American military experts, who have spent years predicting the likely outcome of a battle against different countries, have said that the United States is able to win even if China and Russia attack simultaneously. If we discard the fantastic part of the conclusion about the “treacherous attack by Moscow and Beijing” and focus solely on a comparative analysis of the capabilities of the three states, then even the hypothetical possibility of defeating two countries with nuclear weapons looks ridiculous. And that's why. Poor Bearers For decades, while the Cold War lasted, the Pentagon continued to build up its own naval forces. Surface ships, submarines, carrier-based fighter-bombers - all this was built in large quantities for a big and difficult war with the Soviet Union, which was a very serious and unpleasant enemy. However, almost immediately for the “strike formations” the US Navy found an effective antidote - supersonic cruise missiles, the carriers of which were both surface ships and multi-purpose nuclear submarines. However, after the immediate threat to the existence of the United States in general and the US Navy in particular in the form of The Soviet Union disappeared, American strategists began to think about how and by what means to bring democracy to even the most remote corners of the world, while working out an interesting strategy, according to which the entire US Armed Forces (Air Force, Navy and others) had to be able to fight on two fronts at the same time. Hypothetical but generally known goals of the United States in probable war have long been called Iran and North Korea. However, recently the list of the main threats, with the help of analyst Robert Farley, included Russia and China, whose fate in future combat operations American experts preferred not to speculate on. analytical material Robert Farley regarding the US’s ability to fight two wars at once draws attention to several interesting conclusions on which the entire analysis is based. 
Despite the interesting idea and conditions of hypothetical military operations against two superpowers, there is only one conceptual error in the material. The author admits that Russia and China will simultaneously and unilaterally begin fighting against the beacon of democracy, “organizing” several crisis situations V different points peace. Russia and China, as we know, do not attack anyone and are modernizing their armed forces based on defensive considerations, however, American analyst Robert Farley believes that the United States can certainly create conditions for war, but it will be Russia or China that will allegedly pull the trigger . The price of perception Military experts from Russia and abroad say the United States is preparing to fight in ideal conditions- when the entire military-strategic alignment is in favor of the country with the largest Navy in the world. Robert Farley's publication regarding the conditions of US military operations against two superpowers - possessors of nuclear weapons - is no exception. 
The strategy of action, according to the analysis of Robert Farley, defines the combat operations of the US Armed Forces as “the projection of force in one of the directions” (theater of military operations) with the accompanying “stopping” of enemy activity in other directions. However, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that some provisions of this plan contradict each other and, in fact, do not allow the US military machine to develop to its full potential. The first and main rule of any war, and especially such a large-scale one as depicted in textbooks and manuals American specialists are coordinating strikes and other methods of military interaction. Farley, in turn, almost immediately writes that Moscow and Beijing will probably not be able to coordinate joint actions. “The very possibility of a lack of coordination here is absurd, especially after the events carried out in the Baltic joint exercises Russian Navy and the Chinese Navy,” explained military expert Vasily Kashin in an interview with the Zvezda TV channel. According to the expert, another monstrous misconception regarding the forces and means of a potential enemy is the ability to “block” the actions of Russian surface and submarine ships. According to Robert Farley, Russia lacks the ability to fight NATO in the North Atlantic, and US NATO allies are able to organize measures to stop the Russian threat from the sea. A set of these measures, Farley believes, could enable the United States to concentrate forces in the Pacific to counter China. 
“Russia has the second largest nuclear power submarine fleet in the world. Blocking the breakthrough of this fleet into the Atlantic will require the diversion of significant forces, primarily nuclear submarines, anti-submarine ships and aircraft. And this is exactly what the American Navy will need in the Pacific Ocean,” explained Vasily Kashin. Blitzkrieg of the XXI century An important feature of Robert Farley's analysis, which was noticed by almost all experts, is the alleged absence or comparative modesty of Russia and China in the use of nuclear deterrent forces and other specialized missile weapons. According to Farley, while the United States deals with China, the European missile defense component will provide reliable cover from Russian nuclear weapons. What Farley did not reflect in his analysis, or deliberately left out, was the ability of Russian ICBMs to penetrate the missile defense system. Robert Farley also did not say about the lack of the ability of anti-missile missiles to hit maneuvering combat units, did not mention the aircraft cruise missiles tested in Syria with a range of several thousand kilometers (and the version in which the high-explosive warhead was replaced with a nuclear one). 
“One important assumption is made here: that Russia and China will not use tactical nuclear weapons or sea-based INF. And also that the population will believe the words of the White House and the Pentagon. And this is a false assumption,” political scientist Dmitry Drobnitsky explained in an interview with the Zvezda TV channel. As is the case with most conflicts in which the US Armed Forces have participated over the past decades, the tip of the spear in countering the two states, according to Robert Farley, should be aircraft carriers strike groups are US Navy formations consisting of aircraft carriers and aircraft and numerous escort ships. Even if we take into account that the American fleet has a dozen aircraft carriers, the question arises: is the American Navy capable of projecting forces in two key directions at once, protected according to all the rules of military science? The answer to this question should be sought not in the speed characteristics of supersonic cruise missiles, but in reports on the readiness of American AUGs for intense combat operations. It is unlikely that even Robert Farley will dispute the fact that “pulling up” one aircraft carrier for air strikes on Iraq and trying to fight against Russia and China at the same time are not the same thing. 
“Each of these scenarios is carefully studied and considered by military professionals. And, judging by the available publications, all this does not look very magical from the point of view of the American military, even in the event of a war with just one China. How many AUGs, from the point of view of the author of the analysis, will the United States have ready for use? For example, at the beginning of the year there was a moment when there was not a single one at sea and ready to leave...” recalled military expert Vasily Kashin. At the same time, Robert Farley notes that the United States had long-term superiority in two theaters of military operations at once unable to achieve. Firstly, to win in one of the directions you need to use all available resources, and secondly, there are simply no people willing to “jump into the loop” and be on the list of potential targets among the so-called US allies in the worst case scenario. Thirdly, according to Farley’s analysis, the United States must quickly achieve victory with minimal losses, which is also impossible given the technical equipment and combat training of the Russian and Chinese military. In Farley’s analytical work, he also draws attention to practical complete absence details regarding availability modern means airspace control, early warning systems, mobile ground-based missile systems, systems air defense with a range of almost half a thousand kilometers, the presence of modern fighter aircraft and much more. 
It seems that Robert Farley is not at all embarrassed by the technical equipment of Russia and China on land, in the air and at sea. The author concludes that America will survive and win, because it has “the most formidable army in the world and leads a super-powerful military alliance.” However, at what cost this alliance and the state - the leader of the military bloc will pay for the attempt to “play a war on two fronts”, the author still chose to remain silent.
https://www.site/2017-02-09/rossiyskie_uchenye_rasskazali_kakie_voyny_sotryasut_mir_v_2017_godu
“The worst-case scenario for us could also come true”
Russian scientists told what wars will shake the world in 2017
Vitaly Ankov/RIA Novosti
The Foreign Policy analytical agency (Moscow) released the report “International Threats - 2017”. It describes the most important world events, phenomena and trends of the coming year, which can be seen and considered from the heights of today. The authors, Russian scientists, from the first words define the place of 2017 in the matrix of the post-perestroika world order: “We are entering the first year of a new era in which the West is no longer the undisputed global leader. Under the new president, the United States will be forced to choose between maintaining power and being involved in world affairs. The EU will be consumed by internal problems. Many international issues are already being resolved without the participation of the West, and those who sought to end Washington’s dictatorship have achieved their goal... Cosmopolitan financial elites everywhere are loudly reminded that they need to choose the country for which they work, they say, “globalization is over”... However, the breakdown of the old order resulted in unbearable uncertainty. The shocks of 2016 would have been more than enough to last a decade. In 2017, the world will try to focus in the hope that the main surprises are behind us.” Judging by the contents of the report, the coming year will strengthen these hopes, but as soon as it seems that the wave has receded, a tsunami will come.
Moscow — Washington: four windows of opportunity
In the opinion of the report’s authors, the economic reforms announced by Donald Trump can be crowned with either success or failure (by the way, Trump’s victory in the next presidential campaign is not guaranteed). And from the results in domestic policy will depend on his actions in the foreign policy arena, since “foreign policy remains the prerogative executive power USA and American President without consultation with Congress, he can afford to sharply increase the level of conflict in foreign policy at any moment, as we observed with the Barack Obama administration in the fall and winter of 2016.”
The first is “Remembering Reagan”: Trump is successfully restarting the American economy and strengthening his domestic political position. “Despite Moscow's objections, the new administration could begin an ambitious program to modernize nuclear weapons, ushering in a new stage in the nuclear arms race. In the wake of his domestic political successes, Trump may intensify US military actions in the Middle East and take specific measures to limit imports, primarily from China.” Moscow, like Beijing, will perceive such actions by Trump as a threat to the existing parity, and we will get a new, possibly hotter, Cold War. Accordingly, the project of a united anti-terrorist front and the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis will be abandoned.
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
The second scenario is “continuation of confrontation”: an increase in international tension if Trump’s reforms, on the contrary, fail and the internal political struggle intensifies: “The President, increasingly less able to fight the opposition in the country and in Congress, will try to compensate for his weakness where he has real power - in foreign policy. His wounded pride will produce the effect of a bomb exploding in the world system - the American military machine will turn on at full capacity in the Middle East, and the build-up of forces in Asia and accusations of dumping will sharply worsen US-Chinese relations. After attempts to persuade Putin to a strategic alliance against China do not yield results, Russia will again find itself on the list of “bad guys” with all the ensuing consequences - sanctions, information attacks, build-up of forces on the periphery Russian borders and, most dangerously, a course towards neutralizing Russian nuclear forces, which threatens the foundations of the stability of relations.”
The third scenario is “new isolationism”: if the “Trump course” stalls and the president will have to push foreign policy into the background. " External world will be left to his own devices... This will present unexpected and often uncomfortable freedom of action to US allies and adversaries, including Russia.”
Pete Marovich/CNP/AdMedia
Finally, the fourth option with the nostalgic name “The Return of Franklin Roosevelt”: Trump’s economic and domestic political achievements lead to an increase not in confrontation, but in the interaction of our states, including in the field of nuclear weapons. “Positive experience in the fight against IS, good personal relations between the presidents and a change in leadership in European capitals will help reduce tensions in relations between Russia and NATO and begin to resolve the Ukrainian issue. At the same time, Trump may show himself to be a realist on the issue of trade relations with China and Mexico, and his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership may be replaced by a proposal to re-sign it on terms more favorable to the United States. This scenario will bring closer the prospect of forming international relations on the basis of pragmatic cooperation.”
As we see, Russia, and everyone else, will win only in the fourth scenario. (The authors, in particular, assume that in this case the United States will not agree to confrontation with Iran; however, they emphasize that reality, of course, may turn out to be more complicated than theoretical constructions). How close Trump, America and the whole world are to a positive alternative will be seen by the speed with which the American president launches tax reform and infrastructure investments - despite their opponents, primarily in the Democratic camp, and also according to whether there will be a “departure from the line of confrontation between Russia and NATO in Eastern Europe and a willingness to cooperate in stabilizing the situation in the Middle East, despite diverging goals and choices of allies.”
The end of ISIS, but not the war
In Ukraine, a change of power is possible - complete or partial. The key question is how it will happen: legally or through coup d'etat, “as a result of which forces may come to power aimed at expanding the conflict in Donbass and starting a war directly with Russia”?
The report's authors believe that the tragic scenario, fortunately, is not the most obvious. “Although Ukraine is getting poorer, the state still has enough resources to maintain its basic functions. President Poroshenko generally controls the army and intelligence services, and numerous paramilitary forces are not strong enough to challenge the power of state security forces. Foreign donors continue to provide Ukraine with assistance that is not enough for growth, but for now enough to avoid a budget crisis. President Poroshenko continues to sabotage the settlement in Donbass, thereby avoiding irritation of the far-right forces in Kyiv. Key EU countries tacitly agree to this policy.”
Sergey Guneev/RIA Novosti
The Trump administration will develop its Ukrainian policy for at least six months, and it is unlikely to be interested in escalating the conflict: now it is more important to try to come to an agreement with Russia on a much larger list of issues. But businessman Trump will not completely give up such a trump card as Ukraine. European leaders - current or their successors (this year the French will elect a president, and the Germans - a chancellor) - have also not developed any new view on the Ukrainian problem. It is beneficial for Russia that Kyiv maintains stability, albeit shaky. IN otherwise as a result of the next “uprising of the masses” and the collapse of the Ukrainian government, “the transit routes of Russian energy resources will be threatened, the risk will increase man-made disasters on infrastructure and transport, Russia will become the target of mass migration from Ukraine.” Therefore, the authors of the report recommend Russian side not to demonstrate an “excessive reaction” even if fighting in the Donbass resumes and intensifies (as now) or sabotage attacks in Crimea.
Thus, “they will forget about Ukraine - Berlin and Paris will not make great efforts to resolve the conflict in Donbass, but they will also help the Kyiv authorities without enthusiasm. The “Grand Deal” on European security between Russia and the West, which includes domestic political changes in Ukraine, will not take place in the coming year. The West's recognition of Russia's place in world affairs will begin not from the post-Soviet space, but from the Middle East. Naturally, provided that Russia demonstrates internal stability and maturity, expressed primarily in industrial and technological growth.”
If we talk about the Middle East, then the end of the Syrian crisis will be indicated, first of all, by the cessation of hostilities with the participation of three coalitions - this is “pro-government with the participation of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, anti-government with the participation of the United States, Turkey and the Gulf states ( Saudi Arabia and Qatar. - Ed.) and radical Islamist with the participation of IS militants and groups of their supporters in the Persian Gulf countries.” Last year, Foreign Policy states, America began to lose political initiative in Syria, and Turkey entered into a deal with Russia and Iran, “conditions have arisen for the fading of the proxy war in Syria” (that is, a remote war. - Ed.).
This year the new American administration will likely stop military assistance opposition, this will be a step towards the creation of an anti-terrorist coalition between Russia and the United States. “There is also a possibility that Donald Trump will reduce the support of his allies in the Persian Gulf and bill those of them who are involved in supporting radical movements in the region or indulged al-Qaeda” (meaning the same Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as well as Turkey. - Ed.).
The overall victory over terrorists will be brought closer by the stability of the concerted efforts of Russia, Turkey and Iran, currently “supervising” negotiations between Assad and the opposition. But will Iran and NATO member Turkey resist US pressure, will Ankara drop the demand to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad if its interests “regarding the Kurdish movement” are taken into account (Turkey does not even think about creating Kurdish autonomy)? Experts say it's unlikely.
Will Iran and Türkiye resist US pressure, will Ankara drop its demand for the overthrow of the Bashar al-Assad regime? Experts say it’s unlikelyMustafa Kaya/ZUMAPRESS.com
In addition, peace in the Middle East is hampered by the antagonism of Saudi Arabia and Qatar with Iran. Today it is expressed “in an indirect military clash between the parties in theaters in Syria and Yemen. There are no conditions that could reduce the tension of this long-standing struggle. Flashes of Iranian-Saudi confrontation will continue to be seen in the future.”
In a word, “given the activity of Russia in the Raqqa region and the US-led coalition in the Mosul region, there is a high probability of the complete destruction of the terrorist group in Syria and Iraq simultaneously. This, however, will not mean the elimination of conditions for a radical center in the Sunni regions of both countries.”
If the United States manages to “put Turkey in its place” within NATO and force it to leave the alliance on Syria with Russia and Iran, this will resonate in another hot spot, in which Russia is involved as a co-sponsor of the peace process, this Nagorno-Karabakh. Unfortunately, the authors of the report are inclined to a negative assessment of the further development of events there: Yerevan and Baku will not agree on a compromise, the search for new peaceful configurations may, on the contrary, provoke clashes, especially since after last year’s armed conflict Azerbaijan feels like a loser and is interested in breaking the status quo. “However, a complete copy of the April “four-day war” is unlikely. Moscow clearly shows that it is interested in maintaining the existing balance of power and status quo. In these conditions, it is difficult for Baku and Yerevan to openly challenge the Kremlin, and the West does not contradict or interfere with Russia on this issue.”
Global West: prerequisites for consolidation
Joint battle against " Islamic State"and victory over it, freezing the conflict in Ukraine, tacit recognition by the West that Kyiv itself is initiating the resumption of hostilities in order to present Moscow as an aggressor and remind itself of itself, a change for the better in the general perception of Russia, even to the point of talking about its return to the G8 , create the background for the lifting or significant easing of sanctions in the near future.
The upcoming European elections will have a great influence on the speed of the process of lifting sanctions: opponents of the “sanctions war” may come to power there. “It is possible that Angela Merkel will refuse to run, providing support for her successor, whose authority will not suffer from a revision of migration policy and a softening of her position towards Russia. Right-wing politician François Fillon has some chances in the presidential elections in France, but the level of uncertainty around the elections is quite high (in Lately due to a corruption scandal, Fillon lost in the ratings to Emmanuel Macron. —Ed.). Marine Le Pen's success is unlikely, but not impossible - and in this case, it will continue the trend of paradoxical results of referendums and elections in the transatlantic region. Early parliamentary elections in Italy are likely - we can expect a strengthening of right-wing forces and further polarization of society.”
Igor Mikhalev/RIA Novosti
Such an outcome of the European elections is quite possible. Since the reconstruction of post-war Syria is likely to be delayed (according to UN estimates, more than $180 billion will be needed to restore the country), since the clash between Islamists and the government in Egypt is likely to escalate, as well as conflicts in Syrian, Iraqi and Turkish Kurdistan, since fundamental causes (high birth rates) will remain , especially on African continent, with a shortage of jobs), a migration crisis causing political protest throughout Europe, it will only spiral and deepen. Two million refugees arriving in the EU from the Middle East and North Africa is far from the limit.
We see something amazing in the report. “Instability in the region is a constant... Upheavals like the Arab Spring will continue. Even if the hotbeds of conflict in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan fade, the flow of migrants will not stop. New decisive factor becomes the climate. With an increase in average annual temperatures of several degrees, large parts of Africa, Asia and the Middle East will become uninhabitable. According to demographers, by the end of the century up to 500 million people could be on the move - the largest population migration in world history will begin. Russia will receive a small part of this flow - about 20 million people. What we are seeing now are only faint echoes of this process.”
Let’s add to this the painful and slow process of Britain’s exit from the EU, which will not end in 2017 and, moreover, may follow the trajectory of a “hard Brexit” when Brussels and Berlin choose how to teach obstinate London a lesson; add the risk of an outbreak of violence between Serbia and Kosovo or the Serbian Krajina; let's add gain social inequality in Europe, due to technological development, automation and an aging population - and the success of right-wing forces in the European elections will not seem unlikely. The lifting of sanctions can also be facilitated by the rotation of high-ranking European officials - the President of the European Council, the head of the European Commission. Thus, the previous leader of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, was replaced in mid-January by Antonio Tajani, an ally of Silvio Berlusconi, a personal friend of our president.
Irina Kalashnikova/RIA Novosti
Finally, supporters of the lifting of sanctions will be able to find support from Japan, which is very interested in having Russia among its well-wishers: “For Japan, the issue of improving relations with Russia goes beyond the territorial dispute (about the Kuril Islands - Ed.). Tokyo is concerned about China's growing and aggressive stance in regional affairs. Japan seeks to see Russia as at least a neutral observer in the Japanese-American dispute with China. Russia is also interesting to Japan as economic partner and source of resources." Full-scale economic cooperation, primarily in the Kuril Islands and in the Far East in general, agreed upon as a result of Vladimir Putin’s recent visit to Japan, will gradually lead our countries to the long-awaited conclusion of a peace treaty.
“However, it is unlikely that the process of lifting sanctions will be fleeting. Thus, the sanctions imposed by the US Congress will continue to be in effect; for legislators to lift them, exceptional conditions must be created,” the authors of the report conclude.
East: old and new wars
First about BRICS, the “club” of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Its economic and political significance decreases. “The slowdown in economic growth in South Africa to 1.4% and the ongoing decline in Russia and Brazil leave only India (7.5%) and China (up to 7%) among the BRICS locomotives. However, India has not begun to implement structural reforms, and the sustainability of its growth may falter. China’s transition to a consumer economy model and Beijing’s launch of an offensive foreign policy in the Asia-Pacific region are diverting China’s attention away from BRICS,” the report says.
Further, it emphasizes, the decline in the importance of BRICS fits into the global mainstream: the authority of many is decreasing or could not be greater international institutions and organizations - the G7, G20, NATO, SCO, CSTO. At the same time, as we see, there are many stakes and expectations from the development of bilateral relations - Russian-American, Russian-Chinese. In the second case, during the coupling of the Kremlin’s brainchild, the Eurasian Economic Union, and Beijing’s “Silk Road Economic Belt” in the post-Soviet Eurasian space. However, there is no absolute guarantee that pairing will take place. Exposing the contradictions between China and India in Indian Ocean, the South African government's dissatisfaction with China's excessive activity in Africa - all this also works to disintegrate the BRICS.
Mikhail Voskresensky/RIA Novosti
And the resources of the association in the form of the BRICS Bank (10 billion dollars of capital) are more than modest in comparison with the indicators of the World Bank and the IMF (over 2 trillion dollars), created by the Chinese and more than fifty countries of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (authorized capital of 100 billion dollars ), the Beijing Silk Road Fund ($40 billion). “Finally, interest in new markets has changed the geographical configuration - BRICS is being replaced by TICC, which is aimed at developing high technologies (Taiwan, India, China, South Korea). Under these conditions, the trend towards further devaluation of the BRICS will continue,” the report informs.
Secondly, things are turbulent in Baghdad. Inter-clan and intra-clan struggle between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds in the absence of a majority leader is a suitable environment for the growth of hotbeds Islamic radicalism. The infection can be stopped by creating a unified Iraqi army, currently disunited and incapacitated in battles with ISIS, or the National Oil Company, but the same mistrust between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds is preventing it. The latter are planning to hold a referendum on independence this year; the idea of separation is also popular among Sunnis. The circle is closed.
“The protracted multi-level crisis is becoming the form of existence of the Iraqi state. The fight against IS, which will enter its final stage in 2017, only delays a new redistribution of power within Iraq, the beginning of which is already noticeable in the claims of the Kurdistan leadership to the territories liberated by the Peshmerga forces (armed Kurdish formations. - Ed.). Local elections planned for 2017 and parliamentary elections for 2018 will give rise to a new wave of violence. We should expect more active actions by Iran in increasing its presence in Iraq. This, in turn, will meet with sharp opposition from some of the Shiite and Sunni clans and attempts to give an equivalent response from Turkey and Saudi Arabia.”
Thirdly, Afghanistan is not subsiding, up to half of whose territory is considered zones of combat operations and mixed control. The Afghan government army is large, but incapable, with weak morale, so it is unlikely that the announced large-scale offensive will be successful this year.
The Afghan government is supported by external financial assistance and, thanks to it, local security forces. But aid could suddenly dry up: Japan and some other major donors do not have significant interests in Afghanistan. At the same time, Kabul does not have to count on an increase in NATO military contingents and the intensity of their involvement in the war. Therefore, “the main hopes of the official authorities in Kabul rest on a political resolution of the conflict either with Pakistan (considered the sponsor of the Afghan Taliban) or with the armed opposition without Pakistani participation,” the report says.
Alexey Druzhinin/RIA Novosti
At the same time, the armed opposition is gradually expanding its zone of control and will continue to try to capture some regional centers. The most dangerous scenario, according to the report, is the seizure of armored vehicles and aircraft along with a large city and the transition of the opposition to a large-scale war. (However, this will require trained personnel). In the meantime, “in a number of areas, militants manage to create shadow power structures, impose taxes on the population and develop their own criminal business based on smuggling... A new trend is the desire of Taliban leaders to maintain legitimate power locally - seizing powers in district and regional centers, they resume economic activity and even participate in the budget process with Kabul. Regional dual power becomes " new normal"Afghan conflict".
Fourth, the report highlights the potential for violence in Saudi Arabia. “King Salman not only changed the order of succession to the throne, appointing his young son Muhammad as heir to the crown prince, but also pushed representatives of rival clans out of power. Due to the state of health of the ruling king, the main management functions are actually performed by his son, who holds the posts of Minister of Defense and Chairman of the Council for Economics and Development. Prince Mohammed bin Salman is the main architect of the Yemen campaign and the author of a number of revolutionary projects economic reforms in the country. The activity of the young prince and his ambitions to become the next Saudi ruler after Salman causes discontent among the conservative clergy - the second of the two pillars of the state along with the House of Al-Saud... This threatens the start of an internecine war and the collapse of the Saudi regime. Tehran will not fail to take advantage of the power crisis in Riyadh by intensifying efforts to destabilize the Shiite areas of the Kingdom and other Gulf states.”
“We could return to the 20th century and repeat the mistake of the World War.”
In conclusion, the report's authors look beyond 2017 and look a little ahead. And the scale of the upcoming demands of the new era and changes overshadows the cataclysms of recent years. “In a few years, a new technological and economic cycle will begin. Countries that enter it first will be able to dictate terms to those lagging behind. Competition in a new stage of development will require the mobilization of huge financial and human resources. To survive and prosper, countries will have to make decisions that will be painful—including for elites. To convince and force, strong leaders will be needed... The main issue for Russia, China, India is the strategy of entering a new technological cycle without the full set of resources necessary for its construction... The prize in this game will be world leadership on the horizon of 2040-2050. In this perspective, the problems of small countries will seem secondary.”
A. Sushentsov's Facebook page
In which group will Russia find itself - world leaders or “secondary countries”, will it demonstrate “internal stability and maturity, expressed primarily in industrial and technological growth”? The report “International Threats 2017” leaves this question open. We still have others. With them, we turned to one of the co-authors of the report, Andrei Sushentsov, a leading analyst at the Foreign Policy agency, program director of the Valdai Club, associate professor at MGIMO (U) of the Russian Foreign Ministry.
— Andrey Andreevich, in the report “ Foreign policy" it says: the events of last year - Brexit, Trump's victory - showed that finally the "dome of political correctness" collapsed and the West lost its position as an undisputed global leader. Is it good or bad? Is this the path to new opportunities, to ensuring that countries, peoples, and their blocs hear each other better and find compromises? Or is this rather a path to disorder, chaos, and increasing uncontrollability of the world?
— I think this is bad for those who expected the situation to continue from the 1990s to the early 2000s, who thought that the world had found its final form, that it had one center of gravity, which sets the same rules of the game, conditions growth, its predictability. This is bad news for those who did not expect that the inability of their system to meet the development requirements of the Western countries themselves would become so obvious. But in general for world politics this is good news, because the unipolar model turned out to be unstable. It led to regional crises such as Iraq, Libya and Ukraine, which could subsequently develop into big war. An increase in confrontation would again lead to the formation of two opposing blocs centered in the United States and China. As a result, we would return to the twentieth century and make the same mistakes that we made twice then.
Alexey Druzhinin/RIA Novosti
— The report describes the “return of Roosevelt” scenario, only this scenario assumes partnership between Russia and the United States. But Roosevelt, although he acted against the interests of corporations, had the support of the broad masses. Trump does not have unanimous support from either the elites or the population. The immigration decree split American society exactly in half. Could Trump then become Roosevelt?
— The personalities of these two US presidents are very different. Roosevelt is a model president in terms of his ability to communicate with the broad masses of the population and create groups of his supporters and coalitions. Due to mass popularity and support, many mistakes were forgiven. History has been kind to him. Trump really does not have such a “safety cushion”. Therefore, he needs to show the effectiveness of his policies in the very first months of his presidency. Hence the energetic start and equally energetic rebuff from his opponents. You might think that Trump is programmed for conflict, but the programs he proposes actually undermine the status quo in the United States. By the beginning of summer, we will find out whether he will be able to gain a foothold as president and fully become the master of the situation.
— Is Roosevelt felt in Trump’s first steps as president?
“It’s impossible to say for sure at this moment.” It’s not only about what path Trump himself has chosen, but also about what opportunities his opponents leave him. Trump has antagonized many groups of neutral elites. It came to legal conflicts in the first weeks of the presidency - his migration decree was protested by prosecutors and banned by the courts (and in the Senate, Democrats, together with Republicans, put forward a bill that would prevent the lifting of sanctions on Russia - Ed.). The scenario not of Roosevelt, but of “new isolationism” may come true, or the worst scenario for us is “a return to confrontation”, because Trump, attacked from within, will “win back” in those areas where he has enough powers - in foreign policy.
“The fact that such politicians put such issues on the agenda speaks rather about the health of the European Union. If someone had put on the agenda of the Politburo meeting the question “what will we do if there is a threat of the collapse of the Soviet Union?”, perhaps the collapse could have been avoided” (pictured - Sigmar Gabriel) Bernd von Jutrczenka/dpa/Global Look Press
Therefore, it is objectively in Russian interests that Trump begins to succeed in domestic politics, so that his support base grows, so that he does not associate Russia with a threat to his image in the United States, so that he sees cooperation with Moscow as an opportunity. A US president who is unsuccessful in domestic politics will not be able to cooperate with Russia.
— They say: an alliance between Russia and China — nightmare Washington. The same nightmare for Moscow is to find itself in the millstone of a conflict between the United States and China, or Japan and China, or become a victim of their sudden agreement. What is Moscow doing to prevent such developments? How good is she at it?
— It is in Russia’s interests to ensure the independence of its foreign policy. The impression of the emergence of a Russian-Chinese tandem is due to the fact that The White house under Barack Obama, he put pressure not only on Moscow, but at the same time on Beijing - on the issue of ownership of the islands in the South China Sea. Washington simultaneously put pressure on the vital interests of Russia in the Black Sea and China in the field of shipping near its borders. Amazing mistake. This forced Russia and China to move closer.
As for the “millstones,” the war is disadvantageous not only for Russia, but also for China and America. War would not solve any contradictions, just the opposite. The United States is trying to maintain leadership in international affairs, but it will have to show wisdom so as not to force a military confrontation that is not beneficial to anyone. Russia’s wisdom is not only to diversify partnerships in the Asia-Pacific region, but also to rely on them to concentrate on domestic industrial and technological development.
“The most alarming situation is in the USA”
— Migration and economic crisis in the EU, Brexit - all this led to what recently seemed absurd talk about the collapse of the EU. For example, in January, German Vice-Chancellor and Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel spoke about the possibility of such a prospect. How do you assess the likelihood of such a scenario?
— The European Union is truly in a systemic crisis: the logic that was laid down during its creation no longer meets the development requirements of EU countries. But the fact that such politicians put these issues on the agenda speaks rather about the health of the organization. If, in the late 1970s, someone had put on the agenda of a Politburo meeting the question “what will we do if the collapse of the Soviet Union threatens?”, perhaps the collapse could have been avoided. We are watching with alarm and hope whether the key EU countries, and above all Germany, will offer a modern formula and model of the European Union. With alarm, because Europe is our largest trading partner and any crises on the European continent immediately affect us.
- Ukraine. According to the forecasts of the Foreign Policy report, the situation there this year will remain the same: regular but positional battles, lack of progress in a peaceful settlement. Your opinion: during this conflict, the West realized that the post-Soviet space is in fact a zone special interests Does Russia need to take this into account, or will it still have to be proven?
— In relation to Ukraine, Moscow’s actions were consistent. These actions raised the question for most Western countries about their interests in the post-Soviet space, about what price they are willing to pay in pursuit of these interests. As a result, the geopolitical frontier of confrontation between Russia and the West was moved further from the borders of Russia and the danger global crisis sleeping.
A line of confrontation could lead to dramatic consequences. Let's imagine what would happen if Russia, defending its vital interests, acted in the same way as the United States acts. She would place missiles in Cuba and finance the opposition in Panama so that, having come to power as a result of a coup, it would block Panama Canal for the American Navy. It was possible to act in this manner, but I believe that wise heads on both sides understand the tragic consequences this would ultimately lead to.
Reflection on these questions, in my view, has led Western elites to reassess their foreign policy trajectory over the past 20 years and to reconsider the limits of their expansion of influence. When they realized that the European Union is a fully geopolitical project, everything fell into place. They realized that the classical competition of the 19th-20th centuries was being renewed, which they wanted to get away from, but which had not gone away. Disputes about vital interests are not a thing of the past. I think that the Ukrainian events have sobered up the Europeans and the experience will be learned. Another thing is that there are no clear winners as a result of the Ukrainian crisis; everyone lost in one way or another - Europe, Ukraine, and Russia.
Dmitry Astakhov/RIA Novosti
— And in Central Asia, won’t we encounter China’s ambitions there? Will we end up with a conflict instead of connecting the EAEU and the Silk Road?
“At this stage, we do not see a trend towards this. China's development program prioritizes creating new jobs for the large Chinese population and ensuring sustainable income growth. The core of Chinese national power is the east of the country, the Pacific coast, and there China faces the United States and its allies in the Asia-Pacific region. Today it is facing precisely in this direction. Thus, Central Asia and the borders of Russia are more of a “rear” than a “front” for China, and here maximum predictability of processes is very important to Beijing. This means that partnership with Russia is the best thing imaginable. China does not have big ambitions in Central Asia; it recognizes that Russia is the key guarantor of security in this region of the world. And the Silk Road project is aimed at developing the western regions of China and thus creating a transport corridor from the Pacific coast, through these western regions, Central Asia and Russia - to Europe.
— I turn to the end of the report: “In a few years, a new technological and economic cycle will begin. The coming era will be a competition of national technological and human potentials... The main issue for Russia, China and India is the strategy for entering a new technological cycle without the full set of resources necessary for its construction.” What does this most likely mean? That the named countries will join forces? Or that Russia will receive the missing technologies from the West? But in this case, won’t you have to pay a very high price for the lifting of sanctions?
— In terms of technological development, the United States is a leading economy. China is catching up, Russia is lagging behind. However, I think that the most alarming situation is in the United States, since they strive to maintain their leading role at all costs. What will this lead to in terms of unemployment, standards and the value of human life? If the future is a “world of plenty,” where resources and production are cheap, countries like the United States will lead the way. It will be easy for them to organize for their population high level life and ensure political stability. But if the future is a “world of scarcity”, crisis, job shortages, need and tension, then countries that have developed the experience and skill of mobilizing resources will be in a more advantageous position. Including Russia.
Zamir Usmanov/Russian Look/Global Look Press
How exactly will technological competition develop, to what social change she will lead - open question. You ask about alliances. I think folding them is possible. Much depends on the United States here. If they return to the logic of the strict dictate of the rules of international life, to punishing those who “dared” to play by their own rules and in their own interests, this will push Russia towards an alliance with China. If America approaches the world with " open source“When powers take into account each other’s interests and each makes his or her own contribution to the development of the common system, then a more interesting, more stable system may emerge.
The “hybrid” occupation of Muscovy is in full swing.
The TASS statement of June 13, 1941 was included in all textbooks on the history of World War II. Peskov’s statement on January 24, 2017, strikingly reminiscent of his style, attracted the attention of several bloggers, including yours truly, writes political expert Andrei Piontkovsky in his blog on Radio Liberty .
A comparison of the two texts is very instructive, because despite all the external similarity of the said documents, the motives, intentions of their authors (Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Putin) and the military-strategic situation in which the USSR and the Russian Federation were at the time of the promulgation of these statements are strikingly different. In relation to the statement of June 13, 1941, the following paragraph is most often recalled:
"TASS states that, according to the USSR, Germany also steadily complies with the terms of the Soviet-German non-aggression pact, as well as Soviet Union, which is why, in the opinion of Soviet circles, rumors about Germany’s intention to break the pact and launch an attack on the USSR are devoid of any basis, and the recent transfer of German troops, freed from operations in the Balkans, to the eastern and northeastern regions of Germany is connected, it is necessary believe, with other motives that have nothing to do with Soviet-German relations."
Before scientific revolution historians Viktor Suvorov and Mark Solonin, these words were endlessly quoted - as evidence of stupidity, naivety, self-deception, unpreparedness for war and cowardly ingratiation to a superior enemy. In the official interpretation of the history of the Great Patriotic War, such remarkable qualities of Stalin were Russophobic and extended to the entire command staff of the Red Army. However, the actual text of the TASS statement dated June 13, 1941 contained two more points:
“3) The USSR, as follows from its peace policy, has complied and intends to comply with the terms of the Soviet-German non-aggression pact, which is why rumors that the USSR is preparing for war with Germany are false and provocative;
4) the summer training sessions of the Red Army reserves currently underway and the upcoming maneuvers are aimed at nothing more than training the reserves and testing the operation of the railway apparatus."
On June 13, 1941, the peace policy of the USSR approached the milestone that in military parlance is called the “strategic deployment of the Armed Forces.” Thousands of trains with troops moved to the western border of the country. It was impossible to hide this in principle, but there was hope that it would be possible to lull the enemy’s vigilance at least for a few days. Both dictators moved irresistibly towards war, trying to get ahead of each other. The statement on June 13 was just one of the fakes in the already unfolding, speaking modern language, information war.
Stalin's speech on May 5, 1941 at a reception for graduates of military academies sounded like the speech of a triumphant triumphant, significantly to a greater extent than his speech on June 24, 1945 after the Victory Parade. On the same day, in anticipation of the upcoming historical triumph, the leader for the first time came out of the party looking glass and donned the official state mantle of the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars.
The USSR was thoroughly prepared for war with Germany, had a large army, and had superiority in the main categories of weapons. And, what is very important, the balance of power on the world stage was extremely favorable for the Kremlin. Stalin's World War II plan "Icebreaker" actually worked. After the spectacular defeat of France, Hitler still got stuck in the war in the West. After losing the Battle of Britain and being forced to abandon the invasion of the British Isles, Germany was strategically doomed.
Realizing his desperate situation, Hitler saw the attack on the USSR and the blitzkrieg attempt as the only chance for salvation. Hitler managed to get ahead of Stalin, and he almost managed to carry out his adventurous plan, but that’s another story. tragic story, which is not the subject of this article. Therefore, from the analysis of the military-political situation to western borders USSR in 1941, let us now turn to the situation on eastern borders Russia in 2017.
Text of the statement dated January 24, 2017: “The Kremlin does not consider the deployment of Chinese ballistic intercontinental missiles Dongfeng (East Wind) 41 near the borders with Russia as a threat. Any actions in terms of the development of China’s armed forces, if this information is true, are not perceived as a threat to our country. China “is a strategic ally and partner of Russia both politically and in trade and economic terms, and Moscow values these relations.”
Before discussing this wonderful text as a whole, I would like to clarify one important aspect when comparing the military capabilities of Russia and China. It is quite common to believe that the nuclear potential of the Russian Federation completely neutralizes the obvious superiority of the PRC in conventional weapons. Actually, it was reflected in paragraph 8 of the military doctrine of the Russian Federation back in 2000 (which was repeated almost word for word in the new version of the doctrine approved in 2014): “The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear weapons against it.” and other types of weapons of mass destruction, as well as in response to large-scale aggression using conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened."
This is an unequivocal declaration of Russia's readiness to be the first to use nuclear weapons in the event of an attack by an enemy superior to it at the conventional level. This is exactly how the words “when the very existence of the state is threatened” should be understood.
It is appropriate, however, to repeat what we noted more than 15 years ago in a joint article with Colonel V.N. Tsygichko, discussing the newly minted military doctrine on the pages of the Ministry of Defense magazine “Military Thought” (No. 2, 2001). “Of course, our nuclear superiority will be taken into account by China when making responsible decisions, but, unfortunately, it is not a radical means of deterrence. The reality is that today the threshold of “unacceptable damage” for China is incomparably higher than for developed post-industrial countries and Russia. This a parameter that is difficult to formalize is derived not from the characteristics of weapons systems, but from the civilizational type of society, from the value of human life in a particular culture. China can accept enormous human losses in order to achieve political goals that are important to it. An example of this is the Sino-Vietnamese conflict of 1979. years, when the “live wave” tactics were being practiced and the losses of the attackers were measured in thousands of soldiers every day.
And since nuclear strategy- this is more than half psychology, then the advantage in this psychological duel may not go to the side that has a more advanced nuclear arsenal, but to the one whose culture is more tolerant of large-scale human losses. If we look at a potential Russian-Chinese conflict from this perspective, we will have to abandon the illusory idea that the threat of using tactical nuclear weapons is always capable of deterring the enemy’s superior conventional forces. Greater willingness to sacrifice will allow the Chinese side to raise the stakes in this nuclear poker game."
Over the past 15 years, China's nuclear potential has noticeably strengthened, and there is no longer any reason to talk about Russian superiority in this area. As the general Russian public recently learned, the Chinese also have intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of hitting any point on Russian territory. “Experts” immediately rushed to joyfully convince the public that these missiles were aimed at the damned “Pindos”. One would think that the “experts” themselves would target Chinese missiles. Does it really matter who the ICBMs are targeting tonight? It is important that they exist and that the Russian General Staff is well aware of their capabilities. We must clearly understand: if China turns out to be our military adversary, then it will be an adversary for the first time in our history. military history superior to us at all levels of escalation of potential conflict.
So, on our eastern borders we have the following disposition. On the one hand, there is a depressed region with a declining population and a deteriorating economy, increasingly dependent on its southern neighbor for its livelihood. On the other hand, there is a demographic giant with a rapidly growing second economy in the world, the world’s largest ground army, which regularly conducts exercises that demonstratively simulate military operations on Russian territory. In the nuclear sphere, it is not even the classic stalemate concept of mutually assured destruction, as in the case of the USSR and the USA during the Cold War, but a situation in which a possible resort to the “radioactive ash” scenario does not bode well for the Russian side, first of all.
External context: deep economic interconnection between China and the US, growing in American elite imperial fatigue syndrome and the readiness of a significant part of it to accept the Chinese-American condominium model - big two, which means automatic recognition of Siberia and the Far East as a zone of privileged interests of China. There was and will not be either June 22 or May 9 in Russian-Chinese relations. This is a drawn-out process in which the Russian kleptocracy has long passed the point of no return in its relations with China. These people, in their own way apt definition, “corrupt officials and entrepreneurs who do nothing” are the second and third echelons of the former party and KGB nomenklatura. For the sake of their personal enrichment, they have already “merged” one state to which they swore allegiance - the Soviet Union, and created an ugly mutant economy that has nothing in common with the market, allowing them to continuously enrich themselves. In order to collect and in a frenzy spend their treasures in the same West, which they have always hated and which they hate today even more - for their historical defeat, for the vulnerability of their holdings, for their insignificance.
The drain is now Siberia and Far East through the "Cooperation Program for 2009–2018" to the zone living space China, they have distanced themselves from responsibility for the fate of the region in order to continue to serenely rise from their knees and fight for the needs of their phantom imperial complexes, either with Georgia or with Ukraine. Under this program, Russia has given for joint development natural mineral deposits, from which China will establish the production of iron, copper, molybdenum, gold, antimony, titanium, vanadium, silver, germanium, tin, etc. China is building processing plants and Russian territory if Chinese workers are employed there. In approximately the same way, China concluded a last years whole line agreements with African dictators. The same program involves expanding border checkpoints and “strengthening Russian-Chinese cooperation in the field of labor activity". Immediately after its signing, a state-owned company was created in China to invest in agricultural production, involving the lease/purchase of land in Russia.
Actually, China has received everything it needs today: a license to digest for a long time a strategic area that is located outside its geographical borders, plus a stable supply of energy resources from the country that it will digest. China will not come for a second license. As Beijing military theorists rightly emphasize, “effective control over a long period of time will ultimately lead to the transfer of geographical boundaries.” From now on, the game will be played exclusively according to Chinese rules.
As Tomsk author Alexander Lukyanov rightly noted in 2009, “One of the reasons for the epoch-making decisions taken in the Kremlin could be the desire of the current Russian leadership to receive additional guarantees of the stability of its power. Chinese leaders must understand that in the event of a change of power in Russia, any government that replaces the current one - be it liberal, communist, nationalist, red, white, green or gray-brown-crimson speckled - will immediately raise the question of revising the terms of “cooperation” , so beneficial for China, but directly contrary to Russia’s national interests. Thus, China becomes a subject directly interested in ensuring that power in Russia continues to remain in the hands of the group individuals, who so generously ceded resources to him".
The new government, if it ever appears, will, of course, try to raise the issue. But will it be able to change anything given the already established economic and military-political realities? Russia still retains formal administrative control over huge territory Trans-Urals only because at this stage of its absorption it is technologically more convenient for the heirs of the Yuan Empire. On January 24, 2017, with a statement by Peskov, the rulers of Muscovy publicly confirmed that they accept this geopolitical circumstance with wise humility.
Andrey Piontkovsky, political expert, especially for
The position of the United States of America in the geopolitical arena continues to rapidly deteriorate, so America, according to its leaders, needs another victorious war. So small. With the Russian Federation, for example. Or with China.
Although you can start with North Korea. Kim Jong-un, after all, is pointedly ignoring all the signals sent to him, which means it's time to show him who's boss. This is what American generals think, their hands itching to bomb someone.
“Yes, this is generally elementary. We will find out where the North Koreans are hiding their atomic bomb (Or how many of these bombs do they have? Two? Ok, we will find out where they store one bomb, and then, accordingly, we will find the second)” and destroy them targeted strike. Our aviation will receive total air superiority and attack all objects of any importance for the DPRK army. Left without armed forces, Pyongyang will be completely subordinate to us.", say the Americans.
And, of course, they are wrong. It is clear that there will be no “small war”. Troops North Korea maybe they are inferior to the Americans in terms of technical equipment, however, the Korean soldiers will fight to the last drop of blood. In the event of a real hot conflict on the Korean Peninsula, the parties will bear colossal losses- the Pentagon cannot guarantee that the Koreans will not drop a nuclear bomb on Seoul or attack barracks with tens of thousands of American soldiers stationed in South Korea.
The aircraft carriers with which the United States is scaring the North Koreans (not very effectively scaring, as it should be noted) are suitable for war with very backward countries. The DPRK, according to competent experts, has the means to destroy US aircraft carriers. If the conflict between the DPRK and the United States really begins (Donald Trump, for example, is already ready for it), and the Americans lose at least one of their aircraft carriers, the consequences will be the most unpredictable.
Maybe Iran? Here, however, everything will be even worse than in Iraq, so there is no point in meddling with Iran - the Americans understand. But what to do with a regime that ignores the United States and is not going to obey? Unclear.
But there is also Russia and China. To unleash a hot war with them means dooming the world to a third world war, which, as no one doubts, will be carried out with active use nuclear weapons. There will be no winners in such a war, as Vladimir Putin wisely noted in an interview with Oliver Stone.
In relation to Russia, the Americans have chosen a different tactic - they are trying to deprive our country of its economic power and thus subjugate it. This is exactly what all the new sanctions against the Russian Federation being developed in the United States indicate.
The United States has declared a trade war not only against Russia, but also against China. However, the Celestial Empire has something to respond to - in the end, it may turn out that the Chinese response will be much more painful for the United States than any American sanctions for China.
In general, the Americans cannot cope without brute force. What the big bosses in the Pentagon offices don’t take into account is that war itself is a completely unpredictable thing. Those who disagree with this statement should turn to history. See what this or that country that started the war planned, and what happened in the end. Spoiler - there are practically no coincidences there.