The situation in the world is on the brink of war. Russia and the US on the brink of war? Expert opinion

The existence of the Putin regime is largely prolonged by the indecision of the West and the fear of US President Donald Trump of the head of the Kremlin. At the same time, now the world community is getting closer to a decisive blow to Vladimir Putin, because of which he will have to think about maintaining his power, and not about a war with Ukraine and other adventures.

About ittold the Russian political scientist and publicist ANDREY PIONTKOVSKY, who now lives in Washington.

The presidential elections have passed, but the "godfather" is still in power in Russia. Do you think it will Russian elite try to remove Putin? Is a similar scenario possible in the coming year?

In general, these modes end only with a scenario palace coup. In elections, power in authoritarian regimes does not change. Everyone has talked about this twenty times, but I want to emphasize that there was a big buzz in the Russian media about what an outstanding result Putin got, and the elections themselves were called free.

But let's not forget about two fundamental things. Firstly, of the two opposition candidates, one was shot practically on Red Square (Boris Nemtsov, - ed.), and the other was unfairly convicted and removed from the elections (Aleksei Navalny, - ed.). So what kind of fair elections can we talk about?

But that's not all. Now we have mathematical methods Sergei Shpilkin (who analyzes electoral statistics - ed.), that is, an analysis of statistical data by polling station, by turnout, which simply shows the fingerprints of falsifications. According to the results, 10 million votes were cast for Putin.

You see, after that a person deserves life sentence, because we see both murders and large-scale falsifications - these crimes are organized, first of all, by Putin himself.

Therefore, elections are manipulation. But this does not negate the fact that even if 10 million were attributed to him, then 45 million voted, even if some of them are under administrative resources. And some of those who voted are inspired by this militaristic, but essentially fascist propaganda, where the annexation of the territories of neighboring states and aggression are considered a merit and a feat.

Such regimes leave only as a result of serious geopolitical defeats, and their scale depends on the determination of the West. And, of course, not by military means, since no one wants to fight, especially with nuclear power, which is headed by a fucking man, as Nemtsov once said to Ukrainian television. But the West has enormous economic resources, and I am telling you this from Washington.

Let me remind you that on January 29 a Kremlin report was prepared that could have dealt a deadly blow to the Putin regime. After all, in addition to the list of 210 people, there were hundreds of pages of financial information showing in detail the illegally acquired criminal fortune of all these people, and this is all the Russian elite. For some mysterious reason, as a result of the visit of the heads of the Russian intelligence services to the United States, this information was moved to the secret part of the report and not made public.

And the fight that is going on in America right now is essentially a fight between President Trump and the majority of the American military-political establishment. Now no one has any doubts, they say it openly, that Trump is terribly afraid of Putin, knowing for sure that he has very serious compromising evidence on him. The last thing that caused indignation here was when all Trump's advisers wrote to him in large letters not to congratulate Putin, but he called, congratulated him and once again showed the degree of his dependence and fear.

In my opinion, the struggle between the political establishment and Trump is coming to its climax along the lines of the Mueller investigation (Robert Muller is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 US elections - ed.). I don't know if it is widely known to Ukraine and your readers, but all of America was shocked by a 15-minute interview by former CIA director John Brennan. First, it is unprecedented in the harshness of the accusations - Brennan calls Trump a cornered animal. Secondly, Brennan said almost openly that he had enough information on Trump that would shock America.

All this is directly related to your question. When all this huge financial information about one trillion dollars stolen from the Russian people is published, it will make a very strong impression on Russian society.

Plus another half trillion dollars in the UK, where we see the same story. Both [UK Foreign Secretary] Boris Johnson and [UK Prime Minister] Theresa May have said that London is not a place for the criminal capital of Putin's elite, but still something is stopping them.

All of them are on the verge of this decisive step. And I assure you that 99 percent will greet with jubilation the publication of a report on the Russian elite. There will also be a big blow to all this anti-Western propaganda because it is backed by the same criminals who are stacking up their stolen treasures in the West. I think that the system of Russian kleptocracy will not withstand such a financial, economic, psychological and political blow, and a very serious discord will begin in it.

- Will this be a good reason to overthrow Putin?

I would not mention the word "overthrow". In this situation, it will be very difficult for not only Putin, but the entire Russian political class, the entire elite to remain in power.

Speaking about the presidential elections in Russia in the occupied Crimea. Many said that they are illegal, since Crimea is the territory of Ukraine. But they said and forgot.

It's the same story. Here in Brussels there is a summit of the EU countries, and they will also emphasize there for sure that this was a violation of the constitutions of Ukraine and Russia, international law and whatever. However, almost all leaders European states, except for Great Britain, gritting their teeth, but congratulated Putin on the so-called victory in the so-called elections.

Why congratulate a criminal who killed one of his opponents, condemned another and threw in 10 million votes? They know all this very well.

It is this inconsistency of the West that prolongs the existence of this regime.

- Are they really afraid of Putin's "nuclear club" or are there other reasons?

Still crazy crazy, but he does not eat soap. And nuclear weapons are mutual suicide. But he is not a martyr and is not going to commit suicide.

First, these trillions of dollars are working in the Western economy. And they have anti-money laundering legislation - in fact, no new sanctions are needed, why are they fooling around? It is clear that Russian leaders could not earn tens or, as in the case of Putin, hundreds of billions of dollars honestly, in their free time from their state work. And they do not apply this legislation.

Why? This money is very main part for the functioning of the economy of the West, and a trillion dollars is a huge amount of money.

Take that Trump. Even if there is no compromising evidence - and now everyone in Washington is sure that everything described in the report of the English intelligence officer Christopher Steele (with compromising evidence on Donald Trump, - "Apostrophe") - is true, then what are the purchases worth Russian oligarchs or front men of Trump's houses, which were worth 2-3 times the market value? That is, Russia exports corruption.

In addition, all Russian agents in the West are still repeating all sorts of nonsense, which many Americans are subject to, that "we need Russians to solve some international problems in Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine." The West cannot face the truth in any way and does not understand how to deal with international terrorism without Russians. They do not understand that the so-called Russians, in fact, the Kremlin, create these problems, including international terrorism.

But, in my opinion, the case is nearing a denouement. And we see a number of facts showing what Moscow is really doing in the Middle East, Korea and other regions. I watch all this from Washington.

If we talk about some kind of temporary forecasts, then I think that Trump will not remain US President by January 1, 2019. And without Trump, the opposition to the Putin regime will be much more energetic.

Already, Trump has been sidelined on many issues. Take the Ukrainian issue, where all the politics are carried out by Kurt Volker, who has a more pro-Ukrainian position than your leadership before the adoption of the law on Russian aggression (the so-called law on the de-occupation of Donbass - ed.). After all, before that, only Volker clearly said that we were talking about occupation, and Russian troops were present there. Yes, and decided to sell anti-tank missiles Ukraine. So the situation is changing.

Moscow's mistake is as follows: they thought they had planted Trump in the White House and now they would rule America, but nothing of the sort happened. The institutions there are stronger than the president. But so far in many serious issues he manages to slow down. In particular, if we talk about those decisive sanctions that were to be announced on January 29th. This will be a decisive blow to the Putin system.

Replacing Rex Tillerson with Mike Popmeo as Secretary of State, what role will that play in US-Russia relations?

Tillerson was smarter than Trump and less outspoken, although he was also a pro-Putin man. How could one, having worked for 19 years in the Russian oil industry, not get smeared from head to toe, and even receive an order?

And Pompeo is a person who is definitely negative about the Putin regime. But he has a good personal relationship with Trump. And this is good in that he will use these relations in order to continue to hold Volker's position, at least in the Ukrainian direction.

All processes are slowly, but developing within the United States not in favor of Putin. But the final step will be to remove Trump from power.

Ahead of the World Cup in Russia. Do you think Putin will be calm until June or can he put pressure on some of the conflict zones?

Of course, he wants to hold the World Cup. It is unlikely that he will go to some serious aggravation. But where can he? After all, he perfectly understands that he was defeated in the main areas. Let's take Ukraine - where is his "Russian world" and "Novorossiya"? That failed as well. Donbass is not what Putin dreamed of. Remember, he had a Novorossiya plan with the capture of 10-12 Ukrainian regions and he expected to unleash an ethnic war between Russians and Ukrainians? But he did not succeed, and he suffered a huge defeat. The majority of the Russian population in Ukraine remained loyal to the Ukrainian state and its choice. This was Putin's first fundamental defeat.

And in Syria, he has already successfully withdrawn troops three times, and then, at the very first clash with the Americans, he suffered such a shameful defeat that neither the fact of the battle itself, nor the three hundred dead are reported in Moscow at all.

Therefore, he can only arrange a nuclear hysteria, show some cartoons that he has some kind of incredible weapon with which he can destroy America. But this has been known for 50 years. But it has also been known for 50 years that the United States also has weapons. If he can destroy the States 10 times, then they can destroy Russia 20 times. Everyone knows this. Russians and Americans somehow learned to live with this, and for 50 years neither US presidents nor general secretaries foolish waving these very dummies atomic bombs weren't doing. This is a typical behavior of a gopnik from the gateway: "Now I'll hit you with a Finn." That's his whole foreign policy. But gradually they begin to deal with it.

- Exercises were held the day after the elections Russian troops in Crimea. What was Putin trying to show by this?

He has competent military and diplomats who understand how a large-scale escalation of the war in Ukraine will end, say, a campaign against Mariupol or, God forbid, against Kyiv. He is not up to these things now. For him, the main thing is to somehow hold out in power. And how and on what - he does not know.

You see, he has raised the stakes so much that he does not know how to take some elementary steps. For example, if he really left the Donbass, remaining in the Crimea, Ukraine would not like it very much, but the West would welcome it. No one, of course, recognizes this, but the West will turn a blind eye to this for a while. Let's remember how it was with the Baltic states. After all, the states never recognized the annexation of the Baltic states (by the Soviet Union, - ed.). But he cannot even go for that, because he has created for himself the image of the great leader of the "Russian world", and any step towards some kind of compromise will be considered his defeat and he will not even be able to stay in his brigade. He is in a very difficult position.

And how did the United States perceive Putin's victory in the elections? What is the general assessment of the so-called elections in Russia?

The overall assessment of the election is outrageous, and Trump exacerbated it with his congratulations. Senator John McCain, who is not always supported, expressed himself most clearly. But in this case, it is the common opinion of the entire establishment that it was absolutely shameful for an American president to congratulate a dictator who won a fake election.

The situation is complicated by a large number of foreign participants in the conflict on a relatively compact territory (185 thousand sq. Km), comparable to Sverdlovsk region(1% of the area of ​​the Russian Federation) or a quarter of Afghanistan.

The general alignment of forces is as follows: in the Syrian theater of operations, Russia and the United States, Iran and Israel, the United States and Turkey directly or indirectly oppose each other in coalitions. There is also a fierce struggle between the Turks and the Kurds, religious pressure from Qatar is felt, and echoes of the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq are heard.

The US 700 billion defense budget is 10 times higher than the Russian one, and yet the French publication Atlantico claims: "USA - Russia: war has been declared, although no one has realized it yet ... The answer to the death of Russian mercenaries will probably happen sooner or later, and there Moreover, this is not about revenge at all (Putin is a cold-blooded politician), but about strategy: you need to show the enemy that there is a line that he better not cross."

The authoritative American newspaper The Washington Post adds: "Russia believes that it will be able to squeeze the US out of Syria. It will be a disaster."

The gradual disappearance of IS fighters (a terrorist group banned in Russia and a number of countries of the world) and other terrorist groups from the Syrian "chessboard" exacerbates contradictions and provokes "direct conflicts between the United States and Turkey, Israel and Iran, and even between the United States and Russia."

vietnam syndrome

And yet after global strike"The US Air Force on the left bank of the Euphrates has not fundamentally changed the alignment of forces. Israel exchanged air strikes with Syria and Iran (an Israeli plane was shot down). Turkey continued to "clean up" the border Kurdish enclave, and Erdogan's "Olive Branch" is already hanging over the American troops stationed nearby (according to various sources, from 2 to 5 thousand military personnel).Syrian government troops, with the support of Russian videoconferencing finish off terrorist groups in the northern province of Idlib and in the suburbs of Damascus. What will happen next?

The Iraqi edition of Al Alam, not without reason, calls the recent UN Security Council resolution on a 30-day truce in Syria a cover for the operational deployment of the "New Syrian Army" hastily formed by the Americans in Al-Tanf. Allegedly opposition "fronts", but in fact terrorist groups change only the sign-franchise and the points of deployment on Syrian territory.

moment of truth

The influential American magazine Newsweek previously noted: "The US has lost the war in Syria to Russia and Iran." Indeed, seven years after the start of the war in Syria, Washington has less and less room to maneuver, not to mention the reasons for building American military bases on Syrian territory. The legitimate government of the country, with the support of the allies, slowly but surely regains control over the provinces and borders of the SAR. Sooner or later, US military instructors and a ragtag "rebel" will travel from Syria to other hotspots in Asia and Africa.

The Pentagon says Russia is preventing the US from dominating the Middle East and Central Asia, on the ground and in the air. The Americans accuse Moscow of the failure of the operation to destroy the Syrian chemical weapons and are comprehensively preparing the Europeans for tactical nuclear strike across Russia. They are also threatening new sanctions. It seems that Washington has completely lost touch with reality.

US permissiveness is closely linked to impunity. "Red lines" will be marked in Syria weightily, rudely, visibly. I believe that a little more than two weeks remain to wait for the Russian response to the "Euphrates greeting" of the US Air Force.

Relations of the USSR with Western countries in the mid-1950s - early 1960s. After Stalin's death, representatives of the party elite, in particular G. M. Malenkov, came to the conclusion that nuclear war, which is fraught with mortal danger for all mankind. The Soviet leadership, while maintaining a policy of supporting communist and "anti-imperialist" forces, took a number of steps aimed at normalizing relations with the West.
In the summer of 1955, the first meeting of the heads of states and governments of the USSR, the USA, England and France after the Potsdam Conference took place in Geneva. The Soviet delegation, headed by N. S. Khrushchev, came up with a draft treaty on collective security in Europe. American President D. Eisenhower proposed initially to resolve the issue of German unification, for which the Soviet side was not ready. As a result, an attempt to conclude an agreement between the two blocs was unsuccessful. However, the Geneva talks proved the very possibility of reaching a compromise between West and East. A peculiar consequence of the "spirit of Geneva", established in international relations, was the withdrawal of Soviet and American troops from Austria, the establishment of diplomatic relations between
The USSR and the FRG, the signing of the Soviet-Japanese declaration, which provided for the termination of the state of war and the restoration of diplomatic relations. In 1958, an agreement was concluded between the Soviet Union and the United States on cooperation in the field of culture and economy.
During the "peace offensive" the USSR announced a unilateral reduction of its armed forces and the elimination of military bases in Finland and China. In 1957, he submitted proposals to the UN to suspend nuclear tests, mutual obligations to renounce the use atomic weapons, on the consistent reduction of the armed forces of the opposing blocs. In 1958, the USSR unilaterally stopped nuclear tests.
However, on the main line international relations- between the USSR and the USA - it was not possible to achieve serious changes. The first ever visit of the head of the Soviet government to the United States, which took place in 1959, was not marked by the signing of any serious documents in the field of arms limitation. The achievement of long-term agreements was hampered by a lack of trust between the superpowers. At the same time, the USSR and the USA ruthlessly cracked down on political forces that were objectionable to them in countries that were in their sphere of influence (the participation of the Soviet Army in suppressing the anti-communist uprising in Hungary, the overthrow of the government in Hungary by American troops). Dominican Republic).
In May 1960, Soviet-American relations were overshadowed by the appearance in the airspace of the USSR of an American reconnaissance aircraft, which was shot down by air defense forces. The Berlin Crisis of 1961 drew a line under the brief era of warming international relations. It erupted after the failure of the Soviet-American summit meeting in Vienna, when President John F. Kennedy refused to consider proposals for the status of Berlin.
On August 19, 1961, with the consent of Moscow, the government East Germany erected a concrete wall that fenced off West Berlin from the territory of the GDR. These actions violated the decisions of the Potsdam Conference, which provided for freedom of movement in the city. Outlining retaliatory measures, the United States considered the likelihood of a military conflict with the USSR. The American military planned to break through tank columns to Berlin from the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany. At the same time, one of the Soviet military bases located in the GDR could be subjected to atomic bombing. In the coming conflict, the United States counted on the superiority of its nuclear forces. However, the protests of West German politicians, who feared that the country would turn into a theater of nuclear war, prevented worst case development of events.
Caribbean crisis. In the 1950s, the US and the USSR intensively built up nuclear weapons. Along with long-range bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles(ICBMs) capable of reaching any point on enemy territory through outer space. Submarines capable of striking from the depths of the oceans were also armed with missiles with nuclear warheads. The ongoing nuclear arms race had two major consequences. On the one hand, it led to the accumulation of each of the superpowers nuclear capability capable of repeatedly destroying the enemy. On the other hand, the threat of nuclear weapons set limits on the operation of conventional means and weapons, and prevented the possibility of an escalation of an armed conflict. First " nuclear factor affected during the Korean War. To an even greater extent, he declared himself during the Caribbean crisis of 1962.
The crisis was the result of a whole chain of events that occurred long before October 1962. In 1957, the Americans deployed missiles in Greece and Turkey medium range Jupiter type. This created a new "window of vulnerability" for the USSR due to the short time - compared to intercontinental missiles - for the Jupiters to reach the industrial centers of the south of the European part of the country. Taking retaliatory actions, the Soviet leadership took advantage of the situation that had developed after the victory in Cuba in 1959 of the revolutionary forces led by F. Castro. The new Cuban government nationalized the property of American companies, which hurt US interests. The administration of John F. Kennedy exerted powerful pressure on Cuba, the apotheosis of which was the preparation of a landing on the "Island of Freedom" by the opponents of Castro (which ended in failure). The Cuban leader turned to the USSR for help. Several launch sites for Soviet medium-range missiles with nuclear warheads were secretly deployed in Cuba.
The leadership of the United States learned about the incident from aerial photography data. The territory of America turned out to be vulnerable to attack: the short flight time of Soviet missiles made it impossible to launch interceptor missiles. In October 1962, the US President announced the establishment of a naval blockade of Cuba: all ships going to the island were to be inspected by the US military. In addition, Kennedy demanded as soon as possible dismantle and withdraw Soviet missiles.
Soviet ships going to Cuba were accompanied by the forces of the Navy, including submarines equipped with nuclear weapons. A collision between the two fleets seemed almost inevitable, which would lead to a large-scale war between the USSR and the USA. The armed forces of both states were brought to a state of full combat readiness.
In this situation, nuclear warheads played the role of a deterrent. In the leading circles of the superpowers, the opinion prevailed that the exchange of blows would have irreversible consequences. American experts and politicians pointed out that the Soviet Union's use of its nuclear weapons would be disastrous for the United States, even in the event of a pre-emptive strike by the Americans. "We don't have enough bulldozers to clean up the bodies," said one prominent American politician. Prudence prevailed - Khrushchev and Kennedy were able to conclude an agreement. In exchange for the commitment of the United States not to attack Cuba, the Soviet Union removed its missiles from the island. The Americans, in turn, dismantled the Jupiters, which were located near the borders of the USSR.
The Cuban Missile Crisis forced the superpowers and other nuclear-weapon states to start limiting the nuclear-missile arms race. In 1963, an agreement was signed banning nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, outer space and under water. In 1968, the USSR, the USA and Great Britain signed an agreement on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. These agreements have become one of critical factors which contributed to the onset of a subsequent period of detente in international tension.
Struggle for influence in the "third world". In the 1950s and 1960s, the superpowers continued to compete for influence in the Third World. The USA and the USSR provided military-political and economic assistance, which firmly tied the recipient country to the donor country. The rapid collapse of the colonial system created favorable conditions for the Soviet Union to intensify its activities in the "third world".
In 1957-1964 The leadership of the USSR signed over 20 various cooperation agreements with developing countries. Military-political and economic support was provided primarily to those states that declared their "anti-imperialist" position in the international arena or the choice of "socialist orientation" as a priority for internal development. Large-scale assistance, which placed a heavy burden on the Soviet economy, in some cases made up a significant part of the budget of the USSR allies (in India - 15%, in the United Arab Republic - up to 50% of funds allocated for economic development).
Another important instrument of influence of the superpowers in the "third world" was the supply of weapons, the participation in regional conflicts of military advisers or military contingents. Battlefields acted as military training grounds for testing new weapon systems. At the same time, the USSR and the USA covered up their geopolitical interests with ideological maneuvers such as "assistance developing countries and fighting the forces of international imperialism" or "defending the free market and the values ​​of democracy." At the same time, the leaders of the "Third World" countries often used anti-Soviet or anti-American rhetoric for purposes very far from those proclaimed in words. Concluding a military alliance with the countries of the Western or Eastern bloc and receiving economic and military-technical assistance from their "partner", they expected to resolve local political, religious or ethnic conflicts in their favor.
War in Vietnam. In 1954, the division of Vietnam was carried out, which, after many years of hard struggle, was liberated from the power of the French colonialists. A pro-Soviet regime was established in the northern part of the country, and a pro-American regime in the southern part. AT South Vietnam against American troops and their local allies, military operations were carried out by the "Viet Cong", who were assisted by their northern comrades-in-arms and the Chinese. Americans gradually began to increase their military presence in Vietnam. Looking for a pretext for large-scale bombing and offensive operations ground forces, they provoked in 1964 the so-called "Tonkin Incident": US representatives said that their ships were allegedly attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin by North Vietnamese boats.
After that, American troops began to take a direct part in hostilities. US aircraft subjected the territory of North Vietnam to "carpet" bombing. During the years of the Vietnam War (1964-1973), American pilots dropped 7.8 million tons of bombs, incendiary and poisonous substances. 80% of Vietnamese cities and provincial centers were wiped off the face of the earth. From the Soviet Union, Vietnam received the latest anti-aircraft systems, whose combat crews were mainly soviet soldiers and officers. Soviet pilots also took part in the battles. During the first five years of the war, the Americans lost more than 3 thousand combat aircraft. Although by the end of the 1960s the number of United States troops in Vietnam reached half a million people, they failed to achieve a turning point in the course of hostilities.
The Vietnam War, which claimed the lives of many thousands of young people, caused a real split in American society. A powerful anti-war movement has unfolded in the United States, supported all over the world. R. Nixon, who won the 1968 presidential election, hastened to announce the gradual withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam.
The "Vietnamization" of the war - that is, the transfer of the main functions of fighting the enemy to the South Vietnamese army - ultimately led to the defeat of the United States. According to the Paris Agreements In 1973, the Americans were forced to withdraw all their troops from Vietnam. In 1975, the South Vietnamese regime fell, and the northern and southern parts of the previously divided country united. The defeat in the Vietnam War led to a decline in the international prestige of the United States and caused the American leadership to start looking for ways to defuse international tension. A persistent "Vietnamese syndrome" has formed in American society - an unwillingness to participate in any regional conflict.

The war in Syria, which is expected any day, may end with the Third World War, as both experts and ancient prophecies speak of. Moreover, it is already clear that 20 countries may be drawn into the operation declared as a three-day bombing to prevent the use of chemical weapons against the civilian population.

“If the Americans go on a ground operation, Russia may well get involved in the war. Then it will definitely be the Third World War,” said Russian military expert Viktor Baranets. Israel will also get involved. On the whole, everything will be very serious."

Several prophecies at once say that the end of the world will be provoked by a war in Syria. So, the famous clairvoyant Vanga repeatedly spoke about the upcoming global change in the world, though without naming exact date. “Will that time come soon? No, not soon. Syria has not yet fallen! Syria will collapse at the feet of the winner, but the winner will not be the same! Only Russia will be saved. There is an ancient Indian (Aryan) teaching. It will spread throughout the world. new books, and they will be read everywhere on Earth. It will be the Fiery Bible. The day will come when all religions will disappear! A new teaching will come from Russia. She will be the first to be cleansed."

In the Revelation of Ivan the Theologian "Apocalypse" the events preceding the end of the world and the second coming of Jesus Christ are described in this way: "The sixth angel blew his trumpet, and I heard one voice from the four horns of the golden altar standing before God, saying to the sixth angel who had a trumpet: free the four angels associated with great river Euphrates". The four angels liberated at the Euphrates River can be Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, through whose territory this river flows.

According to the writing of another prophet Isaiah, Damascus will turn into a heap of ruins: “Damascus is excluded from the number of cities and will be a heap of ruins. Damascus with the rest of Syria; with them it will be the same as with the glory of the children of Israel, says the Lord of Hosts.

Now the issue of the bombing is stalling in the US Congress. But it is possible that the Americans will return to this topic in a few weeks or months.

"Obama has repeatedly made it clear that he does not trust Assad. The Americans may demand the removal and destruction of Syria's chemical reserves, but Damascus will not agree to this. The conflict may escalate again," Russian political analyst Sergei Markov said.

There is a way out of the crisis

There was a chance to avoid the bombing of Syria and, accordingly, a possible Third World War. Barack Obama agreed with Russia's proposal not to attack Syria if Damascus puts the chemical weapons under international control. Damascus doesn't seem to mind.

"This proposal was agreed in advance and it is very beneficial for the Syrian side, since the threat of an attack on the chemical warehouses of the militants was very real," Russian orientalist Said Gafurov, who met with the Syrian Foreign Minister on Monday, told Segodnya. under the control of international experts. It is even beneficial for Syria to declassify these warehouses, since they exist not so much to use these weapons, but to intimidate a potential adversary - Israel. At the same time, such a way out of the crisis is beneficial to Obama - Congress will not give him permission to bomb and somehow the president will have to abandon his military plans."

World War III - US strategy

In 1938, England and France pushed Hitler to war with their own hands, allowing him to occupy Czechoslovakia and sanctioning the Anschluss of Austria. But then the onset of the brown plague could be stopped. If London and Paris had shown more determination, Europe would not have been in ruins in 7 years and there would not have been 70 million dead. On the ashes of Europe, a new global empire has grown - the United States. North America received a huge financial income from both World War II and the post-war reconstruction of Europe and was able to fully recover from the effects of the Great Depression.

Now we are in the initial phase of the global crisis, which may last ten years, and similar, and perhaps even stronger than the depression that befell the world in the 20-30s of the last century. But now the US is preparing to overcome the crisis.

The United States is simultaneously creating the conditions both for the process of reindustrialization - the restoration of the full technological cycle of North American industry, and for the emergence of an enemy with which, after the end of the crisis, it would be possible to unleash a new one. world war, capable of giving the United States another 100 years of progressive economic development.

Over the past 10 years, the Americans have taken a significant step in the development of their fuel and energy complex, which influenced the change in US policy in the Middle East. If even 10 years ago, the White House, conducting military interventions, pursued the goal of controlling a comfortable level of oil prices, now the United States is interested in only one thing - in increasing the difference in quotations between stock grades of Brent oil traded in Europe and WTI, quoted on North American market. The United States benefits from the growth of Brent quotes, since this allows, relative to Europe and Asia, to reduce production costs in America without reducing the cost of labor.

As the goals changed, so did the policy. America does not seek to create controlled regimes in the Arab world, whose task would be to ensure uninterrupted supplies of oil and gas. Now the US is leaving behind the chaos of civil war, death and destruction.

The United States set fire to the entire Middle East and North Africa - Brent oil quotes remain at a level above $ 110 per barrel, in Europe and China there is a reduction in production. However, if we look at the countries for which recent times the so-called Arab Spring has swept by, we will see that secular nationalist regimes have formed in all these countries.

Despite the conditions specific to Europeans, the development of nation-states in the Middle East and North Africa similar to the development of nation-states in Europe from the end of the 19th century until the outbreak of World War II. After the collapse of continental empires caused by the consequences of the First World War, nationalist states were formed in Europe. Many of them respected the rights of national minorities and religious denominations. Approximately the same situation was in Libya and Egypt and is still preserved in Syria. By the way, Iran, one might say, is following the path of Spain during the reign of General Franco.

The strengthening of nation-states inevitably leads to the formation of an elite, vitally and financially interested in the preservation and enrichment of their nation-state. And even if members of the elite were fed by foreign states, these elites themselves begin to defend national interests, often running counter to the interests of former sponsors.

For Iran, Syria, Egypt and Libya, the European market is the only one where oil and gas can be supplied with low transportation costs. Which means lower energy prices for Europe. But this goes against the US plans for a new industrialization. It is no coincidence that unrest in Syria began exactly after agreements were reached between Syria, Iran and Iraq on laying a gas pipeline through which Iranian gas destined for Europe was to be supplied to Syrian LNG terminals.

In the 30s of the last century in Europe, not without the influence of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, with the tacit connivance of France and Great Britain, the elites of the new national states leveled democratic institutions in a short time, establishing pro-Nazi or pro-fascist regimes. Gradually began the persecution of national and religious minorities. Organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which profess radical forms of Islam, can be attributed, according to European tradition, to religious pro-fascist organizations. The Muslim Brotherhood, which is trying to establish radical religious regimes in the Arab world, is sponsored by the closest US allies Qatar, Jordan and Saudi Arabia - countries, to put it mildly, not distinguished by either democracy or religious tolerance. Against their background, Iran can be called a state making great strides in democratization and in the development of a secular society.

After the chaos sown by the US in the Middle East, radical religious regimes may form in the Arab world, which will be united into one huge caliphate. Like the Third Reich, this caliphate will have close ties to the US financial world. As with Nazi Germany, many North American bankers and industrialists are interested in establishing such a caliphate.

As long as the American economy recovers from the crisis and a new robotics industry develops in the United States, the religious extremist caliphate will be able to accumulate enough weapons to wage a full-scale war. At the same time, in Europe, which is in a deep crisis, a socio-political situation will be created in which the emergence of a new authoritarian empire is possible. At the same time, the role of strangers, on whom it will be possible to write off all the troubles, and, above all, expensive oil, will be performed by Muslims or Arabs. A world war will become inevitable. The reason, perhaps, will be a terrorist attack on the territory of Europe, which will be a response to the deportation of Muslims or the organization of concentration camps for terrorist Arabs.

World War III will bring destruction on such a colossal scale that the United States will be able to develop systematically for more than 100 years without social upheavals on its territory. Not to mention the profits that the Americans plan to receive from the war itself.

In this regard, the unwillingness of Europe and the main US ally Great Britain to start a war with Syria is understandable. The NATO bloc also decided to step back from the Syrian adventure. But, in principle, the US rejection of the alliance only plays into the hands of the US. In the scenario described above, the Americans do not need NATO, because they will try to wage the third world war by proxy, entering it at the last stage, as it was in the first and second world wars. The North Atlantic bloc, on the other hand, may prematurely, and quite possibly not on the right side, draw the Americans into the slaughter. Most likely, NATO is waiting for the fate of the UN, with which the United States has long been disregarded and uses it as a tool to promote its own interests.

Never before have the interests of the United States and Europe been so opposed as they are now. However, just as in the 30s of the 20th century France and Great Britain were more frightened by the chimera of the communist threat than by the obvious facts of Hitler's preparation for war, so now Europe prefers to see the threat in Russia rather than recognize the obvious fact - the United States has ceased to be a guarantor European security and become a force pushing Europe and the world to a third world war.