When will World War III start?
Washington can't wait to start a war with Russia. This is part of their PNAV (New Plan) American Century) conquest of the world. China will follow Russia. The war has already begun and she is in economy class. Terrorism is an effective weapon of this war and the Anglo-Saxons use it.

Experts say that in conditions of total balance nuclear forces deterrence, a showdown between major states with the help of armed forces is possible, but not desirable. Firstly, it is dangerous with a retaliatory blow of such force that there will be no winners. Secondly, it is very expensive. Taking into account the fact that wars are not started by Napoleons, Hitlers and Obamas, but by the owners of world capital solely in their own interests, and these guys know how to count money. Hence the significant optimization of intervention costs in the 21st century. So what is this war? Why doesn't humanity see a massive movement of troops, major battles like what happened near Prokhorovka?

Speaking on September 13, 2014 at the traditional Saturday sermon, Pope Francis said that the Third World War has already begun, and “greed, intolerance and the thirst for power” are to blame for this, which are often “justified by ideology.”

She is fundamentally different. Our eternal enemies, the Anglo-Saxons, came to the conclusion that an effective weapon of the Third World War, bypassing nuclear deterrent forces, could be TERRORISM as a tool foreign policy the hegemon of violence - the United States of America.

How were wars fought before? The aggressor country entered the territory of another state, occupied it, established its own rules and the corresponding regime of power. Commandant's offices, points of work with the population, etc. were created. At the same time, the occupiers took responsibility for maintaining order in the occupied territory, providing the population with at least basic food, making sure that epidemics did not occur - that is, providing medical care, etc. All this was associated with considerable so-called associated or overhead costs.

World War III is an economy class war. None of the aggressors bears any responsibility for the fate of the enslaved citizens of the occupied countries. No overhead. And the aggressor himself is beyond the zone of responsibility for his actions.

After the decision was made to use terror as a main component occupation of foreign territories, specialists from three private military companies in Great Britain scattered around the world. A little later, representatives of the Israeli intelligence services joined them. And literally within six months, small, medium and large terrorist organizations began to appear like mushrooms after rain. They were created according to the classic schemes of the Anglo-Saxon intelligence services.

After World War II, Americans used the legend of promoting democracy as their main motive for interfering in the affairs of other states. However, this legend has exhausted itself, since it could no longer provide informational cover for the radical defeat of states that own resources, the destruction of their statehood and the consolidation of their resources in the hands of the owners of money.

And then September 11, 2001 struck! Al-Qaeda PMC, created in advance by specialists, took responsibility. Without exception, all the media (including ours) screamed about the emergence of the most terrible threat to the world - international terrorism. In people’s minds they formed the image of a monstrous monster who destroys everything around him, cuts people’s heads without knowing why or for what purpose... We were convinced that they kill for the sake of killing. But that doesn't happen. Terror always has its goal and its addressee, and it always has an owner. In this case, these are the Anglo-Saxons and the owners of money.

After September 11, the Anglo-Saxons could only point out the “hotbeds” of this international evil. By pure coincidence, vile terrorists began to group exclusively in oil and gas-producing countries.

Just think: to destroy the statehood of Iraq and hang its leader without trial, it was enough to wave a test tube with donkey urine and accuse the country of a mythical chemical weapons! And after the defeat of the state, it would be cynical to say: there was a mistake.

By the same principle, Libya was destroyed, and its leader was torn apart alive to cries of approval: wow! - the current candidate for US President, Mrs. Clinton is not healthy in the head.

And all this, I note, under the plausible pretext of fighting global terrorism. At the same time, everyone repeats these two words, without thinking that terrorism is a weapon, a means of waging a third world war. And we need to talk about those in whose hands these weapons are and who uses them for what purposes. Shouting about the threat of global terrorism is the same as shouting about the threat of a knife lying on the table. A knife is dangerous only in the hands of a criminal or a maniac, and after a crime it is not the knife that is judged, but the one in whose hands it was.

IN Lately It is very fashionable to use the terms network-centric, hybrid and other war. But few people think about the meaning of these terms.

Network-centric means that there are networks and there is a center. All these ISIS (an organization whose activities are prohibited in the Russian Federation), Jabhat al-Nusra (an organization whose activities are prohibited in the Russian Federation) and other terrorist entities and units scattered throughout the world are networks. Where is their control center? So do the Anglo-Saxons!

Can you imagine how beneficial it is to have such a network?

At the beginning of the sanctions war against Russia, German Chancellor Merkel insisted that it was impossible to completely break ties with Putin. Obama warned her three times to shut up. It didn't help. Then the chemical plant in Bremen blew up, after which Mrs. Merkel radically changed her position and became very much like a call girl.

French President Hollande decided to support Putin in Syria in the fight against ISIS (an organization whose activities are banned in the Russian Federation). And he even dared to snap at Washington. Immediately after this, terrible terrorist attacks with human casualties occurred in France! And if explosions had occurred not only in Paris, but also in five or six other cities, France would have fallen to its knees. But this country is a member of NATO and has a nuclear triad... Alas, terrorism has completely nullified the entire military defense component of this country.

Who immediately took responsibility? So ISIS! What is the demand for ISIS (an organization whose activities are banned in the Russian Federation)? And where is it located: it is in Syria, and in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, and in Libya - wherever the Americans defend the interests of global finance!

The algorithm is simple: it doesn’t matter who blows up countries: the CIA, MI6 or PMC specialists under the guise of terrorists. It is important who takes responsibility for the masters and masterminds of terror!

A hybrid of methods and methods of influencing the enemy significantly complicates the attacker's defensive response actions. How were Iraq and Libya destroyed? Military air strikes. Mutiny. Chaos. The collapse of the country.

But Ukraine was occupied without using military force. Exclusively by the rebellious warfare method. A Maidan (rebellion) was organized. Current slogans have been formulated (relatively speaking, an unprecedented freebie awaits you ahead). Constitutional power has been overthrown. An occupation, or more precisely a colonial, regime has been established. The occupier bears no responsibility to the people living in the controlled territories. Moreover, the entire burden of expenses for maintaining the occupation regime is placed on the shoulders of the people. After all, what are taxes in Ukraine? These are contributions from citizens for the maintenance of the concentration camp administration. And your own convoy as well.

I note that Ukraine is the only country that the Anglo-Saxons brought to its knees, guided not by the desire to take control of energy resources, which are not there in sufficient quantities. They need this territory for completely different purposes.

Based on the results of a comprehensive analysis of the situation around and inside Russia, planners came to the conclusion that neither the Iraqi, nor the Libyan, nor the Ukrainian scenario of direct occupation of our country is impossible. We will respond to a military challenge in a way that no one will think is enough. And the hope for the Maidan immediately after the Duma elections collapsed under the yoke of the disgusting attitude of the absolute majority of Russians towards the fifth column infected with the ultra-liberal infection.

What remains in the arsenal of our enemies? Only terror.

In Ukraine, at the Yavorov military training ground in the Lviv region, the Americans have created a center for training saboteurs from among the local population. The center is secret, where even Poroshenko is not allowed to enter. In Kyiv, on the basis of the KGB school, a school of sabotage and terrorist activities was created. It is noteworthy that students are trained to work not only in Russia, but also in Europe. What does Europe have to do with it? It's simple. The Anglo-Saxons are terrorizing Europe with terrorist violence, stimulating the abandonment of such institutions of state independence as the national army and intelligence services, and other state security structures. It is proposed that all these most important obligations be transferred to certain supranational, united superstructures. That is, the Anglo-Saxons. If this happens, the European Union will become a unique colony, in which the role of the convoy will be played by the regional army and the regional intelligence service.

But let's return to Ukraine. Why are the Ukrainian people pumped up with Russophobia and boundless hatred of everything Russian? This is how he is being prepared for a protracted terrorist war with Russia. That is why the pro-American regime of Waltsman-Groysman is lowering the living standards of Ukrainians below the plinth. Poverty is the best environment for terrorist recruitment. For pennies!

Relatively speaking, a NATO multi-role front-line bomber costs 20-30 million dollars. Considering the effectiveness of our air defense, in war conditions this winged vehicle performs a one-way flight. Bah - 30 million no. And there will be hundreds of such downed bombers. Now imagine how many saboteurs and terrorists can be recruited in impoverished Ukraine with money from just one saved plane? Thousands. And try to identify them in Russia or Europe.

Today, Russian journalists are asking the question: how many of the 4 million Ukrainian migrant workers will go to carry out a terrorist attack? So any of the 4 million. And here you don’t need any special Nazi training. Imagine a painter Olesya from Zhmerinka painting a wall in a new Moscow building. The bell rings and she hears the voice of her five-year-old daughter, who, sobbing, shouts into the phone: “Mommy, some uncles took me from my grandmother and now they want to cut off my fingers with scissors.” Then a stern male voice says: “So, you go to the Kyiv station, pick up your bag in the 20th storage room and go down to the metro.”

And this Olesya will do it without thinking, using maternal instinct alone.

I give this example not to create fear. Against. It is very important to understand the seriousness of the current situation and not rely solely on Putin and Shoigu. Terrorism can only be resisted by a consolidated society. When everyone is on guard. In my opinion, the issue of creating local territorial police that would work with visiting people and be a center for mobilizing the population in the event of a threat has become very relevant.

But internal measures alone cannot solve the problem. And here the experience of Israel is very relevant for us. He is multifaceted. But its main value lies in the principled position of the leaders of the security bloc and the country as a whole in relation to the anti-Israeli forces of evil. As soon as intelligence arrives that a potential threat to Israel is emerging in a neighboring country or region, tough measures are quickly taken. Up to the use of strike air groups. No one waits for the terrorist infection to creep in state border, but is destroyed at distant approaches, in the enemy’s lair.

Whether we like it or not, we will also have to take preventive measures. Work proactively. Otherwise, the country will be overwhelmed by the horror of a terrorist war. In this case we're talking about not only about the destruction of centers of terrorism on the territory of Ukraine.

In one of his interviews, Vladimir Putin openly said that if someone expects to start a world war in Once again sitting behind a big puddle will no longer work. And behind the words Russian President action followed. Fundamentally new delivery vehicles (carriers) for retaliatory weapons were modernized and put into service. The boomerang of reckoning will return very quickly and is guaranteed to be targeted. What is the quintessence of what Putin said? So the fact is that if we take aim at the non-abstract term “ international terrorism“, and for those who use terror as an instrument of foreign policy, who use it as a weapon of the third world war, then nuclear potential can quite reliably and effectively deter the use of terror against their country.

• Tags: ,

Socio-political tension is constantly growing in the world. And some experts predict that everything could result in a global conflict. How realistic is it in the near future?

Risk remains

It is unlikely that anyone today is pursuing the goal of starting a world war. Previously, if a large-scale conflict was brewing, the instigator always expected to end it as quickly as possible and with minimal losses. However, as history shows, almost all “blitzkriegs” resulted in a protracted confrontation involving a huge amount of human and material resources. Such wars caused damage to both the loser and the winner.

Nevertheless, wars have always existed and, unfortunately, will arise, because someone wants to have more resources, and someone protects their borders, including from mass illegal migration, fights terrorism or demands the restoration of their rights in accordance with with previously concluded agreements.

If countries still decide to get involved in a global war, then, according to many experts, they will certainly be divided into different camps, which will be approximately equal in strength. The combined military, primarily nuclear, potential of the powers that will hypothetically take part in the clash is capable of destroying all life on the planet dozens of times. How likely is it that the coalitions will start this suicidal war? Analysts say that it is not great, but the danger remains.

Political poles

The modern world order is far from what it was after the Second World War. However, formally it continues to exist on the basis of the Yalta and Bretton Woods agreements of the states of the anti-Hitler coalition. The only thing that has changed is the balance of power that was formed during the Cold War. The two poles of world geopolitics today, as half a century ago, are determined by Russia and the United States.

Russia crossed the Rubicon, and it did not pass without a trace and painlessly for it: it temporarily lost its superpower status and lost its traditional allies. However, our country managed to maintain its integrity, maintain influence in the post-Soviet space, revive the military-industrial complex and acquire new strategic partners.

The US financial and political elite, as in the old days good times, under democratic slogans, continues to carry out military expansion far from its borders, while simultaneously successfully imposing on the leading countries a beneficial “anti-crisis” and “anti-terrorist” policy.

IN last years China is persistently wedging its way into the confrontation between Russia and the United States. Eastern dragon supporting a good relationship with Russia, nevertheless does not take sides. Possessing the largest army and carrying out rearmament on an unprecedented scale, he has every reason to do so.

A united Europe also remains an influential player on the world stage. Despite the dependence on the North Atlantic Alliance, certain forces in the Old World advocate an independent political course. Reconstruction is just around the corner armed forces European Union, which will be held by Germany and France. In the face of energy shortages, Europe will act decisively, analysts say.

One cannot but pay attention to the growing threat posed by radical Islam in the Middle East. This is not only the increasing extremist nature of the actions of Islamic groups in the region every year, but also the expansion of the geography and tools of terrorism.

Unions

Recently, we are increasingly observing the consolidation of various union associations. This is evidenced, on the one hand, by the summits of Donald Trump and Israeli leaders, South Korea, Japan, Britain and other leading European countries, and on the other – meetings of heads of state within the framework of the activities of the BRICS bloc, which attracts new international partners. During the negotiations, not only trade, economic and political issues, but also all kinds of aspects of military cooperation.

The famous military analyst Joachim Hagopian emphasized back in 2015 that the “recruitment of friends” by America and Russia is not accidental. China and India, in his opinion, will be drawn into Russia's orbit, and the European Union will inevitably follow the United States. This is supported by the intensified exercises of NATO countries in Eastern Europe and the military parade with the participation of Indian and Chinese units on Red Square.

Adviser to the President of Russia Sergei Glazyev states that it will be beneficial and even fundamentally important for our country to create a coalition of any countries that do not support bellicose rhetoric directed against Russian state. Then, according to him, the United States will be forced to moderate its ardor.

Wherein great importance will have what position Türkiye takes, which is almost key figure, capable of acting as a catalyst for relations between Europe and the Middle East, and more broadly, between the West and the countries of the Asian region. What we are seeing now is Istanbul’s cunning play on the differences between the United States and Russia.

Resources

Foreign and domestic analysts are inclined to conclude that a global war could be provoked by the global financial crisis. The most serious problem of the world's leading countries lies in the close intertwining of their economies: the collapse of one of them will have dire consequences for the others.

The war that may follow a devastating crisis will be fought not so much over territory as over resources. For example, analysts Alexander Sobyanin and Marat Shibutov build the following hierarchy of resources that the beneficiary will receive: people, uranium, gas, oil, coal, mining raw materials, drinking water, agricultural land.

It is curious that, from the point of view of some experts, the status of a generally recognized world leader does not guarantee the United States victory in such a war. In the past, NATO commander-in-chief Richard Schieffer, in his book “2017: War with Russia,” predicted defeat for the United States, which would be caused by financial collapse and the collapse of the American army.

Who is first?

Today, the trigger that could launch the mechanism, if not a world war, then a global collision, could be the crisis on the Korean Peninsula. Joachim Hagopian, however, predicts that it is fraught with the use of nuclear charges and at first Russia and the United States will not get involved in it.

Glazyev does not see serious grounds for a global war, but notes that its risk will persist until the United States abandons its claims to world domination. Most dangerous period, according to Glazyev, this is the beginning of the 2020s, when the West will emerge from depression, and the developed countries, including China and the United States, will begin the next round of rearmament. At the peak of a new technological leap, there will be a threat of global conflict.

It is characteristic that the famous Bulgarian clairvoyant Vanga never decided to predict the start date of the Third World War, indicating only that its cause would most likely be religious strife around the world.

"Hybrid Wars"

Not everyone believes in the reality of World War III. Why commit mass casualties and destruction if there is something that has been tested for a long time and more? effective remedy- “hybrid war”. The “White Book”, intended for commanders of special forces of the American army, in the section “Winning in a Complex World” contains all the comprehensive information on this matter.

It says that any military operations against the authorities primarily involve covert and secret actions. Their essence is an attack by rebel forces or terrorist organizations (which are supplied with money and weapons from abroad) on government structures. Sooner or later, the existing regime loses control over the situation and hands over its country to the sponsors of the coup.

The Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, General Valery Gerasimov, considers “hybrid war” a means that is many times superior in results to any open military clashes.

Capital can do anything

Nowadays, not only conspiracy theorists are confident that both world wars were largely provoked by Anglo-American financial corporations, which made fabulous profits from militarization. And their ultimate goal is the establishment of the so-called “American peace.”

“Today we stand on the threshold of a grandiose reformatting of the world order, the instrument of which will again be war,” says writer Alexei Kungurov. This will be a financial war of world capitalism, directed mainly against developing countries.

The goal of such a war is to not give the periphery any chance of any independence. In underdeveloped or dependent countries, a system of external exchange control is established, which forces them to exchange their output, resources and other material assets for dollars. The more transactions there are, the more American machines will print currencies.

But the main objective world capital is the “Heartland”: the territory of the Eurasian continent, most of which is controlled by Russia. Whoever owns the Heartland with its colossal resource base will own the world - this is what the English geopolitician Halford Mackinder said.

A nuclear war is usually called a hypothetical clash between countries or military-political blocs that have thermonuclear or nuclear weapons and put them into action. Atomic weapons in such a conflict will become the main means of destruction. The history of nuclear war, fortunately, has not yet been written. But after the start of the Cold War in the second half of the last century nuclear war between the USA and the USSR was considered a very likely development of events.

• What will happen if there is a nuclear war?
• Doctrines of nuclear war in the past
• US nuclear doctrine during the Thaw
• Russian nuclear doctrine

What will happen if there is a nuclear war?

Many people fearfully asked the question: what will happen if a nuclear war breaks out? This conceals a large-scale environmental danger:

• The explosions would release enormous amounts of energy.
• Ash and soot from the fires would obscure the sun for a long time, which would lead to the effect of “nuclear night” or “nuclear winter” with a sharp drop in temperature on the planet.
• The apocalyptic picture would be complemented by radioactive contamination, which would have no less catastrophic consequences for life.

It was assumed that most countries of the world would inevitably be drawn into such a war, directly or indirectly.

The danger of a nuclear war is that it would lead to global environmental disaster and even the death of our civilization.

What will happen in the event of a nuclear war? Powerful explosion- this is only part of the disaster:

1. As a result nuclear explosion a giant one is formed fire ball, the heat from which chars or completely burns all living things at a sufficiently large distance from the epicenter of the explosion.
2. A third of the energy is released in the form of a powerful light pulse, a thousand times brighter than the radiation of the sun, so it instantly ignites all easily flammable materials (fabrics, paper, wood), and causes third-degree burns to people.
3. But the primary fires do not have time to flare up, since they are partially extinguished by a powerful blast wave. Flying burning debris, sparks, household gas explosions, short circuits and burning petroleum products cause extensive and long-lasting secondary fires.
4. Individual fires merge into a terrifying fire tornado that can easily burn down any metropolis. Such firestorms, created by the Allies, destroyed Dresden and Hamburg during the Second World War.
5. Since massive fires release heat in huge quantities, heated air masses rush upward, forming hurricanes at the surface of the earth, bringing new portions of oxygen to the source.
6. Dust and soot rise to the stratosphere, forming a giant cloud there that blocks out the sunlight. And prolonged darkening leads to nuclear winter.

The earth after a nuclear war would hardly remain even a little like its former self; it would be scorched, and almost all living things would die.

An instructive video about what will happen if a nuclear war breaks out:

Doctrines of nuclear war in the past

The first doctrine (theory, concept) of nuclear war arose immediately after the end of World War II, in the United States. Then it was invariably reflected in the strategic concepts of NATO and the United States. However, the military doctrine of the USSR also assigned nuclear missile weapons decisive role in the next big war.

Initially, a massive nuclear war scenario was envisaged with the unlimited use of all available nuclear weapons, and their targets would be not only military, but also civilian targets. It was believed that in such a conflict the country that would be the first to launch a massive nuclear strike against the enemy, the purpose of which was the preemptive destruction of its nuclear weapons, would gain an advantage.

But there was the main problem nuclear war - a preventive nuclear attack might not be so effective, and the enemy would be able to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike on industrial centers and large cities.

Since the late 50s, it has appeared in the USA new concept"limited nuclear war". In the 70s, according to this concept, in a hypothetical armed conflict could be used various systems weapons, including operational-tactical and tactical nuclear weapons, which had restrictions on the scale of use and means of delivery. In such a conflict, atomic weapons would only be used to destroy military and important economic facilities. If history could be distorted, nuclear wars in the recent past could realistically follow a similar scenario.

One way or another, the United States still remains the only state that in practice used nuclear weapons in 1945 not against the military, but dropped 2 bombs on the civilian population of Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki (August 9).

Hiroshima

On August 6, 1945, under the guise of the Potsdam Declaration, which set an ultimatum regarding the immediate surrender of Japan, American government sent an American bomber to the Japanese Islands, and at 08:15 Japanese time it dropped the first nuclear bomb, which had the code name “Baby”.

The power of this charge was relatively small - about 20,000 tons of TNT. The explosion of the charge occurred at an altitude of about 600 meters above the surface of the earth, and its epicenter was above the Sima hospital. As a purpose of demonstrative nuclear strike Hiroshima was not chosen by chance - it was there at that time that General base Japanese Navy and the Second General Staff of the Japanese Army.

• The explosion destroyed a large part of Hiroshima.
• Over 70,000 people were killed instantly.
• Near 60,000 died later from wounds, burns and radiation sickness.
• There was a zone of complete destruction within a radius of about 1.6 kilometers, while the fires spread over an area of ​​11.4 square meters. km.
• 90% of the city's buildings were either completely destroyed or severely damaged.
• The tram system miraculously survived the bombing.

In the six months following the bombing, they died from its consequences. 140,000 people.

This “insignificant”, according to the military, charge once again proved that the consequences of a nuclear war for humanity are destructive, as for a race.

Sad video about the nuclear attack on Hiroshima:

Nagasaki

On August 9 at 11:02, another American plane dropped another nuclear charge, “Fat Man,” on the city of Nagasaki. It was detonated high above the Nagasaki Valley, where industrial plants were located. The second American nuclear attack on Japan in a row caused further catastrophic destruction and loss of life:

• 74,000 Japanese died instantly.
• 14,000 buildings were completely destroyed.

In fact, these terrible moments can be called the days when a nuclear war almost started, since bombs were dropped on civilians, and only a miracle stopped the moment when the world was on the brink of nuclear war.

US nuclear doctrine during the Thaw

At the end of the Cold War, the American doctrine of limited nuclear war was transformed into the concept of counterproliferation. It was first voiced by US Secretary of Defense L. Espin in December 1993. The Americans considered that it was no longer possible to achieve this goal with the help of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, therefore, at critical moments, the United States reserved the right to carry out “disarmament strikes” on the nuclear facilities of undesirable regimes.

In 1997, a directive was adopted according to which the US Army must be prepared to strike foreign facilities for the production and storage of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. And in 2002, the concept of counterproliferation entered into American strategy national security. Within its framework, the United States intended to destroy nuclear facilities in Korea and Iran or take control of Pakistani facilities.

Russian nuclear doctrine

Russia's military doctrine also periodically changes its wording. In the latter option, Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons if not only nuclear or other types of weapons were used against it or its allies mass destruction, but also conventional weapons, if this threatens the very foundations of the existence of the state, which could become one of the causes of a nuclear war. This speaks to the main thing - the likelihood of a nuclear war currently exists quite acutely, but the rulers understand that no one can survive in this conflict.

Russian nuclear weapons

An alternative history with nuclear war was developed in Russia. The US State Department assessed for 2016, based on the data provided under the START-3 treaty, that in Russian army 508 strategic nuclear launch vehicles deployed:

• intercontinental ballistic missiles;
• strategic bombers;
• missiles on submarines.

There are 847 nuclear charge carriers in total, on which 1,796 charges are installed. It should be noted that nuclear weapons in Russia are being reduced quite intensively - over six months their number decreases by 6%.

With such weapons and more than 10 countries in the world that have officially confirmed the presence of nuclear weapons, the threat of nuclear war is global problem, the prevention of which is a guarantee of life on Earth.

Are you afraid of nuclear war? Do you think it will come and how soon? Share your opinion or guesses in the comments.

In general, Russia's neighbors They have been fearing an invasion for quite some time now, and the Baltic countries have never stopped doing this, starting to speculate after every Russian exercise near the border. It is clear that after Crimea and Donbass such conversations began to arise more often. And ex-adviser to Vladimir Putin Andrei Illarionov warned that, and ex-President of Poland Bronislaw Komorowski called for. And there were experts too, of course: for example, in June last year, the vice-president of the Center for European Policy Analysis, Edward Lucas, pleased the public with a report on how Russia could seize Scandinavia and the Baltic states, and in Sweden scenarios were drawn up of how Russia would land on Gotland or Åland islands, etc.

Sweden for some reason worries the most. Although it seems that Moscow has not threatened anyone other than the Swedes since the time of Peter I.

"Red Menace" full height, Briefly speaking. But now alarmism is spreading new level. The RAND expert corporation recently published a report in which it came to the conclusion that Russia needs 60 hours to seize the Baltics. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently accused Russia of significantly increasing the number of military exercises and simulating nuclear attacks on NATO member countries, in particular Sweden. The BBC TV channel is presenting a whole film "The Third World War: in command post“- the war begins, naturally, with the creation of the Latgale People’s Republic, and it comes to nuclear war, - and in the fall a series on the same topic with the eloquent title “Occupation” was shown on Norwegian television.

RAND states that In this situation, NATO will not have any good moves: it will either have to launch a bloody counter-offensive, fraught with increasing risks, or re-enter the state of the Cold War, or admit tactical defeat, which will entail uncertain, but definitely catastrophic consequences for NATO. Seven corps stationed there could protect the Baltics, but this is very expensive, at least $3 billion.

Russian officials out loud they are outraged by Western insinuations, but inside they are probably squinting with pleasure - after all, in fact, this is the image they need. A force that, only thanks to its boundless kindness, does not capture everything it sees, but it can do that, of course. In numerous discussions of each new publication, commentators and experts often come to the conclusions that Moscow needs. About the fact that NATO's expansion to the east was a mistake, that it really doesn't want to capture anyone, that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia spend too little on military purposes, feeling themselves under the protection of NATO, and in general it's time for Europeans to think more about ensuring security independently, and not just rely on the United States.

There are, of course, more mundane factors, such as the powerful lobby of arms manufacturers, which is interested in the scope of militarism, the love of journalists for shocking news, or the banal escalation of the situation in anticipation of the upcoming Russia-NATO negotiations. But if we assume the Kremlin’s ability to manipulate deeply public organizations in the West, it would not be surprising if such publications were inspired by the Kremlin.

And Russia with pleasure provides more and more reasons for panic: either strategic bombers will fly somewhere, or a submarine will sail by. reports on the creation of three new divisions in the western direction and the re-establishment of the First Guards Tank Army (also in the Western Military District), rumors appear about a new air base in Syria, which have so far been refuted. All this also cannot but give cause for concern in Europe.

In the context of Russian-Turkish conflict, the phrase “third world war” is generally pronounced every other time. Britain is transferring 1.6 thousand soldiers to Jordan for the Shamal storm exercise - it is supposed to test the possibility of the British army deploying 30 thousand forces somewhere, writes The Telegraph, and, according to the newspaper's sources, these exercises are not conceived for the sake of fighting terrorists from the Islamic State , but rather for the sake of sending training ground forces V Eastern Europe, and in particular to Ukraine. That is, we are talking about preparations in case of war with Russia, to put it bluntly. Although in Syria, especially since the Americans recently announced.

It's hard to say who is who here he was the first to begin to intimidate and confuse. Such exercises are a reaction to the rise of militarism in Russia, but Russia must also respond to them. Every time at the beginning of major wars, the parties claim that they only delivered a preemptive strike against an enemy who was about to attack. Even if we are just watching the flexing of muscles before important negotiations, constant talk about threats over time inevitably leads to the fact that the manipulations get out of control, they begin to really be believed in, and then they become a reality.

Select the fragment with the error text and press Ctrl+Enter