How long will the EU last and what can the Syrian truce result in? Is the world really on the brink of disaster? About this and much more in this article!
Who stands for the war?
The main news of recent days is, of course, the declared truce in Syria. The problem with this action is that Russia and some countries have a different understanding of the term. The policy of the Russian Federation was initially aimed at a complete ceasefire by interested parties, while the United States still can not decide where the really bad guys are. At least there is clarity regarding the Daesh and Jebhat al-Nusra groups (both banned in the Russian Federation), but where did the equally odious Jeyshal-Islam, which is at war with everyone, and Ahrarash-Sham, whose purpose - the overthrow of the Assad regime?
Since midnight Saturday (02/27/2016), the Russian Aerospace Forces have stopped airstrikes on gangs that have applied to the Center for Reconciliation. Nevertheless, about a hundred militants from Turkish territory, with the support of heavy artillery from the Turkish side, crossed the border that night and occupied the outskirts of the city of Ett Tell El Abyad, from where they were driven out in the morning by the Kurdish militia.
Given the use of heavy artillery systems, we see that Turkey is not interested in the “peace policy” at all, although there is a UN-supported ceasefire resolution. Which is understandable, because President Erdogan is least interested in the world, for his dreams of reviving the Ottoman Empire are crumbling.
Stone towards Russia
The policy directions of a number of Middle Eastern states are clearly visible. Take, for example, Saudi Arabia. The King of the SA Salman bin Abdel Aziz al-Saud visited Moscow not so long ago, where he had a private conversation with the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin.
The details of this meeting are not particularly publicized, but they definitely agreed on something. And certainly not that 02/28/2016 Adele al-Jubeyr, the head of the Kingdom’s Foreign Ministry, will accuse Syria and Russia of violating the ceasefire. In the best traditions of Washington, no evidence was presented of any provocative actions.
Politics in the modern world is such that the tail spins the dog, and not vice versa. Such is life, probably nothing can be changed. And, by the way, the statement made by a famous politician can be canceled by the careless signal of his deputy (recall Kerry’s gesture to S. Lavrov’s question about Obama’s statement). And given the specifics of the East, which, as you know, is a delicate matter, it is generally unclear how to regard the statement of Mr. Al-Jubeyr. But taking into account his own remark that “there is no place for Assad in Syria”, we can say with confidence: this diplomat is in no way disposed to a peaceful resolution of the issue. His task is to discredit the current Syrian authorities, and at the same time Russia.
Misty affairs of Misty Albion
As the famous politician and concurrently British Prime Minister D. Cameron says, Britain’s exit from the EU will be a wildest adventure. However, it was he who actually delivered an ultimatum to the European Union: either we infringe on the rights of our migrants, or we are no longer with you. The EU, of course, does not want to lose such a partner, so Cameron managed to bargain for Britain a lot of concessions, the main of which is the reduction of the rights of migrants.
Now for 4 years they will not be able to live at the expense of taxpayers. So the country is no longer so attractive for lovers of "freebie", therefore, their influx into the country will decrease.
On June 23, 2016, a referendum will be held on the UK exit from the EU. This, of course, is a big risk for the economy, as many members of the British business community have enterprises abroad, with all the benefits and concessions that rely on as a member of the European Union. It can also undermine cooperation on security issues, because all existing agreements will need to be reviewed and re-signed on new conditions.
The Prime Minister points to external threats, the solution of which can be complete only within the European Union. This is “Russian aggression”, and “nuclear Iran”, and the crisis with Middle Eastern migrants.
What do the British want?
The politics of the world in general and of Europe in particular are now in jeopardy. According to surveys conducted among the British, it is clear that the number of supporters and opponents of leaving the EU is almost equal, and most members of the government are in favor of maintaining membership. But we all know how Cameron loves to scare people and make promises. Without a doubt, he sincerely cares for his country, its security and integrity.
Remembering the referendum in Scotland, when the prime minister got out of his way to persuade the proud descendants of Wallace and Bruce not to separate from the state, a parallel can be drawn. Then he also promised paradise life, self-government and everything that you wish. With a minimal margin, unity prevailed. But not a single promise of Cameron was fulfilled, which, however, did not inspire the Scots to mass protests.
The British are tired of visitors. Peaceful politics and the notorious tolerance led to the fact that the inhabitants of their former colonies began to dictate their own conditions in the prim streets of Britain, which cannot but disturb the people. And EU membership will force them to equally bear the burden of helping unfortunate people in Africa and the Middle East. So 1-2 terrorist attacks in any British city or media reports about rape by a migrant woman will remove Britain from the EU by a majority vote, which will completely destroy the European Union.
What is going to fight Ukraine?
As you know, the politics of Russia and the world do not always look at things the same way. For example, we do not threaten our neighbors with a fist, calculating in advance their possible losses, as Mr. Fedichev from the Department of Social and Humanitarian Policy of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine did. But, according to officials of independent Ukraine, this is a great way to show the "allies" that they are strong and courageous.
According to the forecasts of the aforementioned humanitarian, the loss of the army of the Russian Federation will be up to 20 thousand people. only killed, while the valiant APU will lose 4-5 times less. Yes, any textbook on tactics will say that the defender needs 3 times less forces for effective resistance. But if you recall that 4 waves of all-Ukrainian mobilization were killed under the fire of miners with berdanks (at first there were no other weapons), and the conscripts bought off or fled to Russia …
Some questions …
The above is not at all consistent with the recent statement by the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine A. Avakov, who said that the country has nothing. It is necessary to re-create the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the police and the national guard, and then go to free Crimea from the "invaders." A reasonable question arises - about what forces Mr. Fedichev was going to fight. The policy of the Russian Federation is such that it is not going to attack anyone. You can also understand the capture of the Baltic states, as in 1940, because the extra ports on the Baltic Sea will not hurt, but why Russia destroyed Ukraine?
Russian tanks in Europe?
This is exactly what people could think when they heard the statement of F. Bridlaw, commander of the NATO Allied Forces in Europe. And how else to evaluate his words about the readiness of the United States to defeat Russia on European territory? General Bridlaw is known for his Russophobic sentiments, although he did not sit for several years in a hole in Vietnam like McCain did. So he decided, apparently, on the eve of his resignation, as told to him by M. Thornby, head of the Congressional Affairs Committee, to say goodbye to the already shaking Europeans.
The directions of US policy go exclusively to confrontation with all unwanted regimes, and soon it will be necessary to accept the country's budget and justify the increase in defense spending. It is in this context that the statement of the almost former commander should be considered.
Another thing is that Europe, contrary to Washington’s hopes, does not at all want to aggravate already complicated relations with the Russian Federation. German students, unlike politicians, are well aware that in the event of an attack on Russia from their territory, the answer will be to Berlin, and not to Capitol Hill. So the next general attack has caused only bewilderment of the political elite of the Old World.
On the brink of war
The main problem of the "civilized world" is that it completely does not understand the direction of Russian policy. The colonialist cannot understand in any way that Russia is not a country that will fight with someone for expanding its living space or resources, and this is precisely what has always been the reason for the invasion.
From time immemorial, all the politics of the world have been aimed at dominating, at world hegemony. This was due to their own poverty and the presence of exorbitant ambitions. In some cases, states simply got rid of declassed elements, sending them to distant lands with the promise of a new happy life.
The situation in the world: politics is now such that the whole planet is in danger of destruction. There were always enough leaders capable of pressing the “red button” on occasion. And now the world is on the verge of a great war. Actually, everything could already have begun if the Russian Federation had decided to get even by military means for the downed Sushka in Syria.
Perhaps this is precisely what they expected from her, for the 5th article of the NATO Charter clearly explains in what cases the Alliance begins hostilities. But, as it turns out, they miscalculated. The anti-Russian policy of the world, aimed exclusively at the military destruction of our country, once again failed. We hope this will continue to be so.
