Scenario of the third world war. Possible development scenarios - World War III expert of the Academy of Military Sciences

Will humanity be able to survive the next wave of global confrontation? Nowadays, there are at least 5 hotbeds of conflict that can develop into a global one. The American magazine National Interest reported this on November 21.

This is what the “black list” looks like, according to American military analysts:

Syrian conflict. The spread of the Islamic State* is a concern for most major world powers, including France, Russia and America. But even with the emergence of a coalition uniting these countries, clashes may arise between the allies over different views on the future of Syria. In turn, active hostilities between external forces in Syria could attract Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia and possibly spread to other parts of the globe.
The contradictions between India and Pakistan, which, although they have existed for many years, can escalate at any time. If Pakistan-sponsored radical groups carry out major terrorist attacks on Indian soil, Delhi's patience may run out. And if Pakistan suffers a serious defeat, the use of tactical nuclear weapons may seem like its only option. Next, America, which has recently become increasingly closer to India, and China, if it decides that it must defend Pakistan, may enter into the conflict.
The situation in the East China Sea, where China and Japan have been playing a dangerous game around the Senkaku Archipelago for the past two years. Both countries laid claim to the islands, and each deployed military forces in their surroundings. If conflict between China and Japan breaks out, America, which is bound by a mutual defense treaty with the Japanese, will find it difficult to avoid intervention, and China will try to be proactive by attacking American military installations in the region.
The situation in the South China Sea is due to a dangerous US confrontation with Chinese naval and air units. Loss of self-control by one of the parties can lead to the most serious consequences. A US-China war would be a disaster in itself, and Japan and India could still intervene.
The development of events in Ukraine - but in this case everything will depend on NATO’s readiness to intervene in the situation. If Russia has confidence in NATO intervention, it may take steps to preempt the alliance's mobilization. And any attack or serious threat of attack on one of the NATO countries could serve as a reason for the alliance to begin military action.

The Free Press tried to find out: is the National Interest exaggerating how close the world is to World War III?

Throughout the history of mankind, there have been hotbeds of conflict in the world, and always some hotbeds could lead to the outbreak of world wars,” noted Mikhail Alexandrov, leading expert at the MGIMO Center for Military-Political Studies, Doctor of Political Sciences. - It all depended on how realistically the countries assessed the balance of forces. To put it another way, world wars usually arose when one of the sides mistakenly believed that it was stronger and could achieve victory.

Let's say that during the Cold War there were many hotbeds of conflict, but the likelihood of them escalating into a world war was extremely small. America and the Soviet Union assessed the balance of forces quite realistically, took a competent approach to analyzing the international situation, and this served as a guarantee that any crisis, even one as dangerous as the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 in Cuba, would not develop into the Third World War. But in those days there were other crises: the wars in Korea and Vietnam, the entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan, the wars in Angola, Mozambique, Nicaragua. But they all remained local.

And today the problem is not whether hotbeds of conflict exist, but how Western politicians realistically assess the balance of forces. In my opinion, they do not judge the situation very sensibly.

"SP": - Why do you think so?

Western politicians have not yet recovered from the euphoria of the self-proclaimed victory in the Cold War. They misunderstood the situation surrounding the Soviet Union's abandonment of communism and transition to a market economy and democratic society. For some reason they behaved as if the USSR had been defeated in a “hot” war, and now Russia, as its legal successor, must play by the rules imposed by the West.

They still believe that the West is very strong and can dictate its will to everyone in the world. It is precisely this kind of military-political miscalculation that provokes a situation in which it becomes possible for any conflict to escalate into the Third World War.

"SP": - How realistic are the 5 World War III scenarios described in the National Interest?

I don’t think that the conflict between India and Pakistan can escalate into a global war. It is unlikely that anyone will get involved in it, even if the parties resort to tactical nuclear weapons. In my opinion, the Indo-Pakistani conflict is definitely out of the question.

But any of the other 4 scenarios are probable to varying degrees. For example, the Japanese-Chinese contradictions, as well as the conflict between China, the Philippines and Vietnam over the Spratly Islands, have the potential to escalate into a serious war.

As for Ukraine, I don’t think that NATO will interfere in events in the South-East of Ukraine, even if Russia sends troops there. If, of course, the Western elite thinks rationally. If unrealistic sentiments prevail in the West - they say, now we will crush the Russians - this could actually lead to escalation. The scenario for the West's actions in such situations is known: first, the supply of weapons, then the sending of military instructors, and then it comes to the deployment of NATO troops.

But, I repeat, there is understanding in the West regarding the Ukrainian situation. But in Syria, an uncontrollable escalation of the conflict may indeed occur. For example, some politicians in America today say that it is necessary - without consultation with Russia - to introduce a no-fly zone and American troops in Syria. But we must understand: if the United States unilaterally takes such steps, we can do it too. And where the line of demarcation of the zone of interests lies, clashes between the troops of our two countries are possible.

I think that now the Turkish military is also involved in the Syrian conflict - ISIS militants are resisting very competently, this is not like the actions of ordinary terrorist rebels. If Turkey follows the path of escalation and begins to increase its presence in Syria, Ankara may want to provoke a conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, or push the Tatars in Crimea to revolt. In this case, we will most likely begin to actively support the Kurds - and the situation has every chance of getting out of control. Still, Turkey is a member of the alliance and will demand to be taken under NATO protection.

From the point of view of such forecasts, it is extremely useful that Russia has demonstrated military power in Syria - this should have a sobering effect on Western strategists. Moscow has shown that it has not only nuclear, but also non-nuclear deterrence potential, and is capable of attacking not only Europe, but also America with non-nuclear weapons.

"SP": - What will the Third World War of the future look like?

National Interest writes about a real war using large groups. But, of course, there won’t be a war of fronts like in World War II. In my opinion, this will be, first of all, an aerospace operation, which will be aimed at suppressing the enemy’s main control centers. Most likely, the Third World War will be aimed at using non-nuclear weapons in order to disable communications, communications, and suppress the enemy’s will to resist. The calculation will be made that with such tactics the enemy will not risk using nuclear weapons.

With Russia, I believe, such a trick will not work, but with China it is quite possible. Beijing does not have an arsenal of strategic non-nuclear deterrence; moreover, its strategic nuclear forces are quite weak. Even the existing US missile defense system is capable of neutralizing volleys of Chinese missiles. Washington believes that Beijing will not even try to launch a nuclear strike, because it is afraid that America will respond by unleashing the full power of its nuclear fist on Chinese territory.

With strategic non-nuclear weapons, the Americans, having gathered forces around China, can quite easily destroy the Chinese Navy, essentially lock China in the continental theater, and then involve the forces of local rebels and terrorist groups in the matter - that is, transfer the campaign to the format of a network-centric war. Fortunately, there are a lot of areas in China that are ready to rebel at the right opportunity - these are Tibet and the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. I think that in Hong Kong there is a large “fifth column” that is ready to take part in the uprising.

As a result, rebellions will begin, the separation of a number of regions from the Middle Kingdom - and China as a single powerful state will cease to exist.

In my opinion, the only thing holding America back from such a scenario now is the understanding that the Russian Federation will not stand aside. The destruction of China will dramatically change the balance of power in the world, and then Russia will find itself alone in a hostile environment. This is not to our advantage, and therefore we will intervene in the US-China conflict - and in this case, escalation to the strategic nuclear level becomes likely.

To summarize, there are now two truly dangerous places: China and Syria. And the main military balancer, which prevents the West from finally seizing dominance over the world, is Russia...

Now there is a huge range of opinions on what is considered the Third World War,” says Ivan Konovalov, director of the Center for Strategic Conjuncture. - Many politicians and experts are convinced that the Third World War is already underway. This, in their opinion, is indicated by the critical growth of contradictions between Russia and the West, and between China and America. If it were not for the current situation in Syria, against the backdrop of which the confrontation has frozen, the Third World War would have been felt more and more strongly.

The peculiarity of this global war is that it is waged indirectly. Today everyone understands perfectly well that nuclear weapons are weapons. Therefore, schemes worked out during the Cold War are being used. Then the two blocs - NATO and the United States on the one hand, and the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries on the other - also did not oppose each other on the battlefield, but indirectly supported one side or another. In the 1990s, this situation changed: everyone suddenly decided that the confrontation was over, and a great bright world awaited us ahead. But, as it turned out, this is not so. Therefore, in the 21st century, the indirect military method of resolving political issues has become popular again.

Syria is precisely the battlefield in this proxy world war, and the number of such points will only multiply...

* The “Islamic State” (ISIS) was recognized as a terrorist organization by the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on December 29, 2014, and its activities in Russia are prohibited.

We will have to repeat once again: statements voiced from time to time by Russian politicians with ultra-liberal views such as “the problem has no military solution” and “all wars end in peace” have nothing to do with reality. Wars end in only one way - crushing defeats for some and brilliant victories for others.

If the phrase “there is no military solution” appears, it means that one of the parties to the conflict simply does not have the strength to end the war victoriously. And if any armed confrontation ends in a draw, it is only due to the complete depletion of the military capabilities of both sides. Of course, options are possible with some very minor deviations from this general line.

First, about the immediate and future tasks of the parties to the conflict in southeast Ukraine.

For the Kyiv leadership, the immediate, and further, and unchangeable goal for the historically foreseeable period is only one thing: restoration of the territorial integrity of the country by any means, primarily military. The strategic task is to wipe out the armed formations of the southeast from the face of the earth. Waiting for negotiations, changes in the Constitution of Ukraine in the manner necessary for the unrecognized territories, federalization of the southeast - all this is purely a matter of speculation and imagination.

Carthage (that is, the separatist southeast) must be destroyed - and this thesis, without any doubt, will be dominant in all Ukrainian foreign and domestic policy. To hold different views today among the Square elite means immediate political suicide. So far, Kyiv does not have the strength and means to solve the problem by military means. But this does not at all mean that the Ukrainian leadership is abandoning the policy of military destruction of the southeast.

It must be said frankly that, in general, the foreign and domestic political tasks of Ukraine in the southeast are clear and logical.

It’s more difficult with the unrecognized southeast. Everything is much murkier here. It is possible to demand self-determination of these territories, but what next? How to live on this piece of land if it is practically impossible to ensure the economic, financial and any other independence of the southeast (or rather, two torn and extremely curvy pieces of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions)? Demanding federalization is also theoretically permissible, but official Kyiv will never, under any circumstances, provide it.

Return to Square? But so much blood has already been shed, the scale of destruction of the region’s infrastructure is simply shocking, and the gap between the parties to the conflict is so great that this is hardly possible without subsequent pogroms and mass executions of insurgents by the central Ukrainian government.

In general, a complete zugzwang - no one knows what to do, and every next step can only worsen the situation. It seems that in these conditions there can be only one political line in the south-east - hiding behind a verbal veil, stalling for time. And then, you see, something will happen.

In this regard, we should not forget about one important circumstance. When predicting the future, futurologists of all stripes often use the same technique. From the point of view of a representative of anti-aircraft missile forces, which the author was in the past, this is a hypothesis about the rectilinear and uniform movement of the target. A significant part of forecasts is based on this postulate.

In other words, the processes of the real world cannot be described from the point of view of mathematics alone, using even the most advanced models. From some point on, everything and everyone can go contrary to predictions, entirely awry. This seems to be the unspoken political line in the southeast - wait it out. And it will be seen there. Whether this is good or bad, only time will tell.

Today, a ceasefire regime is in effect in southeastern Ukraine. But all parties to the conflict seem to be aware that this is far from the end, but, most likely, just a pause before the summer campaign.

Now let's move on to hypothetical scenarios for the development of the situation in the south-east of Ukraine (we especially emphasize - scenarios exclusively from the field of hypotheses and assumptions).

What is the war in the southeast from the point of view of military art? In essence, two Soviet armies are fighting. One is of the 1991 model (these are the armed forces of Ukraine), the other is a somewhat modernized version of the same Soviet army - better prepared in operational and tactical terms, staffed with more competent specialists, better managed.

Moreover, recently, armed confrontation has been carried out exclusively on the ground - by forces only of combined arms units and subunits. The southeast does not have its own air force, and the Ukrainian – and previously small – air force gradually faded away during the conflict. Square has virtually no serviceable aircraft or trained pilots left. Volunteers from the southeast using standard air defense equipment contributed a lot to this development of the situation. Sometimes vacationers on their planes skillfully and quite quietly acted for the same purposes.

But from the point of view of military art, the armed confrontation in the southeast is just a slightly modernized version of the Second World War at its final stage. Neither side demonstrated new weapons and military equipment, nor new techniques and methods of conducting armed struggle.

As you know, volunteer vacationers fight on the side of the southeast. As a rule, with their standard weapons. Now let’s assume this option (again, purely hypothetically, why not) that volunteers and vacationers from the USA and Western Europe began to arrive in the armed forces of Ukraine, also with their standard weapons.

Let's start with the air force. Suppose F-15, F-16, F-22, A-10, Panavia Tornado, E-8A, E-3A began landing at the airfields of Kharkov, Poltava, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye. The former identification marks and side numbers have been painted over, and tridents and yellow-blue banners of Ukraine have been applied in their place. Prior to this, numerous trains delivered fuel and the most modern aviation weapons to Ukrainian air bases.

Three AUGs (carrier strike groups) have been deployed in the Black Sea off the coast of politically prostituted Bulgaria over the past 140 years. The typical composition of each is one nuclear attack aircraft carrier, two or three guided missile cruisers, three or four guided missile destroyers, three or four attack nuclear submarines.

In the area of Mariupol, Pavlograd, Izyum, Lozovaya, armored and mechanized divisions of volunteers from the West, equipped with Abrams, Leopard, Leclerc tanks, Marder and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, and modern artillery, were unloaded.

In addition, we should mention volunteer units and subunits (also staffed by vacationers from the United States and Western Europe) of electronic warfare, communications, unmanned aerial vehicles, etc., etc. Let’s also not forget about the volunteer logistics and technical support units, without which modern war is unthinkable.

Now the question. How long will the armed formations of the southeast hold out if a qualitatively different enemy enters the war, and formations and units of the LPR and DPR are hit by a hail of modern aviation weapons - bunker-busting bombs, laser- and satellite-guided bombs, warheads of air- and sea-based cruise missiles?

What if the battle formations are attacked by the latest armored fighting vehicles and artillery? And the actions of all this military splendor will be ensured by American intelligence of all types, which does not have even an approximate world analogue? Moreover, the planes of Western volunteers will chase every infantry fighting vehicle, gun, tank of units and formations of the southeast, bombing a separate trench, firing point, or mortar position. And hit targets with misses commensurate with the size of the trench itself.

Let us repeat the question: how long will the armed formations of the southeast last? Day? Two? A week? The answer, unfortunately, is: a few hours is fine.

Of course, volunteers from the southeast can be supported by their senior comrades - the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. And it was precisely at this moment - please shave - that the third world war began.

This scenario is the crystal dream of the modern Ukrainian leadership. But Anglo-Saxon blood is too precious to be shed for the future happiness of some half-wild Ukrainians. That's why such a scenario should still be assessed as a game of an overheated imagination.

But if you still continue to fantasize and try to imagine what the development of such a conflict in the South-Western strategic direction might look like, if all interested parties are included in it under one flag or another.

Let us say right away that the success of armed confrontation using only conventional weapons in this case is obvious. He will certainly be on the side of the West. Unfortunately, the modern Russian army is still not much qualitatively different from its Soviet predecessor of the 1991 model. And there are not so many new weapons that meet the high requirements of the 21st century.

For example, we still do not have a single operational formation of the Air Force (however, we no longer have the Air Force itself as a branch of the Armed Forces) equipped with modern aircraft with a supply of the latest aviation weapons for at least 30 days of combat operations.

The Black Sea Fleet today, unfortunately, is a branch of the Central Naval Museum. Using the ships of the Black Sea Fleet, you can study the history of Soviet shipbuilding of the 60s and 70s.

Yes, and combined arms formations and units, if you collect everything that is on the territory of the former North Caucasus Military District, you will get no more than 1.5 army corps (by Western standards). The 1st Ukrainian Front clearly cannot be formed from the existing set of forces and means. There are no operational reserves in the district. That is, the operational-strategic tasks of the formations and units available in the SWSN are clearly beyond their capabilities.

Let us add just one thing to understand the severity of the situation: if each American aircraft carrier has four to six specialized electronic warfare aircraft, then we do not have a single similar aircraft in our entire Air Force.

Another very important point should be noted - the operational equipment of the theater of military operations in the South-Western strategic direction is very poorly suited to the tasks of successfully conducting combat operations. The airfield network and the quantity and quality of roads and railways do not fully meet the requirements for conducting armed confrontation. It is enough to note that some railways pass through the territory of Ukraine and it is in the South-Western Network that the famous quadrangle is located, in which there are no railways at all. In a word, the first rock railway goes through Ukraine, and the next one goes only through Volgograd. And as we know, where the railroad ends, the war ends.

As for the quartering of formations, units and subunits of the RF Armed Forces in the Southwestern Military District, they are located mainly on the funds of the North Caucasus Military District of the Soviet era. In those days, it was a district in the deep rear with a small number of units and formations of reduced strength and personnel. The situation in this regard has changed slightly since 1991. But now the district’s neighbor is the most militant and anti-Russian country - modern Ukraine.

A completely logical question arises: what have you been doing for the last 20 years? This period in the life of the Russian Armed Forces is still waiting for its impartial historian. For now, in summary, we can say the following. All the strength in 1990–2000, perhaps, went into continuous organizational and staffing measures. Type: form, then disband the same thing, then restore it, disband it again, and along the way, with the goal of solely optimizing and improving the organizational structure, nullify military science and education, cut down military academies at the roots under the plausible pretext of their redeployment, in the course of continuous reductions and reorganizations will lose valuable personnel.

Just two words – “reform” and “optimization” – in terms of the harmful impact on the life of the Armed Forces, are comparable, perhaps, only with the consequences of a series of MRAU (massive missile and air strike).

Perhaps, if you look at the matter critically, nothing qualitatively new has been created (in any case, this is a debatable issue). Essentially, they have been marking time for more than 20 years, while other countries have made breakthroughs in military affairs. If there was a positive trend, it was only with the arrival of Sergei Shoigu in the Ministry of Defense.

And someone must be responsible for this - at least in terms of an objective analysis of the state of affairs. Let's try to sort out the defense ministers of recent years - from Pavel Grachev to Anatoly Serdyukov.

Which of them can be called “a prominent builder of the Armed Forces of modern Russia”? Or write a line in the performance appraisal: “Talented military theorist, made a significant contribution to strengthening the defense power of the state”? Finally, “developed, established, introduced, adopted”?

Let's try to include the following lines in their characteristics::
— “extraordinary composure, an inquisitive mind, analytical abilities, the ability to make the right advanced conclusions”;
— “a creative mind and a wonderful memory, the ability to quickly grasp the situation and anticipate the development of events”;
- “possessed rich combat experience, broad erudition, high operational-strategic training, devoted all his efforts to the training and education of military personnel, the development of military science”;
- “distinguished by deep knowledge of the matter, hard daily work, high culture and personal charm”;
- “dedication to work, high professionalism, intelligence.”

Having presented the line of the above-mentioned leaders, we can state that practically nothing fits, however. Or it fits, but very little. At best, all of the above people were engaged in only one thing - “drain and pour”, and then cut down. But the court of history is impartial - no matter how the name’s cheeks puffed out and his eyebrows shaggy in the past, it will not be the generals for special assignments from his inner circle who will write his characterization.

As a conclusion. What should the domestic Armed Forces do in the event of such a development of the conflict? Declare a threat to use tactical nuclear weapons? Like: if you don’t stop, we will hit Ukrainian nuclear power plants, chemical industry facilities, and the cascade of hydroelectric power stations on the Dnieper in order to create zones of flooding and destruction. But this, as you know, is a double-edged sword. And there are not so many long-range means of delivering tactical nuclear weapons. After all, with their own hands they destroyed the most necessary class of missiles for the defense of the country - the INF.

Of course, everything described and listed is nothing more than speculation, fantasies and hypotheses.

And there can be only one conclusion from the Ukrainian crisis - under no circumstances should the Russian Armed Forces be allowed to be drawn into the conflict in the southeast. Our country, army and navy, it must be objectively noted, are not yet ready for large-scale armed confrontation using only conventional weapons.

If we go through all the criteria of a state’s readiness for war (training the Armed Forces, preparing the country’s economy, preparing the country’s territory in the interests of the Russian Armed Forces, preparing the country’s population for defense), then most of them have very significant problems.

And it is necessary to strengthen the country’s defense capability at an accelerated (downright Bolshevik) pace, to create the Russian Armed Forces that meet the highest standards of modern warfare. And first of all, stop the nervous organizational fever.

/Mikhail Khodarenok, editor-in-chief of the newspaper "Military-Industrial Courier"
and the magazine “Aerospace Defense”, vpk-news.ru/

In the modern world there are at least five hotbeds of conflict that could escalate into a global Third World War. The American magazine National Interest reported this on Saturday, November 21.

Here's what the blacklist looks like, according to US military analysts:

Syrian conflict. The spread of the Islamic State* is a concern for most major world powers, including France, Russia and the United States. But even with the emergence of a coalition uniting these countries, clashes may arise between the allies over different views on the future of Syria. In turn, active hostilities between external forces in Syria could attract Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia and possibly spread to other parts of the globe.

The contradictions between India and Pakistan, which, although they have existed for many years, can escalate at any time. If radical groups sponsored by Pakistan carry out major terrorist attacks on Indian soil, Delhi's patience may run out. And if Pakistan suffers a serious defeat, the use of tactical nuclear weapons may seem like its only option. Further, the United States, which has recently become increasingly closer to India, and China, if it decides that it must defend Pakistan, may enter the conflict.

The situation in the East China Sea, where China and Japan have been playing a dangerous game around the Senkaku Archipelago for the past two years. Both countries have claims to the islands, and each has deployed military forces in their surroundings. If conflict between China and Japan breaks out, the United States, which is bound by a mutual defense treaty with the Japanese, will find it difficult to avoid intervention, and China will try to be proactive by attacking American military installations in the region.

The situation in the South China Sea is due to a dangerous confrontation between the United States and Chinese naval and air forces. Loss of self-control by one of the parties can lead to the most serious consequences. A US-China war would be a disaster in itself, and Japan and India could still intervene.

The development of events in Ukraine - but here everything will depend on NATO’s readiness to intervene in the situation. If Russia has confidence in NATO intervention, it may take steps to preempt the alliance's mobilization. And any attack or serious threat of attack on one of the NATO countries could serve as a reason for the alliance to begin military action.

The Free Press tried to find out: is the National Interest exaggerating how close the world is to World War III?

Hotbeds of conflict in the world have existed throughout the history of mankind, and some hotbeds could always lead to the outbreak of world wars, notes leading expert at the MGIMO Center for Military-Political Studies, Doctor of Political Sciences Mikhail Alexandrov. - Here everything depended on how realistically the countries assessed the balance of forces. In other words, world wars usually arose when one side mistakenly believed that it was stronger and could achieve victory.

Let's say that during the Cold War there were many hotbeds of conflict, but the likelihood of them escalating into a world war was extremely low. The USA and the USSR assessed the balance of forces quite realistically, took a competent approach to analyzing the international situation, and this served as a guarantee that any crisis, even one as dangerous as the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 in Cuba, would not develop into the Third World War. But at that time there were other crises: the wars in Korea and Vietnam, the entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan, the wars in Angola, Mozambique, Nicaragua. But they all remained local.

And today the problem is not whether hotbeds of conflict exist, but how Western politicians realistically assess the balance of forces. In my opinion, they do not judge the situation very sensibly.

- Why do you think so?

Western politicians have not yet recovered from the euphoria of the self-proclaimed victory in the Cold War. They misunderstood the situation surrounding the USSR's abandonment of communism and the transition to a market economy and democratic society. For some reason they behaved as if the Soviet Union had been defeated in a “hot” war, and now Russia, as its legal successor, must play by the rules imposed by the West.

They still believe that the West is very strong and can dictate its will to everyone in the world. It is this military-political miscalculation that provokes a situation in which it becomes possible for any conflict to escalate into the Third World War.

- How realistic are the five scenarios described in the National Interest?

But any of the remaining four scenarios are likely to varying degrees. For example, the Japanese-Chinese contradictions, as well as the conflict between China, the Philippines and Vietnam over the Spratly Islands, have the potential to escalate into a serious war.

As for Ukraine, I don’t think that NATO will interfere in events in the South-East of this country, even if Russia sends troops there. If, of course, the Western elite thinks rationally. If unrealistic sentiments prevail in the West - they say, now we will crush the Russians - this could really lead to escalation. The scenario for the West's actions in such situations is known: first the supply of weapons, then the sending of military instructors, and then it comes to the deployment of NATO troops.

But, I repeat, there is understanding in the West regarding the Ukrainian situation. But in Syria, an uncontrollable escalation of the conflict may indeed occur. For example, some politicians in the United States today say that it is necessary - without consultation with Russia - to introduce a no-fly zone and American troops in Syria. But we must understand: if the United States unilaterally takes such steps, we can do it too. And where the line of demarcation of the zone of interests lies, a clash between the troops of our two countries is possible.

I think that now the Turkish military is also involved in the Syrian conflict - ISIS militants are resisting very competently, this is not like the actions of ordinary terrorist rebels. If Turkey follows the path of escalation and begins to increase its presence in Syria, Ankara may want to provoke a conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, or push the Tatars in Crimea to revolt. In this case, we will most likely begin to actively support the Kurds - and the situation has every chance of getting out of control. Still, Turkey is a member of NATO and will demand to be taken under the protection of the alliance.

- What will the world war of the future look like?

National Interest writes about a real war using large groups. But of course there won’t be a war of fronts like in World War II. In my opinion, this will be, first of all, an aerospace operation aimed at suppressing the enemy’s main control centers. Most likely, such a war will be aimed at using non-nuclear weapons in order to disable communications, communication, and suppress the enemy’s will to resist. The calculation will be made that with such tactics the enemy will not risk using nuclear weapons.

With Russia, I believe, such a trick will not work, but with China it is quite possible. Beijing does not have an arsenal of strategic non-nuclear deterrence; moreover, its strategic nuclear forces are quite weak. Even the existing US missile defense system is capable of neutralizing volleys of Chinese missiles. Washington believes that Beijing will not even try to launch a nuclear strike, because it is afraid that the United States will respond by unleashing the full power of its nuclear fist on Chinese territory.

With strategic non-nuclear weapons, the Americans, having gathered forces around China, can quite easily destroy the Chinese Navy, essentially lock China in the continental theater, and then involve the forces of local rebels and terrorist groups in the matter - that is, transfer the campaign to the format of a network-centric war. Fortunately, there are quite a lot of areas in China that are ready to rebel at the right opportunity - these are Tibet and the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. I think that in Hong Kong there is a large “fifth column” ready to take part in the uprising.

As a result, rebellions will begin, the separation of a number of regions from the Middle Kingdom - and China as a single powerful state will cease to exist.

In my opinion, the only thing keeping the United States from such a scenario now is the understanding that Russia will not stand by. The destruction of China will dramatically change the balance of power in the world, and then the Russian Federation will find itself alone in a hostile environment. This is not to our advantage, and therefore we will intervene in the US-China conflict - and in this case, escalation to the strategic nuclear level becomes likely.

To summarize, there are now two truly dangerous places: China and Syria. And the main military balancer, which prevents the West from finally seizing dominance over the world, is Russia...

Now there is a huge range of opinions about what is considered the Third World War, says Ivan Konovalov, director of the Center for Strategic Conjuncture. - Many politicians and experts are confident that the Third World War is already underway. This, in their opinion, is indicated by the critical growth of contradictions between Russia and the West, and between China and the United States. If it were not for the current situation in Syria, against the background of which the confrontation has frozen, the Third World War would have been felt more and more strongly.

The peculiarity of this global war is that it is waged indirectly. Today everyone understands perfectly well that nuclear weapons are weapons of the apocalypse. Therefore, schemes worked out during the Cold War are being used. Then two blocs - NATO and the USA on the one hand, and the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries on the other - also did not oppose each other on the battlefield, but indirectly supported one side or another. In the 1990s, this situation changed: everyone suddenly decided that the confrontation was over, and a great bright world awaited us ahead. But, as it turned out, this is not so. Therefore, in the 21st century, the indirect military method of resolving political issues became popular again.

(Remembering the Adventurer)

The strategy of world reconquista is essentially a scenario for the Third World War, which neoconservative George W. Bush administration very aptly dubbed the “Long War.” This is a completely new type of war, in which the United States will directly use military force against only a few, mostly minor, countries and on a limited scale. The goal of this war is to achieve almost eternal and absolute global dominance of the United States, through the radical weakening or destruction of all existing and potential world centers of power and a complete restructuring of the existing world order. The new imperial order must ensure direct US political, military and economic control over all countries of the world and guarantee the uninterrupted payment of significant colonial taxes by all humanity. Apparently, the long war began in 2001. and will be completed approximately in 2018-21. removing all the main geopolitical and economic players from the global game at once - the EU, China, Russia, India, the Islamic East, Japan, Bolivarian America, Brazil, the Asian Tigers, etc., after which the United States will begin the post-war reconstruction of the world. War includes several phases and stages in each of the theaters of war, many of which are implemented simultaneously.

LONG WAR TECHNOLOGY

The economy of the modern world is based on energy resources, primarily oil and gas. Any significant imbalance in energy supplies can not only provoke powerful economic and social crises, weaken the industry and military power of dozens of countries, but also lead to major wars between some states, the collapse of others and the loss of sovereignty of others. Thus, a destructive impact on the global energy market may turn out to be an even more powerful and effective means of attacking the world's main centers of power than nuclear weapons.

If the United States can obtain a monopoly on the exported hydrocarbons of both Americas, then, with some restructuring of its energy consumption, which we will discuss below, it will be provided with the necessary volumes of oil and gas indefinitely. If the United States, at the same time, excludes most of the energy resources of the Greater East from the world economy, then all European, Asian and African countries that are net importers of hydrocarbons will have to be content with, at best, 15-16 of the required 33-34 million barrels. oil and 400 of the required 650 billion m3 of gas. And if, at the same time, it is possible to at least partially limit energy supplies from Russia or reignite civil wars in Angola and Nigeria, then the global oil shortage could reach 70%, and gas shortages up to 50%. Obviously, such a monstrous deficit will be extremely difficult to cover with alternative sources - nuclear energy, coal, ethanol, etc. - even in the long term and in conditions of economic prosperity. And it will be absolutely impossible to do this within a few years, especially in conditions of an economic and political crisis.

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF STRATEGY

Limit as much as possible the threat of a preventive or retaliatory military strike on the United States from one or a group of geopolitical adversaries who have correctly assessed the source and scale of the threat, primarily Russia and China.

Obtain monopoly access to the energy, raw materials and labor resources of both Americas, sufficient for the comfortable functioning of the US economy in a semi-autonomous mode for a long period of time. This should allow the United States to maintain internal stability and economic strength in the face of the destruction of most world economic ties and even in the event of a complete economic blockade.

Completely destabilize the Great East with the aim of radically limiting the energy supply of the main existing and potential competitors and adversaries of the United States - the EU, China, Japan, India, and Southeast Asian countries. This will not only provoke devastating economic crises in these countries and unions, but will also significantly limit the ability of the economies of these countries to recover, and will also reduce their combat effectiveness.

Provoke social, inter-ethnic and inter-religious conflicts, up to large-scale actions of civil disobedience, riots, massive terrorist attacks, aggressive separatism and even civil wars, on the territory of the main existing and potential competitors and adversaries of the United States. This will weaken state power as much as possible, damage the economy and tie up the military resources of these countries.

If possible, provoke a military clash between the main existing and potential competitors and adversaries of the United States among themselves or with other countries, or, at the very least, initiate numerous regional conflicts on their periphery in order to tie up their military and economic resources.

Inflict a disarming military strike on countries that pose a real, but still limited military threat to the United States, eliminating their military and industrial infrastructure - primarily China. To ensure economic isolation and strangulation of countries that pose a full-scale military threat to the United States - primarily Russia, without getting involved in a real war with them, which could result in unacceptable damage.

After some stabilization of the situation in the world, begin to consistently implement the new Marshall Plan in the Near and Middle East, Europe, Latin America, Southeast Asia, etc., introducing new long-term political and economic mechanisms colonial control and taxation.

When you have to choose between bad and worse, you usually choose... with a chessboard to the head.

Collapse of the Paris Monetary and Financial System 1867-1918 - World War I

Collapse of the Genoese monetary and financial system 1922-1940 - World War II

Collapse of the Bretton Woods monetary and financial system 1944-1973 - outbreak of a series of proxy and civil wars around the world - Indo-Pakistan War, Yom Kippur War (oil crisis), sponsored civil wars in Ethiopia, Angola, Lebanon and Mozambique, Cambodian wars , Chile, Nicaragua, Iranian Revolution, Iran-Iraq War, Soviet-Afghan War, etc., etc., etc.

Collapse of the Jamaican monetary and financial system 1976-2009(?) - Third World War?

In general, in my opinion, there is no need to look for an economic solution where there is none. When the inherent contradictions of the system reach a critical level, the only way to get rid of them is to break the system. And over the past 8,000 years, only one method has been invented to break world systems - world war.

Most wars will be proxy wars, without any use of weapons by the Americans.

Such an example is the future Turkish-Kurdish war, which the United States is provoking by de facto creating and arming an independent Iraqi Kurdistan. The result of this war will not only be the destabilization of this region itself, but also, with a high degree of probability, the cessation of transit supplies of oil and gas through Turkey to the EU. And parallel socio-political destabilization of Ukraine could lead to disruption of the transit of the main flows of Russian gas. Not it is especially difficult to re-ignite the extinguished civil war in Algeria, especially since it seems that this is already being done - it’s not for nothing that terrorist attacks there have sharply increased in recent months. All together, this will cause an energy collapse in the EU, which, superimposed on the economic crisis, will cause a social explosion in many EU countries. This social explosion can be expressed in Muslim pogroms or terrorism, and in mass riots, and in separatism, and in squabbling between countries. Those. to political, economic and social chaos in Europe.

There is an opportunity to dramatically destabilize Indo-Pakistani relations and provoke a new border war. It’s not for nothing that the States began to put pressure on Pakistan both for the Taliban and for anti-democratic, and for supporting Muslim terrorism, and with India, on the contrary, they began intensive and demonstrative cooperation in the field of nuclear energy and weapons.

In Bolivia and Venezuela, opposition to the local financial oligarchy is very strong. The local Khodorkovskys are always ready sponsor a coup d'etat if the United States provides them with initial support through the intelligence services, and for dessert they promise to introduce a military contingent.

You yourself know everything about options for working with Russia. Destabilization of the Northern Caucasus through sponsoring terrorists and Georgian-Ossetian-Abkhazian war. Creating a zone of instability in the south, through sponsoring civil national or religious wars in Central Asia. Worsening relations with Europe with the help of missile defense, Poland, Baltic demarches, etc.

Just why fight yourself where others can fight for you? Why come up with a reason and waste energy attacking Turkey if it can be drawn into the Kurdish war? Why bother with nuclear Pakistan if you can pit it against nuclear India and start a small regional nuclear war? Why bother and organize an invasion of Bolivia and Ecuador if you can sponsor a pro-American coup there? Why spoil your reputation by attacking Algeria or Angola, if you can spark a civil war in both places?

But Iran, Saudi Arabia, possibly Venezuela and, in the end, China will of course have to be attacked. Iran needs to be bombed, a civil war organized in Northern Arabia, Venezuela needs to be occupied, and China needs to be hammered into the Stone Age.

Sponsoring combined conflicts, for example, the implementation of such a scenario of war with the Taliban in Afghanistan, which stimulates a civil war in Pakistan, will then begin the resumption of the Kashmir conflict and a border war with India, which, theoretically, could become nuclear. Then the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, a new civil war in Afghanistan, the establishment of the Taliban regime in Kabul, the transfer of the Islamic insurgency to Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and the Uyghur Autonomous Region in China. Funding rebels in Angola and Nigeria through secret CIA channels that will finally destroy the world oil market. Look, just a few targeted actions, and there is already an energy crisis in the EU and Japan, all of Asia from the Pamirs to the Mediterranean is on fire, and Russia sits in the middle of all this mess as if on a powder keg. And what’s interesting is that there were almost no military actions on the part of the United States - well, they hit Iran with a bomb, well, they organized a rebellion and a coup in Saudi Arabia. And the whole continent is already in complete ass. And there is no one to complain to. Well, Russia won’t launch a nuclear strike on the United States because they pushed the Taliban out of Afghanistan into Pakistan, or killed the king of Saudi Arabia, or gave the Iraqi Kurds some heavy weapons, which was enough for a start Kurdish-Turkish wars for the creation of Greater Kurdistan.

But with China it’s more complicated - everything will start with a trade war. The trade war with China will begin exactly when it allows, in some sense, to change the course of the crisis in the right direction. Here, of course, everything will depend on the crisis scenario - I’m just writing it little by little, but the approximate picture is clear.

The speculative crisis that will start it all will collapse assets not only in the United States, but throughout the world. This will cause a sharp increase in demand for American government bonds, and the profitability, that is, the cost of servicing, will fall to zero. Then an economic recession will begin, followed by a consumer crisis, which will lead, on the one hand, to an industrial crisis, and on the other, to a budget crisis.

Around this point, a different reaction from the White House is possible, but I think that the United States will take the most obvious and stupidest path. Since there is demand for state bonds, and the yield is low, then let’s warm up the dying consumer market through an increase in budget spending, and replenish the empty budget with loans, since money is given and given cheaply. Let's borrow another five or two trillion from China, Russia and all sorts of speculators. At the same time, you can fuck with some Iran and Venezuela, and organize several civil wars and coups around the world, so that, so to speak, global instability will force money to crowd into a superpower.

How this will end is known. No industry will rise, no stable growth in consumer demand will occur and no assets will begin to rise in price. So tax revenue will not increase at all. As a result, the national debt will very quickly reach first $10 trillion, then $12, then $15... Here, GKO holders will begin to get bored and capricious. As a result, bond yields will begin to rise one after another, and loan terms will shorten. When half of the debts are in monthly bonds, and the yield on them reaches 25%, the States will have to borrow a trillion dollars a week - eat up a quarter, and immediately pay the rest to creditors for earlier loans. It is clear that the issue here will come down to the days when it will all fall apart and the United States will have to declare a default.

This will be the right moment to push the problem from a sore head to a healthy one. Declare a trade war on China, force it to collapse the GKO pyramid, and then point a finger at it and say that it was the Chinese who crap all the raspberries, so now let them pay. China will begin to be indignant, speak rudely and will definitely blurt out something that can be safely shown on CNN and said - “China is threatening our homes!” And hit it with a bomb. Somewhere like this. Well, I’ll write everything out more clearly and in detail later.

What? It seems to you that everything is already predetermined and will go like clockwork. States, like, slouch wander into a corner and with aching groans they will eat pyramidon. And we will walk around the planet in a white tailcoat and spit truffles. And I'm sure that everything is just begins and the Empire is not going to give up. So, that world, which, due to a misunderstanding, lasted for 60-odd years, is ending. Fun times await us. And the best thing we can do is not to puff up ourselves with complacency, but to prepare for battle. And it is advisable to have a plan to seize the initiative.

There are no “global projects” that people come up with trying to explain what is happening.

There are no Atlantic projects.

There is no Western civilization as a subject.

There is no American dream and European standard of living.

There are no US national interests.

There is no democracy or universal human values.

There are only a tiny handful of families who have been consistently moving for the last 200 years to take all the wealth in the world by force or fraud. And so that we all won’t be very bored watching how they put everything that belongs to humanity into their pockets, they hire entire divisions of intellectuals who come up with all sorts of different simulacra, which I listed above and in the name of which various Gorbachevs are putting their own countries under the knife and nations, and the American fisherman John goes to cut off the head of the Iraqi fisherman Said.

And in order not to be unfounded, when talking about the Club, I suggest recalling various pictures about loans, real estate, property, etc., which I have already shown and which all, one and all, pointed to 1975, as the year when all Americans began to waste money, as if they were worth nothing. And what’s interesting is that in 1974 Gerald Ford became president, and his vice president - guess who?... Nelson Rockefeller! The grandson of that same John Davison, and, naturally, the brother, nephew and brother-in-law of all sorts of different Rockefellers who were engaged in their small family business - milking the Fed, the budget and all sorts of federal trifles. And the funny thing is that at the end of 1974, J. Ford entrusted his vice president with a very important mission - to defeat inflation. You can throw the biggest stone at me that you can find, but I look at the graphs of income, expenses and debts of the population and see with the naked eye that Nelson, naturally, did not waste his time. I don’t know whether he managed to defeat inflation, but he drove these same Americans away from the bad habit of Americans of squeezing money from his relatives and friends in just a few weeks and for the rest of their lives.

You can argue that this is a random excess, but in general these elders robbery masters and they won’t let you near the White House for a cannon shot? I believe. I believe that’s all. Just look at the Bush dad and son, who have sat in the biggest chair in the White House for 11 of the last 19 years. These Georgies are, of course, our financial pi... d they don’t know the conversion, which is quite obvious from the history of their surname:

Samuel Prescott Bush (October 4, 1863 – February 8, 1948) – industrialist and entrepreneur, director and later president of the Buckeye Steel Castings Company, headed by Frank Rockefeller, brother of oil magnate John D. Rockefeller. Someone you know, right?

Prescott Sheldon Bush (May 15, 1895 – October 8, 1972) - Son of Samuel P. Bush, U.S. Senator from Connecticut and director of one of the Fed's major shareholder banks, Brown Brothers Harriman. Do we remember this last name?

George Herbert Walker Bush (June 12, 1924) - Son of Prescott S. Bush, 41st President of the United States, formerly Vice President of the United States, Congressman, Ambassador to the United Nations, Director of the CIA, etc., etc., and also a board member of the Dresser oil company Industries - subsidiaries of Brown Brothers Harriman(again this omnipresent Harriman, so be it!), the director of which was his father, then the owner and head of the oil company Zapata Oil.

George Walker Bush (July 6, 1946) - Son of George H. W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States, formerly Governor of Texas and board member of the oil companies Arbusto Energy, Spectrum 7 and Harken Energy.

Any questions? In general, I strongly recommend reading about the family of the current President. Just open all his relatives in a row and read from the first line to the last. I swear to my mother, after this all detective stories will seem like boring accounting reports. To briefly summarize, we can say that the Bush family is unusually large and friendly. Their main activities over the last century have been the oil business with the Rockefellers, the banking business with the Harrimans and Warburgs, as well as fraud and financial scams at their own risk. Well, as punishment for unsuccessful scams, their sponsors forced them to serve political service - to work as various senators, congressmen, governors, vice presidents and presidents, where they became famous for various amazing feats. But of course, in their positions they fundamentally fought against these very vile Rockefellers and Harrimans, thanks to which, precisely since the presidency of Pope Bush, the growth curve of debts of the population, business and the state left the parabolic trajectory and entered an exponential one.

Confrontation strategy

The problems of the US economy are systemic and extremely neglected. The main reason for all these problems is that in recent decades the colonial sector of the US economy has become not just significant, but absolutely irreplaceable due to the fact that it has practically replaced the national economy itself. At the same time, the ongoing geopolitical processes in the world have already dealt a mortal blow to this colonial sector. Thus, in the existing paradigm of the world order, the United States is doomed to a catastrophic crisis. In this sense, it is completely pointless to bring them down - a super crisis is inevitable. And after this crisis it will be theoretically impossible to return to the heights at which they were yesterday. And even to restore the United States to the level of a simply strong middle peasant, it will require the actual introduction of a mobilization economy ala Stalinist industrialization, and a couple of decades of hard work.

However, another way is possible for the United States - to go beyond the restrictions of the international system of economic and political relations that developed after World War II. This is the way to manage the global crisis, destroy the foundations of the world economy, destroy the system of international relations, induce many conflicts and civil wars in all regions and, ultimately, recolonize the world destroyed by crisis and war as a winner, as after WW2. Actually, I have already talked a lot about the implementation of such an approach in this topic and I consider it the most likely. If this scenario is realized, even in general terms, then neither Russia, nor China, nor Europe, nor Japan - no one at all - will have anything to catch in this world. Therefore, we are now in a very narrow space of possibilities: on the one hand, the global super-crisis has actually already begun, and on the other, the United States will do everything to ride it and turn it into an instrument of global reconquest, especially since this is technically feasible.

We will have a year and a half from mid-2008 to early 2010 to break the American game. It will be too late to rush further. How to break? I already talked about this. It is necessary by any means to block the Americans' ability to undermine the global energy market and at the same time carry out a very tough attack on the American financial system. Russia alone cannot cope with this. We at least need China as a partner. In fact, this is the outbreak of a new Cold War. But the only alternative to it is the hot Third World War and our almost inevitable strategic defeat. On the other hand, if the economic crisis can be localized within the borders of the United States, then this new Cold War may not be so terrible. Not much of the United States will fight the cold if they have a new Great Depression there, with millions of hungry people, destroyed by industry, dead finances, etc.

Is Russia preparing a similar step? In general, in a broader context, the question is fundamental. Should we consider that at the moment the only noticeable player defining the global agenda and implementing its own scenario (the one that I am trying to synthesize) is the United States, or that an active systemic and coordinated counteraction is being formed in the world (a hypothetical union of Russia, China and India ), which in the very short term - 2-3 years - will undermine the US scenario game and derail all their plans? My position is no. There is no systemic, command-based counteraction from the United States. There is open opposition from Russia, Iran, Venezuela and individual cunning schemes designed for 10-15-20 years, like China. Neither one nor the other is able to break the US scenario in the short term. And in 3, maximum 4 years, it will be possible to break the American strategy only with a full-scale nuclear strike.

I am saying all this not because I like the United States - on the contrary, and not because I am calling for a nuclear war. On the contrary, I am trying to convey the idea that to destroy the American scenario of global economic depression, the outbreak of the Third World War with the probable use of nuclear weapons and global recolonization, we have only 2-3 years. And they need to be used to the fullest. And for this it is not enough to build pipelines to China, slowly move the ruble towards convertibility and buy enterprises in Europe. Putin needs to go to China and pose the question bluntly - March 25, 2009 - we begin a one-time attack on the US financial and economic system. Dot. Otherwise, in 3-5 years a furry northern animal will come to us all.

Someone will still have to give up the role of a cowardly kid who is talking about something behind his back, and apply for the status of a real macho who acts cool and is really responsible for the market. Others will follow suit. Look, like in the European, Asian and even Arab press, a couple of months after the Munich speech, it exploded - only the lazy one doesn’t call the USA an Empire, colonialists, aggressors, bullies, etc. In general, one brave person, who is the first to say, “Well, fuck off,” is needed. We will have to be this first - there is no one else.

I would do it in the middle of the fourth, i.e. in the first half of 2009. Theoretically, the Americans are in the fifth phase, i.e. a massive build-up of debt during a budget crisis may be missed and go straight to hyperinflation, so it’s better not to risk it. Those. we skip the speculative crisis, the beginning of the economic downturn, we give fire up consumer and industrial crisis and at this moment, when the Americans are already starting to run out of tax revenues, the economy is in the ass, and the people are already in complete panic, we kick them in the gut. They will not have the opportunity to react - the dollar goes into a tailspin, the GKO pyramid is collapsing, the chances of turning it into hyperinflation are exactly zero. Instead of hyperinflationary economic recovery and overloading problems on the rest of the world, the United States itself gets a default and deflationary depression. We are dressed in white and on horseback, and they are up to their heads in the outhouse. In addition, the new President (Obama) has just taken office and his administration will still be practically incapacitated, simply confused and physically unable to react promptly and adequately.

“Otherwise, in 3-5 years a furry northern animal will come to us all. " - And again the Adventurer is in a hurry; a full-fledged scribe, as has now become obvious, will come to us no earlier than the end of 2015 or the beginning of 2016. There was actually no confrontation, and now it’s too late to rush around, yes. So what is next: “But the only alternative to it is a hot Third World War and our almost inevitable strategic defeat.”- the beginning somewhere in 2018-2021, without alternatives. Only modest "almost" still leaves hope for a relatively successful outcome of events...

PlotSecond: Drang nach Osten.

Roles performed by: Europe, Ukraine, Russia. Writers and directors – USA, Europe.

If you don’t remember Genghis Khan and Batu, then war always came to Russia from the West. The crusaders, stopped by Alexander Nevsky, the Poles, expelled by the militia of Minin and Pozharsky, Napoleon, who gathered an international team of invaders, and Hitler, who united Europe by force in the name of the “Throw to the East,” tried to conquer Russia.

It is generally accepted that today’s Europe and its “exoskeleton” - the European Union - are not subjects of world politics, but are subordinate to an external manager - the United States. This is true and not true. The European Union is more of a junior partner than a weak-willed puppet. In many ways, their interests coincide.

What are Europe's interests, what are its problems, and how can it solve them?

Russian political scientist Oleg Maslov sees the prerequisites for Europe’s readiness for World War III as follows:

· Europe has reached the limits of growth within the framework of the main vectors of development.

· Europe remains the most vulnerable “global player” in terms of energy security.

· The level of suggestibility of European citizens has reached the level of suggestibility of German citizens of the late 30s of the twentieth century (“humanitarian” bombings of Yugoslavia, “barbarians” Serbs - “their” Albanians in Kosovo).

· A new generation of politicians who are not “burnt by war” is coming to power in Europe. The generation of G. Schröder, whose father died in Hungary during the Second World War, is leaving the political scene.

· The long-term positioning of Russia in the image of an “enemy” formed the prerequisites for the acceptance by the mass consciousness of Europeans of the traditional “Drang nach Osten”.

The first two points of the classification are the economic prerequisites for a future war. Since the time of the Great Geographical Discoveries, the market capitalist economy has been developing only in an extensive way - it needs more and more new sales markets. Russia is preventing Europe from taking over Ukraine, which could push back the next crisis of overproduction by a couple of decades. Europe depends on Russian energy resources. Russia's policy in this area is becoming increasingly strict. In the energy sector, “Tsar Pipe” Putin and his oil and gas marshals Sechin and Miller are successfully imposing their rules of the game on the whole world, and primarily on Europe.

The European Union, where the main role is played by the Carolingian core of Europe - Germany, France and Northern Italy - surpasses Russia in population, economic and military power. In the event of a non-nuclear conflict, the NATO army will have an overwhelming advantage over the CSTO army, both quantitative and qualitative.

A conflict of interests is obvious, and from the point of view of the European Union, Russia is a frankly weak player, with a destroyed industry, a demoralized army and a corrupt elite. Energy and geopolitical dependence on such a geographic neighbor can only be annoying. And such an unkind neighborhood, from the point of view of Europeans, can only be tolerated if one’s own affairs are going quite well.

And things in Europe are very bad. Europe's economy is falling deeper every day. She is suffocating without lebenzraum in the East. And therefore, today the interests of the European Union and the United States coincide. Russia stood in the way of the powerful Western civilization at the time of the most severe systemic crisis of this civilization, and therefore the Third World War, which should end the existence of Russia as an independent subject of world politics, was on the agenda. Strategically, this task has existed since the times of the Crusaders. Now it has simply been updated, that is, transferred to the categories of tactical decisions.

The French philosopher Jean Parvulesco, who sympathized with Russia, warned back in the 90s of the last century: “In the depths of world Freemasonry, a metahistorical attack of gigantic scale is brewing, which aims to prevent Russia from awakening to the fulfillment of its ancient, bottomless mission. Let this open attack serve as a strategic warning to us: a multifaceted war of alienation has been launched against us...”

Hitler's idea of seizing living space in the East was again conceptualized by the creation of the Eastern Partnership.

The idea of the Eastern Partnership was expressed on May 26, 2008 at a meeting of the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels. Poland and Sweden then came up with a proposal to establish an organization, which after some time received the name “Eastern Partnership”. It was assumed that the task of this organization was to integrate Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine into the EU and NATO.

The European Union also has its own “Mein Kampf” - this is the book of the famous Russophobe, the leader of the largest faction in the European Parliament, Swede Gunnar Heckmark, “The World Does Not Wait.”

Here are a few quotes from this bible of the new “Throw to the East”:

“Russia is Evil. Russia is an unreliable and dangerous actor on the international stage.”

“The non-existence of the USSR does not mean at all that Russia does not pose a danger to neighboring countries.”

“Dependence on Russian gas has spread to virtually all of Europe and is only set to grow... The Russian planned gas pipeline across the Baltic Sea is one manifestation of how Russia strategically wants to increase its ability to use gas supplies as part of a political game.”

“The need for military power is even greater today than during the Cold War.”

“During the Cold War, the possession of military power was decisive, both in our part of Europe and on the European continent. Even in the future, military capabilities will remain important, even if we are not talking about armed conflicts. The military training for which the 2004 budget was signed showed that all parties in Sweden agree that our country is not doing enough for world peace. This most important political charity is to add to our efforts to destroy the violence and insurrection of the barbarians.”

“Globalization, which forces us to accumulate military power for other parts of the world, forces us to accumulate military power at home. These are the two most important tasks in the reality of the world in which we live... we must defend our territorial sovereignty, defend our right to be present in the Baltic, balance the presence of others, resist military pressure and threats, and face attack in the form of terrorism, mining or humiliation. This sets demands on our air force, which can fight in the air and also destroy the enemy on the ground and under water. We must be able to fight in armed conflict, we must be willing to be present, inspect and control our own territory. It is these new circumstances that must form the basis for Swedish security. First of all, it must be used to protect our own sovereignty in the light of new circumstances, to protect us from threats that already exist or may grow in other parts of the earth, to protect our interests in our part of the earth.”

I gave such a long quote from the Swedish obscurantist so that the reader can be convinced that the handbook of European politicians is written in an absolutely Hitlerite style. This is a post-modern “Mein Kampf” designed to justify any potential attack on Russia.

In 2009, the Swedish Parliament decided that in the event of a military conflict or “pressure on some countries of Northern Europe or the European Union, Sweden will not be an outside observer, but will provide assistance, including military assistance.”

Thus, even peaceful Sweden, with which Russia has not had wars since the time of Poltava, violated its neutrality in the name of a general crusade to the East, where Europe has one enemy - Russia.

Now there is no doubt that the United States and the European Union will fight with Russia in the Ukrainian theater of military operations, and the same citizens of an independent power are destined to play the role of cannon fodder.

To imagine possible forms of future aggression, you must first understand that the strategy of the West, and the United States in particular, is always multifaceted and multifactorial. If we turn to historical analogies, we can recall the famous “ten Stalinist strikes” during the offensive of the Soviet Army in 1944. Advancing on a broad front from the Baltic to the Black Sea, Soviet troops did not give the enemy the opportunity to transfer their reserves from one sector to another and, having a general superiority in forces, achieved decisive successes, liberating vast territories.

Today, Western countries, having a huge overall superiority in power, are attacking Russia on a broad front - from human rights and the protection of sexual minorities, the fight against corruption and for the release of political prisoners, to supporting the “national liberation struggle of the oppressed peoples” of the post-Soviet space and the secret financing of a terrorist international .

The West cannot fully use its powerful military and economic potential due to the general crisis, which limits the deficit budget financing of subversive and military operations.

And, of course, due to the presence of Russian nuclear potential.

Those who are counting on a quick end to the Ukrainian crisis and the return of the confrontation between various political forces to the legal channel will be severely disappointed. Having retreated in Syria, even temporarily, the West will not retreat in Ukraine. Moreover, the possibilities of inciting any unrest and actual civil war are truly limitless.

Ukraine is stuffed with Western agents. Disciplined and ideologically united units of nationalists have been formed there, who are ready to go to the end and are organized along a network basis, that is, having a single common task, they are able to independently make tactical decisions and choose a target. Ukrainian youth, especially in the western regions, do not see the possibility of self-realization in conditions of total corruption and nepotism and dream of “moving to Europe.” The intelligentsia, as always, is divorced from reality and with its own hands is leading to power those who, having received this power, will rot the creative smart people in camps and prisons.

At all life and geopolitical crossroads, the best strategy is to hope for (and fight for) the best, but expect (and prepare) for the worst.

The worst scenario in this case is the escalation of interregional conflicts in Ukraine into an open war between Galicia and the southeastern regions, in the wake of which Ukraine will be occupied first by the armies of its closest neighbors (Poland, Hungary and Romania), and then by NATO troops.

As you know, Hungary and Romania and, of course, Poland have territorial claims to Ukraine, which, although it does not openly declare its desire to regain Lviv and begin the revival of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, secretly dreams of this.

Transcarpathia, inhabited by Rusyns who survived the genocide back in the days of Austria-Hungary, in the event of the Nazis seizing power in Kyiv, will block the mountain passes and move on to open confrontation with the neo-fascists. In this case, Hungary intends to protect the Hungarian diaspora of Transcarpathian Rus' and send its troops there. There will be a reason for this.

The Internet resource “Ruska Pravda” writes:

“Ukrainians of Transcarpathia hope for the protection of Hungary from Galician extremists.

Residents of Transcarpathia who have Hungarian citizenship are convinced that if the political and social situation in the region worsens, Hungary will be ready to send its troops into the territory of the westernmost region of Ukraine to stabilize the situation and protect its citizens.

It is possible that Transcarpathia may repeat history from 1939, when Hungary sent its troops to Transcarpathia to counter Galician extremism, reports the Internet portal Kresy.pl.

Let us note that a significant part of the population of the Transcarpathian region are ethnic Hungarians, some of them have dual citizenship.

Let us remind you that earlier “News of Transcarpathia” reported that about 300 Transcarpathians occupied the Veretsky Pass and blocked the entrance of Galician extremists to Transcarpathia. This was caused by the fact that several hundred residents of the Lviv region went to Uzhgorod with the aim of seizing the regional state administration and administrative buildings. Transcarpathians are against such robbery, so they decided not to allow Galicians to rule on their territory.”

The fact that in the event of further chaos in Ukraine, Romania will not hesitate to invade at least Moldova and Transnistria is hardly in doubt. And without the support of the Russian army, the Pridnestrovians will not be able to cope with the superior forces of the aggressors. And who can stop the Romanians from going further by annexing the disputed regions of Ukraine?

The most interesting thing is that Poland can move its army to Galicia, to Western Ukraine. To pacify the raging Nazis. And this will be supported by Western public opinion.

As a result, in the future, intervention armies may occupy almost all cities and regions captured by the rebels. For this, only one thing is needed - the weakness and indecisiveness of the central government. And it is possible to induce Yanukovych and the Ukrainian security forces to further passivity with the help of another provocation from the inexhaustible arsenal of Western intelligence services. An explosion at a nuclear power plant, a blowing up of a main gas pipeline, a high-profile murder—with such special projects one can try to twist the arms of the Ukrainian leadership and force it to agree to Western humanitarian aid, even to the point of humanitarian bombing, as was the case in Yugoslavia.

Let us note that at each turn of the unfolding crisis, at all stages of escalation of aggression, the United States and Europe will portray outside observers, striving to pacify the warring parties and fair democratic elections. That is, Russia will have no reason to threaten to use nuclear weapons.

It is unlikely that Russia will be able to passively observe the capture of a fraternal republic by the armies of European states. Putin will send at least special forces, and real, albeit local, military actions will ensue between the armies of NATO countries and Russian units. In such a situation, the regions of the South and Southeast are highly likely to turn to Russia with a request for military assistance. Western regions will make the same request to the United States and the European Union. And as a result, NATO troops and the Russian army will collide. It is unlikely that NATO will be the first to use nuclear weapons - a huge numerical superiority will allow them to develop an offensive, capturing regions under Russian protection. And here there is a high probability of using nuclear weapons.

Such scenarios are probably already included in the operational plans of all interested parties in the developing conflict. The very existence of such plans and scenarios can deter potential aggression. Let's hope this happens. But you should only rely on your army, the patriotism of citizens and strong government.

Vladimir PROKHVATILOV,

President of the Real Policy Foundation (Realpolitik),

expert of the Academy of Military Sciences