Victor Goryunov, Belgorod

Lugansk locksmith

Give us Novorossiya without the Galicians! Down with Bandera's Ukraine!

Give us Novorossiya without the Galicians! Down with Bandera's Ukraine!

Give us Novorossiya without the Galicians! Down with Bandera's Ukraine!

Give us Novorossiya without the Galicians! Down with Bandera's Ukraine!

Vyacheslav

Give us Novorossiya without the Galicians! Down with Bandera's Ukraine!

crush the scum

Give us Novorossiya without the Galicians! Down with Bandera's Ukraine!

Crimean

39 Bad Guy Presidents for Ukraine

Temporary victory for Zbigniew Brzezinski

Temporary victory for Zbigniew Brzezinski

AntiBzhiz

Is Europe, having lost its mind, preparing for war with Russia?

Once again, just like more than 70 years ago, when Hitler attacked the USSR, Ukraine is chosen as the battlefield. European politicians, having perhaps lost the last remnants of sanity, headlong rushed to actively support the Ukrainian oligarchs, who are trying with all their might to “push through” the association agreement with the EU. 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 newspaper “PROTIPROUD” under the loud title “The coup in Ukraine is preparation for a war with Russia?” . This fact suggests that despite the insanely aggressive information campaign in our media in favor of Ukraine signing an association agreement with the EU, in Europe you can still find politicians and journalists who think differently.

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 experiencing, if not a crisis, then deep stagnation.

And each EU member state will have to pay its share for the maintenance of 45 million poor Ukrainians. Supporters of Ukraine's European integration in Poland, which includes both the president and the prime minister, are trying in vain to prove that Ukraine's accession to the EU will make it possible to load the Polish economy.

This sounds simply ridiculous, since it is absolutely impossible to believe that poor Ukrainians, receiving a pension of less than 80 euros and a salary of 200-300 euros, deliberately hid the money somewhere so that later, after signing an agreement with the EU, they could pull it out and rush to stores 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 economics, but politics. And even somewhat so, as are the 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, is the last thing the directors of this dangerous theater needed. Their goal, on the contrary, was to cause a civil war and for the minority that lost the elections to take power. It is also necessary to provoke armed conflicts between the so-called “demonstrators” and units security forces. The secret services used this scenario in Syria. We see the consequences every day.”

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my Czech colleague for these truthful words:

Some may decide that Czech Eurosceptics should be for the revolutionaries and wish them luck in their attempts to bring Ukraine into the EU, since this could mean a weakening of centralized tendencies, a “dilute” of the power of Brussels and the gradual collapse of the EU. However, not everyone 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 battle against the strengthening power of the New World Order. Therefore, events in Ukraine must be assessed in a broader context.

What was the main reason that the well-known and experienced Soros agencies specializing in organizing coups d'etat launched “Operation Ukraine”?

President Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign an association agreement with the European Union, which would have destroyed Ukraine economically and politically. 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 it will fall; we will not allow her 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.

It's about- no more and no less - about the psychological and strategic preparation of EU citizens for war against Russia. At a minimum - to “cold”.

Instability on Russian borders and the influx of armed “paramilitary” groups heading into Ukraine from across Europe have multiple objectives. Including - transferring “revolutionary chaos” across borders to Russia. However, more important is the attempt to divide Ukraine and build a new “pro-European state” on the 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.” The agency tried this kind of internationalization of demonstrations in Syria, where today foreign mercenaries are fighting, replacing the first protesters on the streets of Damascus.

It is no coincidence that all our ( Czech - approx. Author) the main Babishov-Bakalov newspapers are squealing with delight because of the “revolution in Kyiv.” Particularly noteworthy are the articles by Luboš Palata, who, just in case, to “maintain the line”, supplies two newspapers of Babisov’s pack with his articles at once - MF DNES and Lidové noviny. The innovation of the new Babishov leadership of both publications is worthy of attention. But, of course, even without Babiš, in the same spirit, in primitive live broadcasts, “Bakalovsky” Czech television and Radiožurnál “make news”.

We will see the consequences of the extremely 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 Brussels colony, and that peace will reign in Ukraine again. All this, apparently, is just an overture and a test of strength.

However, the transfer of “great chaos” closer to our borders this time should not leave us indifferent. The war is thus - for now symbolically - transferred to Europe. They're waiting for us turbulent times." (End quote).

I would like to add a little to my dear 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 to Russia with Hitler 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 in the SS troops, but there were Ukrainian, Croatian, Norwegian, Belgian, and French. The Poles did not disgrace themselves with such a phenomenon.

Of course, many Poles recall 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 focus your attention 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 Poles to participate in anti-Russian actions like the current Ukrainian coup?

Now the manic idea of ​​​​creating “Wielka Polska”, in which the territories of Ukraine act as the eastern lands, is wandering in the heads of Polish politicians. Baltic states, also actively involved in organizing and supporting the Ukrainian coup d'etat, are also hoping 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 government officials as almost a sign of weakness. But it would be big mistake think that this is really true.

And there is nothing more unforgivable for a politician than his own stupidity.

The president of the Washington Center for National Interests, publisher of The National Interest magazine, Dmitry Simes, speaks very well about this.

The experience of the last 20 years shows that words of support from US and EU politicians are unlikely to turn into concrete actions- at least the level that the Ukrainian economy would require in the absence of Russian subsidies.

Moreover, the Ukrainian opposition should listen very carefully to what exactly officials from the US and EU are saying. In the case of the United States, the message 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 Ms. Nuland's track record, which includes serving as the US Permanent Representative to NATO and Advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney on national security, the speaker of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and, incidentally, the wife of neoconservative publicist Robert Kagan, knows that this warning is not dictated by a lack of sympathy for the Ukrainian protesters.

American policy towards Ukraine, supported by both political parties, favors its gradual integration into the European Union and ultimately into NATO.

But the United States never intended to provide multibillion-dollar bailouts, preferring instead to rely on IMF loans, which typically come with very strict conditions. This is an area where Washington could help organize more favorable conditions for Kyiv if it wants to move towards an agreement with the European Union. At the same time, neither the Obama administration nor the American people have any desire to enter into confrontation with 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.

The European Union is genuinely more interested in taking Ukraine under its wing.

Some EU member countries, namely Lithuania and Poland, believe that security considerations require taking Ukraine 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 concerns may be less important, but encouraging Ukraine's move toward the West appears to be a symbolic display of the inherent goodness and wisdom of the European project at a time when Eurosceptics are gaining more electoral support.

If we do not take into account successful territorial expansion, the European Union has nothing special to boast about on most issues. Economic situation in the EU is very difficult, especially in Mediterranean countries. The EU has failed to effectively deal with the problems of mass migration and has not found a way to absorb large flows of new arrivals. In addition, European interventions during the Arab Spring can hardly be called a success.

The enthusiasm of London and Paris for an invasion of Syria was beset by the turn of first the British Parliament, and then the Obama administration, to agree with Russia, which convinced it to move to the destruction of the Syrian arsenal of chemical weapons.

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 “at on the right side stories".

Despite this, both the European Union and Mr. Yanukovych realized 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 that it may be easier to remove a flagging Ukrainian president from office than to replace him with an effective and legitimate successor, Ukrainian opposition leaders should think twice before seeking to overthrow the results of a free and fair election or further destabilize a country they It has proven difficult to manage even under the best of 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 best case scenario pragmatic, down-to-earth politicians who go with the flow. It is absolutely natural for them to demand from Russia non-interference in Ukrainian affairs and at the same time, with all their might, push Ukraine to sign an agreement with the European Union. Who will pay for Ukraine’s approach to Europe and especially 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 interceptor missiles on its territory. In response, we received Russian Iskander complexes in Kaliningrad, which made the people of Poland even more hostage to decisions made not in Warsaw, but in Washington and Moscow.

Further escalation Ukrainian conflict threatens to turn all of Eastern Europe into a kingdom of chaos and fear, when tens of millions of Ukrainians pour there in search of a better fate.

It is quite obvious that it is not the goal of the European Union 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.

The same thing is huge financial resources The funds of the European Union are spent on inciting the Ukrainian conflict, fooling and fooling Ukrainian society. And none of the politicians answers the question: wouldn’t it be better to spend this money on solving our own problems? economic problems our countries. And why should Europeans pay for the fantasies of their officials and the ambitions of Ukrainian oligarchs?

By the way, when I was recently in Kyiv, I heard the following joke:

A Western journalist asks a lousy, filthy and dirty “Maidanovite” who is eating a huge piece of bread with sausage with visible pleasure:

Are you for association with the EU?

Are you against Yanukovych?

Are you for Ukraine's entry into the Customs Union?

Why are you standing here then?

And where can I find such a paradise, every day? - comes the answer, which is quite logical for this type of Ukrainian.

It is high time for our politicians dealing with Ukraine to understand that every day of Euromaidan with European money bleeds our economy. And the Ukrainian crisis is quite capable of spreading beyond the borders of Ukraine itself.

They should not think that Russia will simply give Ukraine into the sphere of influence of the European Union. This is the height of either naivety or stupidity.

European politicians do not even allow the thought that Russia could take any action within the bounds of the possible to keep Ukraine.

It seems that the EU and the USA 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 EU of the USA with his less famous quote: “Even the most favorable outcome of the war will never lead to the disintegration of the main strength of Russia, which is based on millions of Russians themselves... These latter, even if they are dismembered by international treatises, are just as quickly reconnected with each other, like particles of a cut piece of mercury. ."

In a war of nerves on the verge of a foul, Putin has an advantage. His actions and statements Russian diplomats do not have such a clearly expressed hysterical naive-infantile shade, which representatives of the EU and the USA persistently demonstrate at the highest level.

And it is absolutely impossible to imagine such a stupid situation when one of Russian politicians will come to Ukraine to distribute cookies at Antimaidan. It seems that Russia has some kind of trump card that it is not yet ready to put on the table.

While Russia is discussing when the third world war will begin, residents of the Baltics, Scandinavia and Eastern Europe are hastily militarizing amid talk ofRussia’s “aggression” and are seriously preparing for war. Compulsory military service is being reinstated in Lithuania, while in Finland everyone more people They are in favor of increasing spending on defense, and in Poland they are already signing up for military courses. Medialeaks looked at how our neighbors in the West are preparing for war with Russia.

“Neighbors have become unpredictable”

After the annexation of Crimea and the war in Donbass, Russia in the eyes of the Western public became a real aggressor. Western media reported that Vladimir Putin would either try to enter the Baltic states, or that in the event of a concentration of NATO troops near the borders with Russia, the Kremlin would agree to a military (and even using nuclear weapons) operation. Putin’s statements that he was ready to use nuclear weapon against the West if they tried to return Crimea to Ukraine.

“We were ready to do this [bring to combat readiness nuclear forces]. I talked with [Western] colleagues and told them that this [Crimea] is our historical territory, Russian people live there, they are in danger, we cannot abandon them,” the VGTRK website quotes Putin.

It is not clear what exactly caused the fear new war. For many months, statements were received from Moscow about the readiness of a military response, reports of Russian fighters and submarines infiltrating Europe - all this overlapped with old fears of the USSR military machine. But now what could only be joked about a year ago has become a reality: the West has begun to seriously prepare for war with Russia.

“The threat is real for the entire region, the Baltic countries. Our neighbors have become less predictable, I mean Russia,” Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite said in early March, once again recalling the increase in Russian military aircraft near the borders of the Baltic countries.

The head of the Latvian Foreign Ministry, Rinkevich, also speaks about the predatory mood of the Russian authorities. He compared the Kremlin’s policies to the Third Reich.

The more I follow modern RU, the more I come to the conclusion that she will end up like German Reich after both WWI & WWII & it’ll be to late

"The more I watch modern Russia, the more I come to the conclusion that she will end up like German Reich after the First and Second World Wars, and it will be too late.”

Against this background, the headlines of many American media began to increasingly contain the phrases “Russian aggression”, “in the face of the threat from Russia”, etc.

"Eastern European civilians will march military training in the face of the Russian threat"

«

“Polish general: Russia is trying to start hybrid war in our country"

"Lithuania supports a 'hard response' to Russia"

"Military preparation in case of invasion"

The authorities of European countries are not only “exposing” Russia’s plans, but have already begun to act.

IN Latvia They are also preparing with all their might for the prospect of an invasion or simply a threat to the security of the region. IN next year authorities are planning to send students to military exercises as one of the opportunities to improve the country's defense capabilities.

“There is a feeling of threat in society,” Aja Jakubovskaya, a representative of the Latvian Ministry of Defense, quotes.

However, the Baltic countries are preparing not only for open military conflict, but also for other possible security breaches, including cyberspace. In the event of a cyber attack from Russia, the president believes Estonia Toomas Hendrik Ilves, the countries of the alliance must respond with force to such interference.

“If you fry power plants, what's the difference between that and a missile attack? Shutting down an entire country through a cyber attack would be difficult, but not impossible. If so, why should this not be a trigger for Article 5? (an article about NATO allied actions in the event of an attack on one of the alliance countries - note by Medialeaks),” The Times quotes Ilves.

And although Finland usually not included in the list of countries against which “Russian aggression” may be directed, the Ministry of Defense stated that their country will not stand aside if Russia “shows aggression” against the Baltic states.

“If in theory a conflict arises, it is difficult for me to imagine that Russia will respect Finland’s military neutrality so much that it will not set foot on its territory. It’s hard to believe that they would respect Finland in this situation... It’s naive to think that we could remain outside the big picture European conflict, if there would be a clash between Russia and NATO,” announced Finnish Defense Minister Karl Haglund.

Finland is not currently a NATO member. But if the country joins the NATO alliance, NATO will be able to station its military on Finnish territory in close proximity from the borders with Russia. The majority of Finns (59%) partially or completely support an increase in defense spending over the next four years, writes the Helsinki Times.

“So as not to interfere in the Baltics”

After the conflict in Ukraine, NATO decided to more than double the size of the Response Force: from 13 to 30 thousand people, and there will be 5 thousand people in the high-readiness group.

Military exercises involving NATO allies in recent months have become very frequent. Joint exercises between the Estonian and US Air Forces are taking place from March 19 to April 17. From 1 to 10 April, NATO countries are conducting the first Joint High Readiness Force exercise, codenamed Noble Jump. This unit was created specifically “in response to new security challenges on NATO’s southern and eastern borders.” The second part of the exercise is scheduled for June in Poland. Also on April 7, two-day military exercises between Lithuania and the United States began.

A training march took place on a large scale at the end of March, when US military equipment proceeded from the Baltic states to Germany through five European countries. Local residents in the Baltic countries joyfully greeted the American military and took pictures with them.

Since the fall, the United States began promising its allies in Europe military support in case of aggression. On September 3, US President Barack Obama made a special trip to Tallinn to speak, which White House staff previously described as a direct warning to Putin not to “meddle in the Baltics.” And in early March, as part of the Atlantic Resolve mission, more than 120 units of American equipment, including tanks and armored vehicles, arrived in Latvia. The purpose of the mission was to support the Baltic states, again against the backdrop of “Russian aggression.”

The mayor of Riga, Nil Ushakov, even took a selfie in front of the American equipment that had arrived at the port of the Latvian capital.

Netradicionāls nēdeļas sākums 🙂 Selfijs ar amerikāņu tanku Rīgas ostā. pic.twitter.com/uYR3iIvMFn

The National Interest

• Translator: nessie264

Original publication: Why Isn't Europe Preparing for a War with Russia?

Three years ago, the United States withdrew its combat formations from Europe. Now they are sending them back, in regular rotation, to deter a Russian attack. As Brigadier General Timothy Dougherty explained, “It is significantly cheaper to prepare for war than to fight it.”

Right. But why isn’t Europe preparing for it?

During the Cold War, the United States kept approximately 300,000 troops in Europe. This number dropped to 65 thousand a couple of years ago. Even so, there were too many of them: this continent should have left American defense philanthropy long ago. In addition North Atlantic Alliance expanded to the borders with Russia and threatened to annex Georgia and Ukraine, former territories, which were part of Russian Empire And Soviet Union. From Moscow’s point of view, NATO continued the game of containment, only this time at the borders of Russia and in its former ancestral territories.

Along the way, Washington and Brussels dismembered Serbia, without at all taking into account Russia's historical interests in the Balkans. The United States established relationships and gained bases—even in Central Asia. American politics looked like the opposite of the infamous “Brzezinski Doctrine”: what’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is negotiable.

Although there has long been a consensus in Washington regarding the Department of Defense as the key to international prosperity protecting prosperous and populous allies, candidate Donald Trump suggested possible changes, when he criticized American military subsidies for Europeans. Once in office, he credited modest increases in European military spending, but continued to sacrifice American interests to European governments that preferred to shift the responsibility for their own defense to others.

Many on the continent see no serious threat to their security: few, if any, Europeans imagine Russian hordes sweeping across Europe to the Atlantic. And European governments, whether they worry or not, are counting on Washington to protect them. So why burden European taxpayers when the bill can be sent to America?

Why are Washington politicians, and especially President Trump, so willing to force Americans to bear this burden? Vladimir Putin has a difficult character. Everyone knows this. But the world is full of nasty authoritarian rulers. This does not make them a threat to America.

Despite the heightened rhetoric that fills Washington, Moscow does not pose a significant threat to the United States. The fuss over the 2016 election was offensive, but Washington was doing the same thing, only much more often and in much greater detail. more countries The Trump administration should insist that Russia abandon this, while promising that America will not make the same mistakes again in the future.

The Russian Federation is the only country with comparable nuclear capabilities, but using it means guaranteeing a devastating retaliatory strike. Although Russia has rebuilt its conventional military since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Moscow is a serious regional rather than a global power. There is nothing to indicate that Putin has the slightest interest in confrontation with America.

Moreover, the United States and Russia do not have any significant differences in important interests. On the contrary, the two governments clash over peripheral issues such as Syria (with which Moscow has a long-standing allied relationship and which means little to America) and Georgia and Ukraine (which are not important to US security). In contrast, both America and Russia fear Islamic terrorism, oppose the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea, and oppose a potentially aggressive China.

And yet America is returning troops to Europe. Chief of staff ground forces US General Mark Milley stated that: "We, the US Army, believe that this additional potential“probably necessary” to contain Russia. Commanding American troops in Europe, Lieutenant General Ben Hodges stated that “We will do this as long as necessary.” He added that “we will not deviate from this course in the future.”

What are Europeans doing in connection with Russia? They are, shall we say, “busy.” Or perhaps they feel that they have already done everything they can.

Europe now spends twice as much on its military as Russia. If European governments are not spending efficiently, they need to fix it, rather than wait for Washington to intervene again. And, if they felt threatened, they would do much more. General Hodges praised Lithuania for spending 2.07% of GDP on its military, but if this government is trembling at the arrival of Russian armored divisions, it should double or triple that spending. The point is not to defeat Moscow's hordes, but to ensure that any attack would be too costly and not worth the expense.

The same is true for Estonia, Latvia and Poland. All of them, apparently, are passionate about getting American garrisons. But what they should get are troops from their European neighbors.

But moving further away from the border states, most Europeans are too busy to worry much about defense issues. Germany's costs rose from 1.18% in 2016 to 1.22% this year, but are expected to fall in 2018.

It is fair to assume that no one in Germany at least expects the Bundeswehr to become involved in military action. Even the Germans joke that their soldiers' role is to hold off the Russians until real military forces arrive. The likelihood of the Germans heading east to save the Baltics or Poland or anyone else is minimal at best.

But then who will believe that Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Belgian, Danish, Montenegrin, Luxembourgish, Slovenian, Slovak and Czech troops will create a great expeditionary army to repel the Putinists in tarpaulin boots? As it was once said about Auckland, “there’s not even anything there” when it comes to the armies of European countries.

The problem is not insufficient resources. European countries In terms of total population they exceed America, and have an economy equal to it. Their military power may lag behind the American one, but they are not helpless. In terms of potential, the United States is followed by France and the United Kingdom, followed by Türkiye. Then come Germany and Italy. They could all do a lot more if they wanted to.

And the Europeans have many capable military service human resources. Turkey alone has about four hundred thousand people under arms. Admittedly, Ankara doesn't look much like a loyal ally right now, but if so, why is it still in NATO? Anyway, Italy has about 250,000 citizens in its army. France has about 200,000 people, Germany has about 180,000 people, Greece has about 160,000 people, and the United Kingdom has more than 150,000 personnel. In Spain - 124,000 people. And these countries could increase the number of their armed forces, if it was believed that it was justified by security considerations. Not the United States, but these countries should offer to increase the size of their armies, and much more, to contain Russia.

More than seventy years after the end of World War II, Western Europeans completed economic recovery, overthrew hostile communist regimes, and integrated the states of Central and Eastern Europe into the pan-European project. Collectively, they are significantly ahead of what remains of the once formidable Russian Empire and the Soviet Union.

Moscow can beat smaller neighbors like Georgia, but it will have a hard time swallowing Ukraine and it certainly won't conquer Europe. And, if there is any doubt about the latter, the Europeans may hasten the decline of their military capabilities, which are already in decline, facing economic stagnation, demographic decline and political crisis in coming years.

Uncle Sam is actually bankrupt. It faces trillion-dollar deficits in the coming years. And yet Congress refuses to do difficult choice, preferring to reduce income rather than solve the problem of expenses. Because federal debt, social spending, and international obligations are in conflict with each other, a crisis is likely to force action. The disorderly interventionist movement is likely to suffer foreign policy. Few American seniors would be willing to voluntarily sacrifice old-age health insurance programs or social security to give Europeans a secure existence in a generous welfare state. Washington would be better off pursuing carefully considered and systematic spending cuts rather than rushing headlong into a crisis.

Europeans will never stop calling for increased US military commitment, but US officials may stop offering to pay for it. Washington should remain in NATO and other alliances only as long as they advance American security interests. Protecting countries that can defend themselves does nothing to advance these interests.

Follow us

Preparations for a large-scale civil war in Europe are underway full swing, and it won’t be long before the real ones begin. combat operations And fighting“, warns military analyst Jaroslav Stefets. The French will have to recapture hundreds of square kilometers own land. Stefec also doubts that there are no migrants in the Czech Republic. “Someone is lying here,” he said about this in an interview with ParlamentníListy.cz. But his warnings don't end there.

ParlamentníListy.cz: The most discussed topic abroad is the meeting of American President Donald Trump with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. Trump has been much criticized for not being prepared enough or for being too peaceful. Others argue that Trump generally has this policy: first be tough, and eventually soften his steps. What do you think?

Jaroslav Stefets: I believe that Donald Trump is 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 a little too far, and sometimes his behavior resembles theater. In any case, his actions make just such an impression on Europeans. Americans look at them differently. However, Trump is undoubtedly a man who knows what he wants.

You say: he knows what he wants. What goals does he pursue with such behavior, say, in relations with Putin?

Trump is certainly delivering what he promised during the campaign, when he said he wanted to strengthen the US position in the world. He wants to bring jobs back to Americans, he wants manufacturing to grow in the United States and for it to go back to being a country that provides jobs to its citizens. His slogan “America First” rings clear, and Trump knows that if he hides behind 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 this is why Trump communicates so peacefully (according to some estimates) with Putin?

Nonsense. He did not communicate peacefully with Vladimir Putin. Who claims this?

- American media...

Our media also claim this, although this is stupidity, 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 a meeting of two world-class statesmen, which the American press is trying to downplay, since Trump is in almost the same position as Milos Zeman in our country. Attacks from the media are pouring in on him, and at the same time completely groundless. The media claim that Trump was too soft on Putin. However, at the meeting the boundaries of interests were clearly defined, and it was clearly said: here is yours, and here is ours. Areas where clear rules needed to be established were identified, and this was achieved, which is very important. In general, this meeting has great importance, since now both sides (both the United States and the Russian Federation) have enough means to destroy each other. But there are still a lot of things around them that are completely uninteresting to both of them.

What you say coincides with the opinions of other analysts who claim: the whole world, including the media, should rejoice that the heads of such large states 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 are no longer the guardians of democracy. Indeed, in this case, the American media are playing into the hands of the establishment, which has existed for at least 30 - 40 years. After World War II, they formed certain groups interests of people who were satisfied that the United States made money from World War II, on post-war development. Investments in Germany brought them incredible profits. But we are talking not only about Germany, but about the whole of Europe. These people managed to return the money home. And they would really like the situation to repeat itself. Preparations for a large-scale civil war in Europe (if it doesn’t happen there) nuclear war) is in full swing, and it will not be long before real combat operations and combat operations begin.

- Do you mean places like “forbidden areas”?

No, not only them. Perhaps it will all start there, since in France they are constantly talking about the fact 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 similar places are appearing 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 through the Czech borders. Something is wrong here. Someone is lying.

Let's return to Trump. Having met, Trump and Putin irrefutably proved that the forces that would like to start a real full-scale war are still divorced from reality, because a regrouping of forces has occurred in the world. The United States is no longer the only hegemon. Russia and China (although in history, on the one hand, they always pretended to be friends, and on the other, they needed each other) entered into a kind of friendship out of necessity, and their combined forces would be able to defeat the United States in the war. In general, the United States now does not have enough military means to defeat Russia, despite a 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 chance of winning a war similar to World War II. Just like NATO doesn’t have them. Thus, now the United States, even as an ally 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’s more about checking how the weapons and systems of the United States, which are also involved in Syria, react to it. Of course, Russia can test weapons at home: it has vast territories for this. Strategic missiles are tested there. Testing the system in combat is important, but not absolutely necessary. On the other hand, it is more important to find out how the enemy reacts, how he can respond, whether he will have time to react, and so on. Therefore, combat testing 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 anything to it, so if you try to attack us...” This is a clear warning. Putin warns by showing these weapons. He warns other states, especially the United States and the countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, that would join the United States. There is no need to talk about NATO as such here, since NATO is, first of all, the United States. Thus, Putin warns American forces who want to start a world war, about what awaits them. He warns that the territory of the United States will be destroyed in the same way as the territory of Russia.

That's why Vladimir Putin is always so concerned when states like Ukraine, for example, are going to join, say, European Union? Due to the construction of military bases near borders and other things. The reason, I guess, is this...

Of course. I don't know how the United States would react to Russia starting construction military base With nuclear missiles in Mexico. The Russian Federation would reach an agreement with Mexico (this is not so improbable), since cooperation may also be attractive to the Mexicans. Also, for example, the question arises about a future base in Cuba, since 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 it would take in response. The Russian border, of course, is huge, and if the Russian Federation does not have a buffer zone, which Ukraine had...

The S-400 Triumph air defense system went on combat duty in Sevastopol

Absolutely shamelessly and brazenly, a coup is now being prepared in Belarus, modeled on the Ukrainian one. The situation is gradually heating up, and in Belarus they are really planning a Maidan in the Ukrainian spirit. To the management Russian Federation this is known, as is the leadership of Belarus. The Belarusian president also knows this. But I don't think he fully understands his situation. It seems erratic actions which he undertakes in Lately, confirm: 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 the other big country(although the president did not say which one). Lukashenko is trying to threaten the Americans and says, don’t muddy the waters here, I don’t want unrest and I want to maintain my power. He's being cunning. He would like to be Putin, but he is not like Putin and cannot lead an entire state. Belarus has lived for a long time on investments from both Russia and the United States and Western countries, and suddenly Lukashenko realized that the time had come to decide something. Either Belarus will remain a state, even if in an alliance with Russia, or the same thing will happen to Belarus as to Ukraine, and essentially a civil war will begin there. Now a big deal is being played out around Belarus. chess game. Associated with Belarus new move. I think that Putin and Trump also discussed this situation, clarifying their positions on this matter and their vision of the future.

It is gradually turning Europe into a huge springboard for the instant transfer of large military contingents and heavy weapons. Quite rusty after cold war the transport mechanism is rocked and lubricated, carefully restoring the lost gears. No one is hiding 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 the event of a potential conflict with Russia. One of them will deal with logistics, the second will “secure” sea routes in the Atlantic and North Arctic Ocean from Russian submarines. About what these actions actually mean and how they can threaten Russia is in the RIA Novosti material.

Block thinking

Snakes of trenches, roadblocks, sandbags and tanks dug into the ground - it is possible that this is exactly how NATO strategists see Europe in the future. As The Wall Street Journal writes, citing officials from allied countries, a separate command may be created in NATO to speed up the movement of people and logistics. This issue will be finally decided in November at a quarterly meeting of the bloc's defense ministers.

All military personnel know that the combat effectiveness of any army directly depends on well-structured logistics. The operational collapse and deployment of groups, rotations, transfers, redeployments, pulling up the rear, landing operations - all this requires a transport infrastructure that is well-functioning like a Swiss watch. In war, everything is used - railways and highways, civilian airfields, sea ​​ports and hubs. Now NATO, together with the United States, is actively putting this economy in order.

"They need to organize the movement of troops not so much in Europe, but from North America to Europe, notes Deputy Director Alexander Khramchikhin. - We are talking about the transfer of heavy formations, because with what the United States now has in Europe, it is absolutely impossible to resist Russia. However, they are unlikely to actually transfer anything, because, firstly, it is expensive, and secondly, because of this, the United States itself will be exposed.”

RIA Novosti https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20171025/1507557690.html

The West does not hide the fact that the issue of increasing troop mobility when reforming the alliance’s command structure is one of the first to be resolved. As NATO spokesman Oana Lungescu told RIA Novosti, the allies are even adapting national legislation so that military equipment can move faster across the border.

“In military terms, this is not exactly logistics, but rather preparing the conditions for the regrouping of troops and equipment from the continental United States to Europe,” says Chief Editor magazine "Aerospace Frontier", military expert Mikhail Khodarenok. “Reliable communications will reduce the time it takes to redeploy units and formations to what they consider to be threatened areas.”

Few roads

The Americans have repeatedly complained about problems with transporting military cargo and manpower across the EU. Linking Germany and Poland, according to Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, commander of U.S. Forces Europe. railway tracks in the event of hostilities it will not be enough, in addition, many European bridges will not withstand the weight of tanks.

“Strengthening bridges is the first symptom of preparation 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 Western intelligence services was the work to strengthen bridges,” Khodarenok told RIA Novosti.

In fact, Hodges advocates the creation of a “military Schengen” to quickly transport troops to Lithuania through transit countries. He is confident that any military operations in eastern Europe will take place 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 increase in the forces of the bloc. 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 redeployed to western borders Russia much faster than before, which will increase tensions 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, this means Russian submarines, since the Chinese visit them extremely rarely.

“Russia is definitely not preparing for such actions, especially in the Atlantic,” notes a member of the maritime board under the Russian government, ex-commander Northern Fleet Admiral Vyacheslav Popov. - Our defense strategy is aimed at protecting our own borders. It was during the Second World War that the Germans operated there submarines against convoys from the USA to Europe and England. We have no such intentions for the foreseeable future."

Speaking about the Arctic Ocean, the admiral emphasized that his Arctic zone and the Northern sea ​​route Russia will not give it up to anyone and will continue to build up its potential there.

Many military experts see the creation of a new NATO command as part of a plan to cover sea communications for the future transfer of troops and heavy weapons from the United States.

The main European military hub of the United States today remains the American airbase Ramstein in Germany. Being the key logistics center, it also serves as the headquarters of the US Air Force in Europe and the command center of the joint air defense of NATO countries. The base is home to 16 squadrons of military transport aircraft of the 86th Airlift Wing and about 40 thousand 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 to indicate that the United States is consistently preparing infrastructure in Eastern Europe and the Baltic countries to accommodate a group of troops of up to 150 thousand people.