The Third World War is in full swing. The inevitability of war The inevitability of the third world war

World War III may start soon. The world is teetering on the brink of the largest conflict in history. As a YouGov survey showed, most people in Western countries live in anticipation of the apocalypse.

As The Independent clarifies, the analysis surveyed nine thousand people in nine countries, including the US, UK, Germany and France.

Respondents said that, in their opinion, the establishment of peace on Earth in the coming years is unlikely, but a major international armed conflict could begin soon. In particular, 64% of respondents among Americans predict a world war, and 61% among British people.

Residents of the Northern European countries believe less in such a development of events. For example, about 39% of Danes believe that the planet is seriously facing the threat of global conflict.

YouGov's head of political and social research, Anthony Wells, states that major conflicts are feared most in France and the United States, but for different reasons. So Americans, paradoxically, explain their fears of a world war with the imminent assumption of office by President-elect Donald Trump.

59% of Americans surveyed say Russia is the main threat; their fears are shared by 71% of Britons. Moreover, there are more Russophobes in the UK than, for example, in Finland or Germany, which are geographically located much closer to Moscow. In France, people are most afraid of the threat of escalating terrorism. First of all, Islamic. More than 81% of respondents are convinced that the country will face new terrorist attacks in the near future.

In general, residents of each of the countries participating in the study, with the exception of Finland, said that the likelihood of terrorist attacks in their countries is extremely high.

Are such sentiments in Western society a consequence of the influence of the media, or is there a real basis for them?

The issue of the emergence of a new hot world war has been actively discussed in Russian political science for several years, says Boris Shmelev, head of the Center for Political Research at the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, head of the department of international relations at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Foreign Ministry.

The new Concept of Russian Foreign Policy states that the occurrence of such a war is unlikely. But, as we see, this formulation does not at all exclude such a possibility.

As for public sentiment in Western countries, one must understand that they are mainly influenced by propaganda. The media have been whipping up hysteria about the threat posed by Russia for several years now. One can recall the speech of the former commander of the NATO military group in Europe, Breedlove, who “predicted” an imminent war with Russia. Two months ago, US Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley also said that war was inevitable. We have heard a number of other similar statements. As a result, even people who are inclined to soberly assess the situation begin to fear a real military catastrophe.

Moreover, the scenario of a future war implies that the West will fight on one side, and Russia and China on the other. Since the bulk of the population is not privy to the intricacies of political scientists and does not delve deeply into the world situation, people believe what they say in the media. Mainly on television. As you know, the main pretext for anti-Russian propaganda was our actions in Crimea and Syria. We were appointed the main aggressor. True, recently China has been increasingly trying to appoint China to this role.

“SP”: - Is it possible to talk about the inevitability of the Third World War?

- We must understand that the world is full of contradictions. There is a paradigm shift in international relations. The unipolar world is changing to a multipolar one. World economic relations are changing. The world economy itself is changing. New centers of economic power are emerging. In such a situation, a clash of interests of major powers is inevitable, which in turn protect the interests of global companies and financial structures. Global financial capital, as we know, imposes its conditions of development on the world. He strives to unify the whole world to suit his interests. Some countries, mostly Western, even benefit from this. Many other states, on the contrary, are losing. And this cannot but cause conflicts and friction. That is, the prerequisites for a clash between world powers exist. Because major global players would like to revise the rules of the game based on their interests. To some extent, this also applies to Russia.

Regarding the inevitability of a global conflict, it should be noted that the very concept of war is now changing significantly. The old formula that war is a continuation of politics by other means requires revision. War today may not necessarily take the form of armed clashes. It takes the form of information wars, financial wars, cyber wars, color revolutions and so on. The consequences of such wars are sometimes no less or even more destructive than head-on military clashes. And if we talk about the above methods, then the Third World War is already underway. The information war against Russia has been going on since the second half of the 90s, and has now only taken on its most acute forms. An information war against China is unfolding. There is an economic war between Russia and the West, a diplomatic war.

“SP”: - Is the start of a new “hot” world war, which will most likely become thermonuclear, realistic?

- Yes, as I already said, such a possibility cannot be ruled out. This war could arise either between Russia and the United States, or between the United States and China. However, the contradictions between Russia and the West are not yet insoluble. By and large, politicians in the West understand that Russia does not pose a threat to them. Yes, there are contradictions in the problem, but they can still be resolved without resorting to military means. And it is precisely with the coming to power of Donald Trump in the United States that we pin our hopes that some kind of compromise will be found that will allow us to avoid a hot global war.

As for the confrontation between China and the United States, it is most likely for now that it will take economic forms. But these countries are very closely economically interconnected and the possibilities for compromise here are not exhausted either. Moreover, the United States, as Trump stated, will in the near future rely on a certain isolationism, on resolving internal contradictions that threaten the security of this country. This, I think, will distract the US elite from an aggressive foreign policy, which in turn will reduce the risk of a hot world war. As for Russia, we don’t need war. It is very dangerous for us due to the unresolved nature of many internal problems.

“SP”: - Why do Western politicians constantly convince their citizens of the inevitability of a new global war?

- Western politicians are resorting to an old trick: mobilizing society against the backdrop of an external threat. There are many problems that have accumulated in the West. Almost every major EU country has them. Not to mention the USA. Therefore, the bet is being made on fanning the psychosis about a new world war, which will supposedly be started by Russia or China, or maybe both of these countries at once. Faced with such a threat, residents of the EU and the US pay less attention to the problems that surround them in everyday life.

“SP”: - However, just recently, terrorism was called the main global threat in the United States. This is a real danger now, why not continue to rally our citizens in the face of that threat, without “turning the arrow” to Russia?

- The fact is that global world capital today not only uses the capabilities of the United States as a superpower, but has actually privatized the American state. With the help of the United States, global capital essentially controls most of the world. For example, Libya and Iraq remained uncontrolled. These countries, as they say, were taken out of the game, out of world politics. The same can be said in many ways about Syria, which now does not exist as an independent state. That leaves Iran (although it is very limited in its capabilities), Russia and China. Russia was considered the weak link. Therefore, they were going to deal with us first, and then take on China in earnest. Now Trump is trying to expand his policy, to secure, if not friendship with Russia, then at least our neutrality in the confrontation between the United States and China. Because Washington understands that a real union between Russia and China will be too tough for the Americans.

As for the fight against terrorism, the United States and the collective West, under the guise of fighting this evil, are playing their big geopolitical game, solving their geoeconomic and geostrategic problems. Therefore, the slogan of the fight against terrorism has a rather weak effect on the consciousness of Western society.

Experts are confident that the world is on the verge of war and name 10 potential military conflicts that could break out literally tomorrow.

1. Sino-Russian Siberian War

One superpower is going through hard times. Another superpower is actually ready to conquer the whole world. At the moment, China and Russia are the “big players” in the territory east of the Ural Mountains. Both countries have huge armies. Both have nuclear weapons. Both are expansionist. And both have claims to Siberia, a sparsely populated, resource-rich territory larger than Canada. Siberia has long been in China's sphere of interest.
Recently, the Celestial Empire has begun actively buying up plots of Siberian land. Beijing is now beginning to make historic claims, at least in the eastern part of Siberia, where many ethnic Chinese live. This is becoming a growing problem for Moscow. A potential Sino-Russian war over Siberian territory could have devastating consequences and there are only two possible outcomes. Either the Chinese army will reconquer most of Russia or Moscow will start a nuclear war. In any case, the death toll will have catastrophic consequences for the entire world.

2. War for the Baltic

Recently, Europe has become quite worried about the possibility of war with Russia. According to former NATO deputy commander Alexander Richard Shirreff, this is a completely possible scenario. Shirreff believes a possible reason for this is Russia's reluctance to be surrounded by NATO countries. According to the British general, as early as May 2017, Moscow will build a land corridor through Ukraine connecting Crimea with Russia, and then invade one or more Baltic countries. Since Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are members of NATO, this could lead to a crazy war between the West and Russia. What this threatens is not worth explaining.

3. North Korean Spring

This summer, a senior North Korean diplomat in London defected to South Korea. This was just the latest in a chain of incidents that point to the imminent collapse of Kim Jong-un's regime. Kim has fallen out with powerful allies such as China. He is no longer able to provide a luxurious life for the country's elite.
Cheap smartphone technology has allowed people in the country to see for the first time in decades how people live in the rest of the world. At the same time, a crisis is about to break out in the country, in comparison with which the 1994 famine will look like a walk in the park. The result of this could be a revolution in the DPRK. People could take to the streets, the army could split into warring factions, and hell would break out in the country.

4. ISIS guerrilla warfare in Europe

Faced with airstrikes, economic turmoil and military advances, ISIS is on the brink of collapse. But don't expect terrorists to just accept it. The jihadists are likely to fight directly in Europe through deadly urban guerrilla warfare. Large cities in Europe could turn into burial grounds, where explosions and gunfire will be heard on the streets every day. In such a scenario, France and Belgium would be the first to suffer, followed by Germany and the UK.

5. Civil war in Venezuela

Lawlessness reigns on the streets of Caracas. Ordinary household goods are simply impossible to buy, inflation is over 500 percent and could soon reach 1,600 percent. Civil protests, violence, corruption, police brutality and a paranoid government that refuses to see anything have become the norm in the country. The potential end result of this anarchy could be civil war.
With Maduro unwilling to step down, hungry and angry Venezuelans may take up arms. Mass desertions from the police and army are also possible. But even a coup may be the best course of events in Venezuela. Latin American history shows that such a move would likely result in repression and bloodshed on a horrifying scale.

6. Second Cultural Revolution in China

The Cultural Revolution under Chairman Mao was stunningly brutal. About 1.5 million people died. Millions of people were tortured and mutilated. Widespread corruption, popular discontent and a sense of betrayal escalated into deadly carnage.
But what happens in 2016, when China has become a developed country. China has a long history of peasant uprisings. Mao himself came to power as a result of an uprising during which 8,000,000 people died. Several decades ago, the Boxer Rebellion resulted in more than 100,000 deaths.
Decades earlier, the Taiping Rebellion killed 20-30 million (some estimates say more than 70 million).
Now, despite all the development, in China there are 500 popular protests every day, and about 100,000 riots break out every year. If another financial crisis suddenly erupts, there will again be catastrophic bloodshed.

7. Bosnia No. 2

In the 1990s, the world watched in horror as Bosnia fell apart. About 100,000 civilians died during ethnic cleansing. In 1995, two “states within a state” were eventually created: Bosnia and Herzegovina for the Bosniaks and Croats, and the Republika Srpska for the Serbs. The trouble is that this new division is also unstable. Ethnic divisions have created a world of growing tensions, bitter grievances and a desire for revenge. Today everyone wants the best.
Youth unemployment is over 60%, the highest level on Earth. Serbs and Croats still want to separate. Bosnians still want to live together. The Serbian leader recently literally “threw a burning match into this powder keg.” Ethnic Serbs will hold a referendum on whether to secede from Bosnia. The vote could reignite Bosnia's horrific civil war.

8. Revolution in Saudi Arabia

During the Arab Spring, Saudi Arabia escaped with a slight scare. While dictators were overthrown in Tunisia and Egypt, and real war broke out in Syria and Libya, members of the royal family in Saudi Arabia managed to retain power. At least until now. According to the American Washington Institute, conditions in Saudi Arabia today are similar to those that preceded the Egyptian revolution.
The nation is ready to explode. The collapse in oil prices has brought the country, which has very high levels of spending, to the brink of bankruptcy. Youth unemployment in a country that is predominantly populated by young people is out of control. Anger among educated twenty-somethings is running high. Local minorities are rebelling and terrorists are attacking relentlessly. It is easy to imagine a revolution that will break out in connection with this discontent.

9. Indo-Pakistan nuclear war

In the winter of 2008, the world stepped one foot into the grave. This year, the standoff between Pakistan and India almost escalated into a nuclear war. In the end, diplomats barely managed to resolve the conflict. But relations between both countries are still very tense. If things happen differently next time, it could mean the end of the world. A nuclear war between India and Pakistan would burn Delhi, Mumbai, Karachi and Islamabad and cause tens of millions to die in the inferno. A nuclear winter would destroy crops across Asia, leading to mass famines. It is estimated that about two billion people will die. And such a terrible conflict could be provoked by the situation in Kashmir, a region claimed by both countries.

10. South China Sea or World War III

The only thing more terrible than a war between Pakistan and India is a war between China and the United States. Especially if countries such as the Philippines, South Korea, Japan and many others are drawn into this conflict. The sticking point could be the South China Sea, a region that is likely to trigger a third world war.
Over the past few years, China has been aggressively expanding into the maritime space. This is mainly due to small countries that are allies of the United States. America responded with an official warning, and China responded with explicit threats. If this all develops into war, the world will perish.

In all clashes until the 20th century, state entities fought among themselves, one way or another based on the oppression of the majority of the population by a minority, starting from Ancient Egypt, the Babylonian kingdom to fascist Germany and communist Russia. Wars were part of the logic of the existence of these formations; occupation and seizure of territories increased their power. Empires that did not wage victorious wars were absorbed by their neighbors.

From the creation of a coalition of Western countries to participate in World War 2, the organization of NATO countries against the Warsaw Pact countries, the goals of the confrontation changed. Democracies do not need occupied territories and offensive troops; they are forced to spend part of their resources on protecting themselves from being absorbed by empires; the share of these resources in economies is insignificant and falls with the absence of real threats. The last empire on the territory of the former USSR is mobilizing for World War 3, without expansion it will collapse and die. With its disappearance, the last closed enclaves of authoritarianism will rot away on their own.

The size of the economies of the warring parties gives hope for a short Third World War

In the early 80s, the balance of democratic and authoritarian states was achieved through comparable territories, weapons and human resources. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, he sharply shifted towards the democratic camp. Eastern Europe itself made its choice, Russia regards this as a conquest of the United States. Territories and natural resources have ceased to play the most important role, a free person wins. The development of society is ensured by countries in which citizens do not waste energy defending minimal rights to life, but freely create GDP and added value.

Global processes in economics and politics have been changing the world at tremendous speed over the last 3 decades. In different territories, taking into account different management systems, changes are either stimulated or artificially inhibited. Post-industrial countries coexist with feudal ones, clerical societies border with states where religion is not remembered. It is obvious that the society of religious institutions cannot compete with the society of universities, the society of security guards and overseers with a society where other people's rights and freedoms are respected.

The confrontation between the Western world and authoritarian regimes is inevitably growing. Autocrats cannot oppose anything other than force to openness, competition, and liberalism of democracies. The oil economy, large population and nuclear weapons have great military potential. Mobilization is taking place, and references to threats from the enemy are appearing more and more often.

The inevitability of World War III hangs in the air. On the one hand, the authoritarian regimes of Russia, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, on the other, the “golden billion” of the Western world. Regression without external aggression over ten years, using the example of Venezuela, was able to do its job without the participation of external forces. In the absence of expansion, totalitarian states are forced to turn inland to enslave their own population, to internal resources, and die with them.

The imperial thinking of totalitarian rulers cannot admit to themselves and the population that democracy does not pursue aggressive goals. The population of the empire should be afraid of conquest by a neighboring state; in religious countries they are afraid of “alien gods.” The fear of foreigners and people of other faiths should be stronger than the hardships associated with mobilization and death in a possible war. Fear that “strangers” will take away the last piece of bread, while Switzerland and Finland are experimenting with an unconditional income.

A gentle transformation of the empire is impossible due to its aggressive nature. In the process of change, a pluralism of opinions arises, leading to division. An opinion different from the collective one should not exist in conditions of preparation for war and unity of command. Any alternative proposals from the outside, and their variety is endless, cause insane fear and anger.

Modern war is not limited to the military clashes taking place in Syria and eastern Ukraine. Cyber ​​attacks, agents of influence, poisoning on the territories of other countries are direct evidence that the war is already in full swing. Totalitarianism uses all methods of aggression, including intimidation and disorientation.

Negotiations are impossible due to the opposite vector of human development: in one case towards complete freedom, in the other to the enslavement of some by others. The Empire will die, but promises to drag the rest of the world with it. The third world war will be the last.

From the report of Russian scientists - members of the Academy of Military Sciences and the Russian Academy of Sciences V. Aladin, V. Kovalev, S. Malkov and G. Malinetsky.

One of the authors of the concept of “leadership cycles,” the American political scientist J. Modelsky, argues that war “justifies and legitimizes the international system of statuses, at the top of which are the great powers; in turn, the status system views war as a means of its self-preservation.”

Within the framework of this approach, the global processes that occur in the system of the modern world inevitably lead to significant transformations of its status structure, which consists of three basic elements: center, semi-periphery and periphery. It seems possible to consider these changes as a potential source of large-scale military conflicts.

The systemic crisis, combining the imbalance of the piracy financial system with the exhaustion of the economic growth model based on credit stimulation of consumption, brought Western countries led by the United States to the line of strategic resource starvation, thereby increasing the risk of a military resolution of competitive contradictions. The situation is aggravated by the spiritual crisis of the modern West, which at one time, succumbing to the passion of the merchant, exchanged the Bible for a code of human rights and freedoms, eventually depleting its spiritual resource to the last limit.

Recently, the thesis that today's world is on the eve of large-scale geopolitical and technological shifts has been actively discussed. The world is experiencing a phase of “great upheaval” in the global evolutionary cycle, which began in the 1980s and is expected to end by the middle of the 21st century.

The world-system is expecting an increase in economic, political and social instability, which, according to experts, will lead to a second wave of the global economic crisis. This stage of the crisis may become a historical milestone in the development of the world political system. At the same time, destabilization of the global financial, economic and political system is expected, which will give rise to an unprecedented increase in social, as well as domestic and foreign political tension in most countries of the world.

The second wave of the crisis will force the main G20 players to find alternatives to the weakening dollar, optimize mechanisms for regulating financial markets, balance the terms of international trade, and look for ways to stabilize food prices.

Political and financial and economic crises of 2013 - 2014. may become a prelude to the dramatic events of the supposed third, final part (2014 - 2018) of the “great upheavals.” These events may be determined by the uncontrollable and unpredictable disintegration of current geopolitical and social structures. Thus, in the period from 2012 to 2018. the world may witness major geopolitical transformations.

According to experts from the Russian Academy of Sciences, the result of the current financial and economic crisis will inevitably be a radical change in the balance of power on the political map of the world. The sole military-political dominance of the United States in the world is ending, as well as its global economic leadership, which lasted a whole century. The United States has failed the test of monopolarity, exhausting itself with continuous wars in the Near and Middle East over the past decade. The United States today does not have enough resources to remain a world leader. “The role of the United States as a superpower is ending,” says German Federal Minister of Finance P. Steinbrock.

Real multipolarity presupposes a more balanced international distribution of wealth, as well as the transformation of international institutions - the UN, IMF, World Bank and others. The global institutions for managing the world economy - the IMF, the World Bank, etc. - are especially outdated. Today, they are dominated by the interests of the United States and Western Europe and the interests of countries with rapidly developing economies are poorly represented. Recently, even the IMF itself, at its regular annual session in 2011, admitted that the “Washington Consensus” had finally collapsed and called for the creation of a global economy in which there would be fewer risks and uncertainty, the financial sector would be regulated by the state, and income and benefits would be distributed across justice.

...the masters of the modern global world are the mentally structured and very few in number subjective political formations based on the foundations of Protestant mental-dogmatic thinking. They are able, unlike everyone else, to carry out design functions in geopolitics, while pursuing anti-Christian policies both in the post-Christian world and beyond.

The United States has existed as a state for a little over two centuries and makes up a very small part of the world's population. But as a real mental formation they rely on their unified truths a priori, which they dogmatically prescribe to all other states of the world.

...the power operators of the unipolar world and the elite of the “golden billion” aggressively, consistently and totally assert their values ​​and standards in the process of globalization as generally binding requirements for the whole world as integral conditions for their leadership. They act, in the words of A.S. Panarin, in the spirit of messianic self-confidence, with dogmatic-repressive, totalitarian methods. They do not shy away from the threat of using military force and its actual use. Suffice it to recall the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, and the three million Vietnamese who died as a result of American aggression in the 60s and 70s of the twentieth century. Let’s also not forget about the numerous coups d’etat organized by US intelligence services, and finally, the bombing of Yugoslavia with its subsequent dismemberment, the destruction of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and the hidden but real aggression against Syria.

In order to understand and predict the global processes taking place in the world, it is necessary to remember the dogma that underlies the national strategy of the United States - the dogma of the unacceptability of loss of world leadership for America. As an analysis of American declarative documents shows, primacy in the world geopolitical hierarchy is considered by the American ruling regime and the political elite as a necessary condition for the prosperity and development of the country in the 21st century.

The results of mathematical modeling of geopolitical dynamics, which was carried out by analysts from the Academy of Military Sciences together with the Russian Academy of Sciences, allow us to conclude that a victorious war, and necessarily a “conventional” one, is practically the only US tool for neutralizing the risk of losing geopolitical leadership.

At the same time, we must understand that leadership as such has a purely pragmatic character for the weakening world hegemon in the American way. First of all, it is necessary to ensure the consumer interests of the “golden billion”, that is, it is directly or indirectly directed against the rest of humanity. Global leadership is a unique and fairly reliable certificate for the right to undivided ownership, disposal and use of all the resources of the planet.

The method of maintaining dominance by initiating a large-scale armed conflict has long been known in political theory and practice. Based on this, we can postulate the following pattern: a radical change in the geopolitical configuration of the world, including one that determines the possibility of a change of leader, is realized only with corresponding radical changes in the geopolitical qualities of the leading countries of the world. Large-scale war leads, as history shows, to such changes. There is, of course, a “cold” way to neutralize geopolitical opponents - similar to what happened with the Soviet Union. The development and “finishing” of such technology continues today within the framework of the so-called “Arab Spring”. But it cannot yet be considered universal because, for example, it is not yet applicable to China, Iran, etc.

Interesting to note , that the United States has already used the military method of radical geopolitical elevation at least three times. As an analysis of the political configuration of the world after two world wars shows, the United States always ultimately received significant geopolitical benefits by increasing its status and changing the “geopolitical distance” between the world leader or other contenders in its favor.

Thus, as a result of the First World War, the United States reduced the geopolitical gap from the then leader, the British Empire, by almost a third. Moreover, it is interesting to note a kind of paradox, revealed quantitatively, and quite consistent with the conclusions of historians - the United States turned out to be the only one state, which ultimately increased their geopolitical status compared to its pre-war level.

The Second World War “helped” the United States, against the backdrop of a weakened Europe and the ruined Soviet Union, to become a world leader, and the subsequent collapse of the USSR, rightly called the geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century, freed us, however, only for a while, from a dangerous ideological and geopolitical enemy.

However, this gave the United States only a brief respite, as almost overnight, by historical standards, a new challenger, a new geopolitical rival, emerged: China. At the same time, China, in our opinion, is dangerous not so much as a contender for leadership, but as a contender for consumption of world resources that is above the norm from the US point of view, which objectively creates problems for the “golden billion”. The possibility of neutralizing these problems in the rapidly developing PRC is ensured, as already noted, only by war. At the same time, the essence of the American approach is that it is not the applicant himself who is attacked, but another state, the choice of which is determined by the “price of the issue.”

Thus, if at one time, with the help of Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan, the Americans tried to solve smaller economic and “subgeopolitical” problems, then with this “big bet” a corresponding “big partner” will be needed. According to military analysts, it is Iran, together with non-Arab Shiite forces such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Syria, that is most suitable for the role of such an “unwitting partner” in a new redistribution of resources, which, naturally, is realized at their expense.

The redistribution process has already started. Currently, as a result of the “Arab Spring,” provoked and controlled by America, the conditions have been created to unite the states of the Islamic world into a new “Arab Caliphate,” replacing their leaders with new American proxies. In addition to maintaining control over the world's oil and gas treasury, the alliance of Muslim states armed with the West and based on Islamic fundamentalism is called upon to protect the American economy and, in general, US energy interests in the East and Africa. The question arises - “from whom”? According to experts, primarily from the steadily growing economic and military power of China.

In light of the above, the next logical step for the United States is to eliminate the last obstacle to the implementation of plans to maintain American dominance. These obstacles are Syria and Iran. The “peaceful” method of overthrowing the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran, as we know, failed. Therefore, as military analysts note, the same scenario as in Iraq and Afghanistan will be applied to it, despite the fact that today the United States cannot even withdraw troops from there without human and material losses.

It is expected that, in addition to the economic one, an important result of the supposed American victory in the “big war” will be the implementation of the “New Greater Middle East” project. This project should cause very serious damage not only to China, but also to Russia. Plans to “reformat” the Middle East have already been announced in America in connection with the publication of the so-called “Peters map” in the Armed Forces Journal.

As follows from the published materials, Russia and China are “expelled” from the Mediterranean and the Middle East, Russia is cut off from the South Caucasus and Central Asia, and China is deprived of its last strategic energy supplier.

The “New Greater Middle East” excludes peaceful prospects for Russia, the possibility of any relatively “calm” development, since the unstable South Caucasus, under external US control, will become a zone of constant tension and a “detonator” for the “explosion” of the North Caucasus. And since Islamic fundamentalism will play the main destabilizing role, other subjects of the Russian Federation will also fall into the “kill zone.”

Today, China is actively “working” to displace the dollar and the share of the dollar in China’s foreign exchange reserves is steadily declining. In April 2011, the Central Bank of China announced a complete abandonment of the dollar in international settlements. It is clear that such a blow to the American system of economic dominance cannot go unanswered.

Iran is also working tirelessly to oust the dollar. In July 2011, the Iranian International Petroleum Exchange opened its doors. On it, transactions are settled only in euros and Emirati dirhams. At the same time, negotiations are underway with China on organizing the supply of Chinese goods in exchange for Iranian oil. This makes it possible to circumvent sanctions against Iran. The President of Iran announced plans to reach the milestone of bilateral trade between Iran and China at $100 billion. Under these conditions, US efforts to organize the international isolation of Iran lose all meaning.

These trends, unacceptable for the United States, are apparently irreversible and are capable of causing a sharp reaction, including the organization of “forceful” counteraction to emerging challenges and threats. According to experts, the deliberate undermining of stability in the countries of the Middle East and the Maghreb is the result of active actions by the United States, which can count on the fact that the destroyed infrastructure of the countries in the region will require colossal dollar injections. Restoring the economies of Iran and Syria, destroyed after the “big war,” will also contribute to the economic revitalization of the USA.

Thus, it becomes clear that the strategy implemented by America to maintain global leadership in a changing world is already beginning to move into real politics “from a position of strength”, where a way out of the crisis of the debt economy of the “paper dollar” is seen , including in “zeroing out” the debt accounts of the “bubble” of empty wealth. For this, a “big war” becomes necessary, following which the winner, as in his time at Bretton Woods, expects to dictate his terms to the rest of the world. The will to wage war for America, viewed in perspective, is the will to govern after the war.

In this regard, the following should be noted.

The German writer Thomas Mann, shortly before the outbreak of World War II, presciently noted that war is “just an escape from the problems of peacetime.” The French prose writer Romain Rolland echoed his sentiments: “Only bankrupt states resort to war as a last resort. War is the last trump card of a lost and desperate player, a disgusting speculation of swindlers and swindlers...”

US President D. Eisenhower has a statement that to this day characterizes the essence of American policy: “We will achieve peace, even if we have to fight for this.” Naturally, he had in mind the peace that suits America. At the same time, one cannot help but understand that this rhetoric is intended for only one thing - to justify the possibility of waging wars in the modern world.

The wars “for world peace” that the United States wages are an indicator of the inability of the American political system to resolve a bunch of acute problems associated with the impending collapse of the dollar as a world reserve currency and the collapse of the American financial pyramid.

The fact that the United States has openly set a course for the power redistribution of the world and the dismantling of the entire system of international law, including the abolition of the veto right of the UN Security Council, was officially announced by the penultimate director of the strategic planning department of the US State Department A.M. Slater-Berg on June 9, 2012. According to her According to this data, in addition to the fact that a crushing blow will be dealt to the economies of Europe and Russia, the US plan provides for the consistent implementation of the following military-political actions:

• The physical liquidation of President B. Assad with the subsequent organization in Syria of the massacre of Christians, Allawites, Druze, representatives of other faiths and small national groups.
• A preemptive strike against Hezbollah in Lebanon with the organization of a provocation against Iran and the launch of the process of physical destruction of Christians and Copts.
• Preparation and conduct of the military operation “Big Thunderstorm” against Iran.

In addition to this, hawks from Washington, who are evangelical Zionists, actively appear on American television with supposedly biblical prophecies and call on the United States to support the “King of the North” (Israel) in the coming Armageddon against the “King of the South” (Iran). They believe that a victorious war against Iran and Syria will give the West the opportunity to impose a “divinely sanctioned” New World Order, taking into account the interests of the NATO-OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) empire.

Obviously, we are talking, first of all, about the outbreak of the “Great War” in the Near and Middle East, the beginning of which was prepared by the events of the so-called. "Arab Spring".

There is no doubt that the Americans have been carefully and pragmatically preparing the space for a “Great War” in the Near and Middle East for a long time. In this regard, we can believe with a high degree of confidence that the “Great War” is coming. The most important question remains the degree of involvement and the form of Russia’s participation in it. Participation itself is beyond doubt and it is already becoming obvious that we are being “led” to the “Great War” consistently and purposefully.

That is why today all decisions of the country’s leadership in the political, economic, social and military-technical spheres must be considered “through a conceptual lens”, which can provide advanced recognition of the realities of the coming “Great War” and the possibility of designing a worthy place for Russia in the post-war world order.

The expert-analytical community is actively discussing a set of “nested” goals, which, according to the plan of the “Planner” of the “Big War,” can only be realized as a result of its outbreak.

The first group includes a number of fairly obvious, “on the surface” goals:

• to divert the attention of the Western population from the negative processes of the global crisis, to switch it to the image of a “global” enemy constructed by political strategists;
• write off huge government debts as much as possible;
• avoid the “slide” of the United States in 1932, revive the economy, create conditions for development “from scratch”;
• preserve the financial system based on the Washington Consensus and extend the existence of the Fed as a global issuer beyond 2012;
• provide America with a dominant position in the World System.

The second group includes the “taboo” and therefore not publicly discussed goal - providing a strategic perspective for Israel. The Jewish state in its current form can only exist sustainably in conditions of permanent confrontation with the Islamic world. It has a “victorious” advantage in the military-technical sphere, is distinguished by a high level of corporate subjectivity and, as a consequence, by a higher quality of “human material”. Israel is still able to defeat almost any Arab coalition. Monopoly possession of nuclear weapons in the region gives it a certain guarantee against the accidents of war and acts as an effective means of deterring large-scale use of military force by a possible coalition of states in the region.

Today, Israel is more interested than ever in starting a “Great War” in order to:

• confirm and permanently consolidate as a result of a victorious war its highest possible status, both in the regional and global political context;
• exclude, caused by the global economic crisis, a decrease or complete cessation of financial support from the West and, primarily, the United States, which accounts for 22% of Israel’s foreign trade and another $3.71 billion in direct gratuitous financial assistance;
• denucleize Iran and thereby maintain a monopoly on the possession of nuclear weapons in the region.

The third largest and most hidden goal is to launch mechanisms for the “reincarnation” of the colonial system in the format of the 21st century.

In this regard, it is advisable to remember that the Western world developed intensively within the framework of the colonial system for more than five centuries. And only in the second half of the twentieth century after the end of the World War, as a result of the formation of a powerful center of power in the person of the USSR, conditions were created that ensured its collapse. Thus, the current postcolonial state of the World-system lasts a little more than half a century. The logic of Western economic development predetermines the end of this period of material prosperity. As shown above, the West, in a market economy, can exist stably only with the constant receipt of additional resources from the outside. Thus, for such a system to succeed, it is necessary to have a controlled, politically subjectless colonial periphery from which to draw cheap resources.

Recent events, starting with the defeat of Yugoslavia, the seizure of Iraq and Afghanistan, the adoption of a new NATO strategic concept, ending with the aggression against Libya and the expansion of the “Arab Spring” process, clearly show that the periphery of the World System is facing a new colonization. This is already considered a geopolitical inevitability, since there are no strategic entities in the world capable of preventing this.

In the process of “new colonization,” a recodification of international law must occur with the final abandonment of the principles of the Yalta-Potsdam system of political world order. The world is waiting for the destruction of the fundamental principles of the UN, the elimination or significant reduction of the role of the institution of permanent members of the UN Security Council, the correction of the principle of sovereign equality of states, which in the conditions of the new colonial World-system will contradict its basic principles. As part of the recodification, international law will be forced to adapt to the consumer interests of the West. In the foreseeable future, we can expect that “legal” occupation or colonization within “recognized” zones of influence will take the place of the declared principles of self-determination and “non-interference” in the internal affairs of other countries. Through the efforts of the West, a system of international government will be reintroduced into international practice, in which real sovereignty will be retained only by the states that make up the “Core” of the World System. The “states” of the periphery will be allowed to have sovereignty only to the extent that does not interfere with the activities of transnational corporations under certain conditions.

In accordance with the ideas of Z. Brzezinski, the basis of the new World should be the “Big West” - the USA and the European Union, and the “Big East” - Japan, India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia. In the coming colonial world, Russia has no place as a subject of world politics. At the same time, they have been demanding from us for a long time that we must “share.” One gets the impression that the openly aggressive ideas of M. Albright and D. Cheney resonate with Russian liberals such as the famous academician who publicly discusses the possibility of “joint” management of Siberian resources with “world powers.”

This scenario now does not seem fantastic, given the fact that the Russian Empire, of which the Russian Federation is the legal successor, signed an international convention in 1884 containing the “principle of effective occupation.” It follows that if a country is unable to “effectively” manage its resources, then external management may be introduced in relation to it. At the end of the 19th century. this principle legitimized the colonial system, but in the 21st century it can become a valid norm of international law and will be the formal basis for the “legitimacy” of depriving Russia of its sovereign rights to manage its own territories and resources.

Over the past two decades, the real instrument of new colonization - the NATO bloc - has been significantly expanded, modernized and tested in numerous military actions. We refer those who consider this statement alarmist and anti-Western to the new NATO strategic concept adopted in 2010. in Lisbon. ...if you just carefully read it without “rebooting filters of awareness”, you can see that in modern conditions NATO is a geopolitical instrument to ensure the functioning of the “center - colonial periphery” system, in which only the Western world can safely exist. This is the military-political and police functions of the alliance. In fact, NATO is the combined military-political power of the states of the Western world, constituting the center of the World System, intended for new “crusades”, which, as we know, were primarily economic enterprises. Therefore, the NATO military system, in accordance with the plans of its masters, will be regularly sent to various regions of the world to ensure an uninterrupted supply of raw materials, energy resources and to solve punitive tasks.

At the same time, one of the few positive trends in the modern periphery of the World System is the search for opportunities to “unite the weak around the strong against the strong.” And here it is fundamentally important for the West to prevent the uncontrolled strengthening of any major raw material power with geopolitical status. Thus, the West completely “does not notice” such nuclear states as Israel, which is constantly destabilizing the situation in the Middle East, and unpredictable Pakistan, which cannot or does not want to exercise control over the activities of the military-terrorist organization Taliban on its territory. But oil and gas Iran, a member of the NPT with its ambitions for regional leadership, is the primary target of forced “democratization” for the West. In this regard, Iran’s so-called “nuclear program” is just a “casus belli” for the United States and its allies. Even if Iran completely abandons nuclear technology, this will not stop the West from planning to unleash a “Big War”.

Iran, as an object of Western interests, acts as a kind of “forefield” for Russia, a blow to which will cause significant damage to its external and internal national interests.

In this regard, it is appropriate to recall the famous statement of Z. Brzezinski that in the 21st century America will develop against Russia, at the expense of Russia and on the ruins of Russia. Obviously, one of the goals of the “Great War” is to block Russia’s efforts to create the Eurasian Union - a potentially powerful global “player” and, in the future, a strategic subject of geopolitics, which could formulate an alternative Project of not only its own, but also global development.

Speaking about alternative Projects or Scenarios for global development, it is necessary to remember that they are based on one or another spiritual imperative. Having a tendency towards expansion, one or another globalization scenario affects the mental-dogmatic foundation, values ​​and traditions of carriers of a different civilizational code. This in turn can give rise to religious and ethnic conflicts, which lead to changes in the political landscape of the Western and Eastern worlds. The cultural isolation that arises as a result of such processes inevitably causes political, psychological and national-cultural contradictions, the underlying causes of which are religious and dogmatic differences.

...globalism presupposes the entry of the world into a qualitatively new era associated with post-industrial society and postmodernity. The matrix of this model is the political structure of the United States, its federalism and liberal democracy, the spiritual foundations of which are based on a specific form of Protestantism - Unitarianism, which is close in its dogmatic content to Judaism. According to European researchers A. Negri and M. Hardt, the American “revolutionary project” means a gradual loss of ethnic, social, cultural, racial, religious identity and requires an even more accelerated transformation of “peoples” and “nations” into a quantitative cosmopolitan majority. But even if we ignore such a “revolutionary” position, the American global strategy itself, called “Empire” by the authors, is based on the fact that it does not recognize any political sovereignty for any collective entity - be it an ethnic group, a class, a people or a nation.

...the history of interaction with the West and, above all, with the United States shows that it is realistic to build relationships with them based on such a concept as “partners” - criminal shortsightedness. As K. Doyle used to say through the mouth of S. Holmes, since you, Watson, will not be dealing with the underworld, but with British politicians, then do not believe a single word they say.

The history of the “Great Wars” teaches that the maximum advantage in the coming “Great War” can be obtained by the side that enters it at the final stage. With a high probability, she will also be among the winners. In light of the above, one cannot but agree with the opinion of B. Borisov that the creation of a geopolitical configuration similar to the Eurasian Union will make it possible to delay Russia’s direct entry into the war. This can be achieved through a multiple increase in coalition power and the creation of buffer border zones, because Based on the experience of past wars, fighting in them may not spread to the territory of the metropolis, and this is a key foreign policy task...

The war in Ukraine became predictable when the “great project” of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria failed in the summer of 2012. And it became inevitable in December of that year, when the European Union and Russia could not agree on the terms of the energy package, writes NSNBC editor, psychologist and independent political consultant Christoph Leymann.

And the geopolitical situation that led to the war in Ukraine was created in the early 1980s.

One hundred years after the fatal shot in Sarajevo, which led the world to the First World War, Europe is again being pushed towards disaster. A hundred years ago, faithful statesmen could have prevented war. And today many of the Western leaders dress up in military uniforms, although they would not even be hired to work as flight attendants.

The war in Ukraine began in Libya and Syria.

In 2007, the discovery of the world's largest gas reserves in Iran and Qatar led to the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood, which then sparked the Arab Spring.

A joint gas pipeline project with Iran, Iraq, and Syria, it would transport Iranian gas from the Pars gas fields in the Persian Gulf to eastern Syria and then to Europe.

The implementation of this project between Iran, Iraq and Syria would lead to conflicts that were unacceptable to the US, UK, Israel and Qatar. Although some European countries, including Germany, Italy, Austria and the Czech Republic, saw undoubted benefits from such cooperation: thanks to Russian gas received through Nord Stream and Iranian gas, the EU would be able to cover about 50 percent of its needs.

It would be naive to suggest that Israel was not seriously concerned about the prospect of Iran becoming a major source of natural gas for the EU. Energy security issues influence foreign policy. Relations between the EU and Israel and Tehran's influence on the EU's position on Palestine and the situation in the Middle East are no exception to this rule.

The USA and Great Britain were not interested in competing with the Nabucco project. Qatar, which has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, saw a chance to gain recognition as a regional power in the Arab world and sent Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu a check for $10 billion, which was to be spent on preparing for war in Syria.

The US and UK will never allow the Russian-European alliance to control 50 percent of energy flows. As one NATO admiral, a native of a northern European country, told me during a yacht trip in the early 1980s, his “American colleagues in the Pentagon told me that the United States and Great Britain would never allow Soviet-European relations to develop to such an extent as to challenge the political, economic and military superiority of the USA and Great Britain on the European continent.
Such a development of events will be prevented by all means necessary, including provoking war in central Europe.”

As we can see, his forecasts are still relevant today.

By 2009, the Muslim Brotherhood project was already in full swing. The former French foreign minister recalled during an appearance on French television channel LPC: “I was in England two years before the violence in Syria. I met senior British officials who admitted to me that they were preparing for war in Syria. This was in the UK, not America. Britain orchestrated the rebel invasion of Syria. They even asked me, even though I was no longer Foreign Secretary, if I would like to take part. Naturally, I refused, I said that I was French and I was not interested. There are some countries that dream of destroying the Arab states - remember the events in Libya, and now the relations between Syria and Russia.”

A quick note. Please note that the statement was made after NATO abused UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011) and invaded Libya.

Then the US Permanent Representative to NATO, Ivo H. Daalder, and after him the Supreme Allied Commander Europe and the Commander of US European Command, James G. Stavridis, published an article in March 2012, “NATO's Invasion in Libya: Opportunity and a Model for Future Interventions.”

The West's defeat in Syria made war in Ukraine inevitable.

In June and July 2012, some 20,000 NATO mercenaries, who were recruited and trained in Libya and then deployed to the Jordanian border, forcibly captured the city of Aleppo. The campaign failed and the Libyan Brigade was wiped out by the Syrian army.

It was after this decisive defeat that Saudi Arabia began a massive campaign to recruit jihadists through the al-Qaeda network.

Washington was forced to make an attempt to “politically” distance itself from the “extremists.” It became obvious that the war with Syria would not be won. This is why the British Parliament banned bombing of Syria in August 2013.

The war with Ukraine became predictable from this point on, and events in Ukraine throughout 2012 and 2013 provide compelling evidence that plans to overthrow the Yanukovych government and destabilize Ukraine were launched after July 2012.

The only chance to change the situation regarding Ukraine was given at the end of 2012, during negotiations on the third energy package.

On December 21, 2012, the leaders of 27 EU member countries and Russia held a summit in Brussels, but did not solve the problem. This is the starting point. On December 22, 2012, NSNBC published an article “Russia - EU, meeting in Brussels: The risk of war in the Middle East and Europe is increasing.”

Until February 9, 2013, relations between Russia and the main NATO members had deteriorated so much due to a lack of mutual understanding on energy issues that Russian Ambassador to NATO Alexander Grushko said during a meeting with colleagues in Brussels:

“We believe that the global community has ample opportunity to engage in energy cooperation and ensure energy security without using political-military organizations as a tool.”

Not everyone understood the words of the Russian ambassador.

On February 21, the Ukrainian parliament was seized by masked armed men. The President was removed from office. One of the first official decrees of the new government was a ban on the use of Russian as a second state language in the regions.
Naturally, such statements tore Ukraine into two parts. On February 22, 2014, the governors of the southeastern and southern regions of the country convened a congress in Kharkov and refused to recognize the legitimacy of the new government.

Did the Boeing tragedy become a new shot at Sarajevo or, on the contrary, an impetus for the peaceful integration of the Russian and European economies?

The logic of history says that the first is more correct.

New Eastern Outlook