War - 05/13/2017. It is with regret or great joy that we note that no one was able to observe the fireballs on May 13th.
We can only hope that people who were expecting big events in March 2017 were not too upset when they lost confirmation of the words of astrologer Vlad Ross. Let us recall that this person also named the date of the beginning of the Third World War - 03/26/2017, which did not find a response in reality.
“Russia is the only country in the world that is really capable of turning the United States into radioactive ashes,” proclaimed the “herald of the Kremlin’s will,” Dmitry Kiselyov, at the peak of the “Russian Spring.” Then, three years ago, no one in our country even thought about a war with America - is it a joke to fight a superpower?
Today the situation is fundamentally different - according to VTsIOM, less than half of our compatriots consider such a war impossible. Meanwhile, the situation in the world is heating up, and the topic of the coming war with Russia and China is no longer leaving either overseas television screens or the editorial pages of local periodicals. Is a clash in battle inevitable? And if so, what will it be like?
An April poll by VTsIOM exploded like a landmine: 30% of Russians assume a military clash between our country and the United States, and 14% believe that the war between us has already begun. At the same time, only 16% of our fellow citizens consider the military scenario absolutely implausible. In other words, our society is already mentally prepared for war. At the same time, the vast majority of people have no idea what it will be like. Either a copy of the Great Patriotic War, with full-fledged land battles of armies, or “hybrid actions”, as in the south-east of Ukraine, in Iraq or Syria, or an exchange of nuclear strikes. Our experts, as a rule, do not go into such details, but those overseas have sucked every possible scenario of a military clash between Moscow and Washington like a bone. People started talking seriously about the upcoming war in the United States in 2008, after the RAND strategic research center proposed reviving the American economy with the help of war. Our press ignored this signal, but the Chinese press sounded the alarm: all the leading publications in the Celestial Empire reported that RAND analysts were lobbying for the start of a war with a major foreign power - Russia or China - in order to prevent the impending recession and stimulate the American economy. The date of the future collision was also very clearly outlined - “the next decade.” Now this decade is just coming to an end, and deadlines are running out, because, according to military analysts, the United States has a chance of success only if it starts a war before 2018. To be late means to lose the chance to win, because the rearmament of the Russian army will be completed in 2018, and the Pentagon will lose its advantages.
Scary predictions that are already coming true
It seemed that with the victory of Donald Trump in the US presidential election, the topic of war with Russia was exhausted, or so the majority of Russians believed. But overseas the situation was seen completely differently. In December, Kissinger’s National Interest, which is maximally loyal to Russia, publishes Robert Farley’s study of five probable military conflicts in the coming 2017 - and the first scenario, North Korean, comes true in less than four months. It is noteworthy that Farley directly pointed out the reason that makes a future major war virtually inevitable: America has entered the most unstable and most uncertain period in its history. And the new owner of the White House, Trump, who has virtually no political experience, “will find it difficult to maneuver between Russia, China, numerous satellites and opponents of the United States.” Here are five military scenarios that can hardly be avoided. The clash with Pyongyang is what we are witnessing today. The second scenario, the Syrian one, is also developing before our eyes. The recent missile attack on Shayrat marked a transition from words to deeds. And here’s what the National Interest wrote about this four months ago: despite the fact that the war has been going on for five years, its escalation, fraught with a direct clash between the American and Russian military, is possible right now. “While Trump does not appear to be seeking confrontation, it could ensue if incidents such as the US Air Force strike near Deir ez-Zor are repeated... A repeat of such an incident by one side or the other could lead to retaliation.” Is this why Moscow refrained from responding to the attack on Shayrat?
On this topic
North Korea has declared its readiness for nuclear disarmament, as well as continued dialogue with the United States. The first mention in the North Korean press of Pyongyang's commitment to denuclearization after the Hanoi summit appeared on the Uriminjeokkiri portal.
The third military scenario did not directly affect Russia, it would seem - it assumed military action between India and Pakistan. And in December, it seemed to many that Moscow would be on the same side as Delhi. Alas! On the eve of the May summit in Beijing with the participation of President Vladimir Putin, fundamentally new outlines of the future Eurasian military alliance - China, Russia and Pakistan - are emerging. This is surprising, but the National Interest expert anticipated the events, warning about Delhi's offense and a possible preventive military strike by the Indians on Pakistani territory. Robert Farley believes that in addition to the Chinese and Americans, our country will also be drawn into this conflict.
It is hardly worth dwelling on the fourth scenario in detail, because it is, so to speak, virtual - we are talking about a cyber war between Russian and American hacker groups. But the fifth one is quite tangible. These are clashes in the Baltic states. It is not without reason that Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn have recently been increasingly shouting about the Russian military threat: Trump’s desire to reduce the military presence in Europe and shift security in the region from the United States to the shoulders of European NATO members, Farley writes, could become a signal for Moscow. “Russia may go into confrontation, and then the Americans will have to intervene, which will lead to war.” It is noteworthy that the Ukrainian conflict, according to National Interest experts, “is not capable of becoming a catalyst for a major war.”
Sergei Glazyev, economist, adviser to the President of Russia:
– There is no point in discussing whether we will fight with the United States or not; in fact, we are already in a state of hybrid war, which Washington is waging against all the territories that the Americans seek to control. The center of attack in this hybrid war falls on Russia. The center of US aggression is Ukraine and Syria. At the same time, we clearly underestimate the consistency of the American strategy for starting a war. They say: Trump bombed a Syrian airbase because his emotions got the better of him. But this is not so; such reasoning is, to put it mildly, frivolous. It's not about the emotions of the US President, but about the economy. Its epicenter today is moving from the United States and Europe to Southeast Asia. China has overtaken America in terms of production and investment. The growth of the Chinese economy is five times higher than the growth of the American economy. The American elite has already lost. But the United States remains the first in the military field, and it will certainly use this primacy to restore its economic hegemony. They simply have no other options but to start a world war. Even if it’s a hybrid one.
This is not the first time that Russians and Americans have fought each other.
Other publications are not far behind the National Interest. In Forbes, analyst Lauren Thompson comes to the conclusion that the American army will undoubtedly lose the war with Russia, while experts from the British Independent, American generals William Hicks and Mark Milley, assure the opposite. Thompson makes the following arguments: the forces of America and Russia are approximately equal, but if the war takes place in Eastern Europe (read - in the Baltics), the Yankees will have problems with logistics. In addition, it will be impossible to use the fleet, and this, according to the expert, is the most combat-ready branch of the Americans. And most importantly, Thompson writes: it is not clear whether NATO member countries will be involved in the Russian-American conflict. After all, their intervention could force Moscow to use nuclear weapons. In general, the Yankees have practically no chance of winning the war with Russia. But the generals think differently: Hicks and Milley are convinced that while a future war between the United States, Russia and China is “virtually inevitable,” it will be “short, costly, and victorious for the United States.” At the same time, there is a risk, Hicks believes, that the United States will lose its advantage in the air, and Milley fears “a breakthrough by Moscow and Beijing in the latest military technologies.” However, the same Milly is convinced that a Russian-American war in the very near future is “virtually guaranteed.”
It should be noted that after the American missile attack on Shayrat, the eyes of Russian experts were finally opened. Thus, political scientist Maxim Shevchenko cuts from the shoulder: “This is the beginning of a big war that can engulf the whole world. Trump is testing how Moscow and Tehran will react. Will they intervene? Declaring war on America is crazy, obviously. Not declaring war on America, pretending that nothing happened means that politicians are simply running their mouths.”
Such a reaction could be attributed to the ardor of the commentator, but here is how the head of the Center for International Security at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Alexei Arbatov, known for the extreme balance of his assessments, comments on current events: “Everyone was happy about the arrival of Trump. And so Trump won. In the White House there was a politician, to put it mildly, ignorant of either international relations or international law. He is capable of sudden, unpredictable, even, I would say, terrorist actions.” Can Trump start a war? Yes, easily! “Trump’s policy is unpredictable,” explains Pavel Podlesny, head of the Center for Russian-American Relations at the Institute of the United States and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences. – And his foreign policy doctrine is quite capable of provoking a global crisis. So it’s hardly surprising that the United States launched preemptive strikes against its potential opponents. But the consequences of such attacks can be very different – even to war.”
Are you scared already? It will feel better now. It just seems that the military confrontation between America and Russia will inevitably end with nuclear strikes, scorched earth and an all-out war in which there can be no winners. Let's remember how many times in the last century Russians and Americans shot at each other. Let's cross our fingers: Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Somalia, Angola - off the top of my head. By the way, in Angola, Soviet military experts were opposed not only by their American, but also by their Chinese colleagues. In general, we have fought already, not for the first time.
Andrey Klimov, Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on International Affairs:
– How many times over the last 100 years has there been talk about a possible war with America - but it never started! Yes, we have an increased number of those who believe that war between Russia and the United States is possible, but even overseas, a much larger number of people are convinced that such a conflict with our country is possible. I think our indicators are still quite peaceful. People of my generation lived through the Cold War era, when everyone was sure that World War III would begin any day now. But now there is no trace of anything like that, no one hides a gas mask under their pillow or dries crackers in case of war. But my generation also influences the survey results, and, understandably, a certain percentage of respondents express concern that a military scenario is possible. Diplomatic war - yes, probably, local, hybrid conflicts - probably too. But I would be careful not to talk about a direct clash between Russia and the United States.
“The bomb is already ticking” - much more terrible than just war
Well, since we, one way or another, have to fight, then let’s figure out how we will do it. Nuclear warheads - 7,700 American (1,950 missiles ready for deployment) versus 7,000 ours (1,800 missiles ready to launch) - let's put them aside. The Americans have deployed 598 military facilities in 40 countries and 4,461 bases in the United States - this is such a force that, it would seem, you cannot argue against. But, as military experts note, this is the case when a ship can sink to the bottom under the load of its cannons and cannonballs. This whole thing needs to be serviced. And now we count: 1,400,000 military personnel and 850,000 reservists in the United States versus 845,000 military personnel and 2,500,000 reservists in Russia. But we have practically no large military bases abroad; all human resources, so to speak, are at hand. The same cannot be said about the Yankees, who will have to pull in their military from everywhere. Here is a British political scientist, professor at New York University Mark Galeotti, who concludes: although Russia is not able to fully resist NATO, one should not be mistaken about the prospects for a direct Russian-American clash. Yes, the Americans have excellent aircraft, the best radars and electronics in the world, but our fighters are no worse, and even better in handling. However, it may not even come to air combat, warns military expert Ruslan Pukhov. It is known that due to the lag behind the United States in the air, the USSR relied on the development of air defense systems, in which it succeeded. Today our S-300 and S-400 systems are the best in the world. “It’s like in boxing,” explains the expert. “The right hand is weak - we work with the left.”
However, it may well turn out that Moscow and Washington will not come to war this time either. For example, a representative of the expert council of the board of the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation, Viktor Murakhovsky, having analyzed the statements of American generals, came to the conclusion that behind their menacing escapades there is nothing but banal populism: “It seems that American generals are completely divorced from reality and live in some imaginary world. They talk about some kind of “fleet war” with Moscow and Beijing, but at the same time they are unable to win either quickly or slowly in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We see that the wars are protracted and no high technology allows America to end them quickly.” What if you have to fight not with the “steppe armies”, but with well-oiled Chinese or Russian military machines? Economist Mikhail Khazin also believes that Moscow and Washington will not have a war in the traditional sense: “Trump’s bombs and missiles are 90% a spectacle for American domestic consumption. This is how Trump solves his internal problems. However, the bomb is ticking primarily under the global economy, but it can explode in such a way that any war will seem like a child’s prank.”
Experts from the American think tank Council on Foreign Relations said that the conflict between Russia and NATO countries is the main threat to the world community in 2017.
The authors of the report “Top Threats to Watch for in 2017,” which was published by the American Council on Foreign Relations, put the DPRK problem in second place. Analysts singled out “Russia’s aggressive behavior in Eastern Europe” as the reason for this distribution of places.
At the same time, in terms of the degree of threat to the world community, the North Korean crisis, which was caused by the testing of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles and military provocations, is proposed to be rated lower than the “threat from Russia.” The consequences of a “highly destructive cyber attack on critical American infrastructure” are also considered dangerous for the United States.
They make an enemy from Russia with such frequency and creativity that it is no longer surprising. Recently, the British military conducted exercises in which they worked out the scenario of a Russian invasion of Estonia. According to legend, Great Britain, the United States and other Western countries are obliged by treaty to come to the defense of another NATO member.
Moreover, the alleged enemy at these maneuvers wears a uniform similar to the Russian one and uses weapons that are in service with the Russian army. According to the Daily Mail, due to lack of funds, representatives of the civilian population and Nepalese soldiers are playing this enemy. In addition, suspected Russian forces carried out the attack using a model of the T-72 tank.
The UK military did not deny that the idea behind the maneuvers was to simulate “Russia’s 2014 invasion of eastern Ukraine, which included a rapid land grab that led to the annexation of Crimea.” Former NATO General Richard Shirreff called these exercises extremely important and calls the Baltic countries the “new frontier”, the same as, for example, Berlin was during the Cold War.
According to former deputy head of the CIA Morell, the tactics used by the United States in armed conflicts perfectly illustrate the goals pursued by American intelligence agencies in Syria. Morell explained that the most effective way to resolve the Syrian conflict would be to “secretly kill Russians and Iranians.”
US military strategists say they will be fighting a "near-peer" enemy in the next five years and need to prepare for an imaginary conflict. At the same time, the executive director of the Lexington Institute, Lauren Thompson, explains that a hypothetical war with Russia, according to the expert, would be tied to the fastest possible movement of ground forces across vast spaces. Russia will simply crush NATO troops, notes a Forbes columnist.
Let us recall that earlier the same former deputy commander-in-chief of NATO in Europe Richard Shirreff told The Independent that the North Atlantic Alliance will enter into a nuclear war with Russia during 2017. The current NATO commander in Europe, General Philip Breedlove, also stated that “American soldiers are ready to fight and defeat Russia.” The man who wrote the book “War with Russia: 2017” about a hypothetical war between Europe and Moscow is sure that when the Baltics completely “strangle” the Russian-speaking population, Russia may begin sending troops into its territory.
Political scientist Steven Cohen has recently often focused on the fact that “the US State Department is deliberately intensifying military confrontation with Russia,” considering this “a very unwise strategy.” Such Cold War games with a nuclear power are becoming increasingly dangerous as Moscow moves heavy weapons and missile systems closer to its western borders in response to US actions.
It is the United States that is in fact preparing for a nuclear conflict, noted Leonid Ivashov. “And here the main players, of course, are not the Europeans. The main player is the Americans. In addition to the task of stopping Russia, they have a second task - to prevent Europe from getting out of US control. The Europeans, somewhere in the economy, in politics, tried to carry out independent line, they do not want to sign the colonial Transatlantic Agreement. And in the military sphere, there is complete American control. Even the Commander-in-Chief of NATO forces in Europe is an American. Thus, through military obedience, they keep both politicians and businesses in Europe," the analyst emphasized.
Currently, the build-up of US forces in the theater of operations in Eastern Europe is being tested. “The Americans may not even launch their “global strike”, but will create an incident that will escalate into an armed conflict. And then they will shed tears that they do not want to fight, but are obliged to protect their NATO allies. It is important for them that the war be fought "not on the territory of the United States, but in Europe. After all, Europe is not only their ally, but also their competitor in the economy. They need to weaken Europe. And the best way to do this is by starting a conflict with Russia in Europe," the expert concluded.
It is worth recalling the recent statement by US Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work that, if necessary, Washington is ready to use nuclear weapons first. The experts' conclusion is this: thermonuclear war between Russia and the United States is close and more likely than ever - confirming the opinions of scientists who moved the "doomsday clock" to "three minutes to Armageddon."
“Russia is the only country in the world capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash”
D.K. Kiselev, director of Russia Today
But is it possible for events to develop according to such a scenario? Will there be a war in 2017, will we have to take up arms in the near future and again defend our Motherland? Let's figure it out.
Looking ahead, we note that the war is already underway, and considerable funds are being spent on it. But this is not open confrontation, but war in other ways. But first things first…
To begin with, about the latest events that indicate that war between Russia and the United States in 2017 is likely
Since 2014 (when, you know who, managed to spark a conflict in Ukraine), the political life of the planet and Russia, in particular, has been replenished with many interesting events. The most important of them, of course, is the return of Crimea to the Russian Federation.
Of course, the “Western partners”, who were pursuing completely different goals and were already figuring out how the destroyers would be deployed in the port of Sevastopol, did not like this very much. And the fact that V.V. Putin and other Russian political figures react with unshakable calm to all sorts of attacks in our direction, which also angers their “partners.”
Of the latest events that indicate that there is a possibility of war between Russia and the United States in 2017, the following are noteworthy:
- The latest conclusions of the international commission on MH17, and the statement of the Dutch prosecutor Fred Westerbeke, that the BUK was imported from the territory of the Russian Federation (and after the launch was safely taken back). But until now no one has bothered to obtain data from Ukrainian radars. Moreover, the members of this commission “don’t care” about the primary radar data presented by the Russian side. What does this mean? At the very least, they are trying to blame the death of Boeing on the Russian Federation as a motive for starting a war against the “aggressor.” Why don't they untie it? More on this below.
- Statement by US representatives of their intention to cease cooperation on Syria. What does this mean? That the attempt of the “partners” to exhaust Russian troops with the campaign in Syria, and to show their low combat effectiveness, was not crowned with success. On the contrary, the Russian Armed Forces have proven that they have an army capable of not only accurately hitting targets, but also surprising (remember the missile launches from surface ships that made State Department representatives go into hysterics?).
- A hint from US State Department spokesman John Kirby that further Russian actions in Syria will provoke terrorist attacks on Russian cities. Well, it’s already clear who and how they will be coordinated. Considering the fact that, according to representatives of our Ministry of Defense, the Russian side knows the locations of American specialists providing assistance to terrorists operating in Syria (and also, do not forget about what weapons they are fighting with, which confirms the fact that the war between the USA and Russia is already underway, but not directly...).
And yet, will there be a war in 2017?
Considering the “attempts” of the United States, it can be assumed that they want war with Russia in 2017. However, a direct one-on-one conflict is impossible. Why, let's find out.
If we analyze the history of the United States, they have never participated in an open confrontation with an enemy comparable in strength to the states. America always invades weakened countries, “battered” by civil war and allies, or acts as part of large coalitions, preferring to “participate with money” (as in World War II). Therefore, the likelihood that the United States will suddenly change its views and rush into battle, unleashing a third world war in 2017, is low.
If the United States starts a nuclear war in 2017, they will receive a very, very sensitive blow. And while they are recovering from it, the world order may change greatly. After all, there are contenders for the role of world leader (you know who) who are intensively growing their economy.
It is extremely inconvenient to wage a war while on another continent. Yes, the United States can use the military bases of its NATO allies for this. But how will the countries that are members of the alliance view retaliatory strikes on American bases located on their territory? Not everyone will go for such a “big brother” adventure. As they say, you can go after a bear with ten men and kill it, but it will certainly maul several of the attackers.