The US strategy in the war against Russia on the Ukrainian territory ("Carta Maior", Brazil)

Analytics - 3 priority (factual)

13/01/2015 12:29

American neo-conservatives are going to re-apply the strategy that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The United States led by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Barack Obama lead a virtual war against Russia and hard in preparing this war, which will unfold in the Ukrainian territory. It does not matter that from a strategic point of view, this military adventure is doomed to failure. The goal is not to take control of the Ukrainian territory and to "save it for democracy", but to exhaust the strength of the Russian authorities, acting stifling economic and military measures and engaging Russia in exhausting war on the territory of another country. After all, even the most insane neo-conservatives, who settled in the Pentagon, the State Department and the National Security Council, will not dare to offer direct attack Russia, given its status as a nuclear power of the first rank. Home US strategy is to force to assert its world dominance. They unbearable existence nonpolar or multipolar world because of such nuclear rival as Russia and the new economic powers in the face of China, which in the medium term is including a military threat. Neocons need to act now, before competing forces be allowed deeper roots. Ukraine was the perfect excuse for this. After the overthrow of the legitimate government and replace it with a bunch of thugs next step will be the inclusion of Ukraine in NATO, that with regard to Russia looks clear provocation. Just keep calm, Putin will be able to bypass another problem on the outskirts of Russia. Pretty easy to start a major war on foreign soil, especially under the influence of illusions about inequality of forces against the enemy, and even when there is no confidence in the potential consequences. But once established the postwar chaos, a significant military superiority is not enough to control these effects. United States known as the instigators experienced unfinished wars: it was in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan; a recent example - bloated revolution in North Africa, which led to a dramatic situation of permanent bloodshed and instability in Libya and Egypt. However, when it comes to making peace, the United States wash their hands. Damage caused by them have to eliminate the other, as in Haiti and Iraq. It is easy to understand the strategy of the so-called neo-conservatives, who have just nominated to head the Ministry of Defence of one of its representatives. They intend to use the same methods that have helped weaken the former Soviet Union. In the context of a virtual nuclear parity of the United States and Russia, the latter could be made to capitulate in an armed conflict not on the Russian territory, which at the same time would carry with it the threat of nuclear war, again, in the territory of a foreign country. Better option than Ukraine, and you can imagine. The goal of the neoconservatives is trying to re-apply the strategy which, though worked in the liquidation of the Soviet Union, but did not destroy his heart - the Russian state. The socialist state has collapsed, while the Russian nation, all covered with wounds, survived. Putin engaged in systematic reconstruction of the country, giving it a role of nuclear barriers that would deter unlimited power in Washington. For example, US intentions to attack the Syrian government faced with the Russian and Chinese veto. This clearly demonstrated the practical impossibility of exercising power hegemony in the overall nuclear age. Turned into a puppet in the hands of the neocons, Obama decided to "strangle" Russian economic embargo. To trace the existing parallels recall the main events that led to the death of the Soviet Union. In the mid-70s in Washington with the filing of then-CIA Director George HW Bush (George HW Bush) was reactivated non-governmental organization called Comitee on the present danger, or the "Committee on the Present Danger» (CPD). Its main statutory objective of the Committee saw to "bring the Soviet Union to surrender, if necessary, by military means." Committee members were 60 well-known personalities of the American conservative circles, including future president Ronald Reagan (Ronald Reagan), which came into him shortly before his election in 1979. Being as president, he appointed to leading positions in the Ministry of Defense, the State Department and National Security Council 33 members of the Committee. In 1985, when I covered the Group of Seven meeting in Germany, where there was also the head of the US National Security Council, Richard Perle (Richard Perle), a member of the CPD, who read the report on the concept underlying the missile shield program, known as the "Star Wars" which upheld the principle of "safe nuclear war." I asked the Germans what they think about this, because the "safe" nuclear war in the context of "Star Wars" meant nuclear protection in the United States, but not in Europe. The Germans, with whom I spoke were in disbelief. I think they were in the same condition as when forced march past wars on the territory of Ukraine, as a result they found themselves face to face with the Russian armed forces in their own territory. It is important to note that it was not just rhetoric. In Reagan's policies at the turn of the first and second presidential term, there have been important developments related to computer programs that put in a position of readiness of three strategic US nuclear forces: land, sea and air. Due to leakage of information was published in the press information about the fundamental changes in the SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan), electronic equipment by means of which a nuclear war against the Soviet Union could be launched from the territory of Europe. The main change in the SIOP, according to fragments of secret presidential directives, collected and restored Canadian scientists F. Knelmanom (in the book "Reagan, God and the Bomb"), was the fact that after the first emergency signal delay for eight minutes a full-scale nuclear attack on the USSR . It was not only the theoretical promise. Since the hypothetical Soviet ballistic missiles had 36 minutes to be at the North American territory (it is a missile launched from the ground, while the nuclear submarine fleet is not mentioned), the program "Star Wars" is justified only if there is indeed possible to intercept a missile in the middle of its path, that is, in the first 18 minutes after launch. At the same time it would take the American rocket launched from the ground to hit enemy missiles in the stratosphere. Thus, the required Instant early warning of attack. Practically, there is no other means to intercept warheads in the initial part of the trajectory than space-based missile defense system. The "Star Wars" missile defense included the creation of space-based, but until then, had to rely on the goodwill of Soviet strategy, hoping that they do not strike first. Therefore, in response SIOP period was limited to eight minutes, this time was enough only for single-level test whether the startup information displayed on the screen of the electronic control, the actual attack. Thus, all of us have been exposed to the possibility of accidental nuclear war, due to the fact that the SIOP automatically respond to a false alarm, leaving no time to refute the president in the event of a false attack. The first step towards implementation of the "Star Wars" was to ignore the SALT II, ​​which limits the production of missile defense systems by the United States and the Soviet Union. The logic of the SALT II, ​​the remaining unratified by the US Senate, but until then respected by both parties, was simple: the principle of nuclear deterrence is effective only when assured self-destruction of those who start a nuclear war. If one of the parties fails to create an operating system that can effectively protect their own territory of the nuclear counterattack, she is free to carry out a first strike without fear of retribution. Scientists around the world, including Americans, have questioned the technical base of "Star Wars", but Reagan, having started the technological race in order to exhaust the remaining strength of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev put in an impossible position because of a lack of economic and technical conditions for maintaining its own nuclear shield. This technological, economic and political pressure from the United States led the Soviet Union to self-destruct. The same path followed by the United States and now in order to condemn Russia's economic and political capitulation depletion. And this is not a conspiracy theory. Americans are conscious of their own military and economic superiority, never hide their true intentions. Their chosen strategy unveiled in the relevant documents. Thus, the intention to exclude any possibility of the appearance of "a new rival" was announced in 1992, immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the neocon Paul Wolfowitz (Paul Wolfowitz), representative of the CPD, then Deputy Secretary of Defense, Defense Planning Guide: "Our main goal - to prevent the emergence of a new rival as the former Soviet Union and elsewhere in the world, which will pose a threat similar to that posed to our country of the USSR. This provision is central to the new defense strategy. We must try to prevent the emergence of a hostile regional powers who are using their resources may be able to obtain a global control in international relations. " This strategic line is being followed with religious fanaticism, bypassing the virtual reality refutes nuclear parity, only Russia did not become a hindrance to absolute military hegemony of the United States. United States withdrew from the SALT II. They refuse, on the other hand, proceed to the disarmament of space. Thus, to understand the actions of the United States, we must return to geopolitics prior to the Cold War. In fact, the real possibility of war in the Ukraine has been methodically preparing a half decades of NATO, which is just now under pressure from the US decides whether to increase military spending (up to 2% of GDP). Since 1999, the organization carries out its advance to the East. In the same year, NATO enter the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. The second expansion takes place in 2004, when NATO members are Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Thus, almost half of the countries in the East, which are currently included in NATO, have been incorporated into it after the Soviet collapse. Parallel to this, there is an expansion to the east of the European Union, whose last step consists in trying to turn Ukraine into the ranks of its members. This integration of Ukraine and Georgia, officially declared at a summit in Bucharest in 2008, did not take place because this time Putin responded by force, because, in his view, this meant the construction of hostile military fortress in the backyard of their own country. Military ring around Russia is contracted, aided three-pronged strategy: NATO expansion, the expansion of the European Union and the promotion of "democracy", which obviously does not take into account the risk of the outbreak of open war. Response to the strategic move of Russia, is the absorption of the Crimea with the support of the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of the peninsula became economic sanctions by the United States, which begin their movement towards conflict with the recently established a strong position in the field of energy. But we should not delude ourselves. The war in the traditional sense would be quite at hand the United States who seek to drain the Russian military and economic power without the risk of escalation to nuclear war level. At this opportunity and expect neoconservatives. On the other hand, historical experience shows that the United States is not too concerned about how to end the war. For them, it is rather a strategy game aimed at strengthening global hegemony. Thus, at the moment the only force capable of stopping the war machine of the United States is the American people aware of their solidarity with the billions of any innocent people around the world, and these very people who may suffer from the effects of war protoyadernoy. It is important that ordinary people broke their inaction, began to speak and vote. In fact, the United States can suck the economic and military power of Russia in the war on foreign soil. But what usually happens to the power of the defeated, humiliated, located in the siege and in the meantime having a huge nuclear arsenal? Those who believe this analysis exaggerated, please refer to the September issue of «Foreign Affairs», one of the most prestigious journals of the American establishment, where detail is highlighted and commented on the "crisis" in Ukraine. One article clearly states: "The crisis in Ukraine - it's our fault." Article describes the active promotion of NATO to the East, to enter into direct confrontation with the previous arrangements made with the Russian side, and causes constant protests. Here you can learn in detail about the chaos planned by the State Department and NGOs funded by the US government to overthrow the legitimate government of pro-Russian in Kiev and its replacement by another, in which at least four leading representatives express neo-fascist views. Among the provocative measures directed against Russia, stands a monstrous crash Boeing 777 was shot down over the territory of eastern Ukraine, a typical act of terrorism that the United States intended to attribute a pro-Russian rebels. It is not true. The aircraft, which is now symptomatic silent, was hit by the military forces of the Kiev government, as stated, based on the results of independent studies, Russian President Vladimir Putin at the international meeting; statement it has caused almost zero reaction from the West. Special revival of American neoconservatives, have entered into a global economic confrontation with Russian, was caused by the energy revolution that occurred due to the extraction of gas from shale, using one of the criminal from an environmental point of view of technology - frekinga. The commercial success of the company, accompanied by the rapid growth of shale gas and oil allowed to hit the main pillar of the Russian economy, a major producer and exporter of oil and gas, and at the same time to "calm" the Europeans regarding the possible termination of Russian gas supplies, which can now be replaced by an American . It is not known whether Saudi Arabia entered the game for geopolitical reasons, avoiding the decline in oil production, to cause damage to Russian, or for their own reasons, to try to undermine the cost of shale hydrocarbons. The fact that large US companies that have invested heavily in oil and gas production from shale, are suffering huge losses from the decline in oil prices, which are on hand only to consumers.On the other hand, ostensibly endless possibilities frekinga in recent months were surprisingly limited: in Monterey, California, shale oil, previously estimated at 13.7 billion barrels, have been re-evaluated, according to official figures, 600 million, that has at least 96%. In addition, the American public is beginning to act against the use of technology frekinga: according to a recent survey, in 2008 the technology support from 48% to 38% of Americans; in November of this year from 47% to 41% were against it. Evidence of the destruction of the environment, in particular aquifers is irreversible consequences that brings this technology. While the market of hydrocarbons, after the lessons of California, will not happen next turn, Russia will no doubt be in the grip of the American strategy of economic strangulation. Putin with his usual composure stressed that Russia is a self-sufficient country and in any case able to go to the responses, probably referring to the embargo on the export of gas to Europe. An important figure in Russia, of course, is China, which has already signed a contract for the supply of gas worth $ 400 billion for 20 years and who support Russia in a number of geopolitical issues, such as in the case of Syria. However, we clearly witness the escalation of the conflict. New step provoked by the US was the recent decision of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to abandon neutrality. Note that he Kissinger (Henry Kissinger) in a recent article noted that the final resolution of the Ukrainian crisis in a form acceptable to the Russian Federation, could become Ukraine's neutrality in relation to EU / NATO and Russia, as it happened with Finland in the years the Cold War. However, Kissinger is a sensible conservative of the old school, but not crazy neoconservatives. United States, under the supervision of the latter, apparently, is not going to miss another opportunity to unleash a military conflict. All indications are that they will force Russia to accept the challenge. In the case of Ukraine's integration into NATO - an initiative to which millions of Russian and pro-Russian inhabitants of the East of the country are treated with indifference, the Western military alliance will breathe Russia in the head, that is a direct threat to its territory. At least, that Russia could take this division of Ukraine, with the support of the local population that has been tested in a certain way in the Crimea. Then the territory of Ukraine will become a global theater of military operations? And we, as we do in this situation? Some naively believe that American neoconservatives consider our rapprochement through the BRICS with his sworn enemy as it is a natural phenomenon. They believe that the recording of telephone conversations of our president was nothing more than a distraction. They think that attempts to destabilize the current Brazilian government, as well as re-elected, are phenomena exclusively internal order or the results of the ethical motives of some judges. Due to the fact that Brazil is in the center of the continent quite peaceful, and the war does not reach it, we are not accustomed to think in geopolitical way, moreover, in our nuclear age should geopolitics would certainly go out of fashion. However, whether we like it or not, we are involved in the game. If oil prices fall below $ 40 per barrel, the profitability of oil production in pre-salt area will be threatened. And if the United States would go to war against Russia in Ukraine, Brazil will face a serious choice. Original publication: A estratégia dos EUA para a guerra contra Rússia na Ucrânia Published: 26/12/2014 11:00 Source: inosmi.ru

Updated 13/01/2015 12:30