Journalist Andrei Babitsky talks about why the United States, without waiting for UN conclusions and decisions on Syria, threatens military strikes.
The most frequently and readily remembered historical incident these days in connection with the aggravation in Syria, which almost escalated into a war between two nuclear superpowers, is the Cuban Missile Crisis. Indeed, not once since 1962 have Russia (then the USSR) and the United States been so close to a direct exchange of military strikes. Russian representative to the UN Vasily Nebenzya, who denied the very fact of a chemical attack in the Syrian Duma at today’s Security Council meeting, believes that the situation has gone significantly further, at least if we take the rhetoric into account, than during the Cold War. “They shamelessly threaten Russia. The tone in which this is done has crossed the boundaries of what is acceptable. Even during the Cold War, your predecessors did not allow themselves such rudeness towards my country. What next?” - he said.
The situation is indeed developing rapidly, since all the main conflict lines were laid down long ago and the forces interested in a resolution have received an excuse to use the most radical means. It is obvious that for the American administration it does not matter whether chemical weapons were actually used or whether it was staged. Washington almost immediately recognized the reliability of the information about the use of chemicals provided by the White Helmets volunteer organization, and blamed it on the leadership of Syria, Russia and Iran, and Donald Trump promised to respond to aggression militarily within 48 hours. We are most likely talking about Tomahawk missile attacks on military targets in the Syrian Arab Republic.
The extent to which the US President himself acts independently in this story is not entirely clear. It is likely that the provocation in the Duma was carried out precisely with the aim of forcing him to abandon plans to withdraw American troops from Syria and bring him face to face with Russia. The American establishment and high-ranking military officials are confident that it is high time to punish Moscow for all its sins, and Syria represents the most convenient platform for demonstrating American power and the weakness of Russian weapons. And, besides, Washington is extremely interested in radically turning the tide of the military operation, nullifying all the successes of the Syrian army and the Russian Aerospace Forces in favor of the radical Islamist groups it supports.
Reuters names among the intended targets the Khmeimim airfield in the Syrian province of Latakia, where the Russian military and air equipment of the Russian Aerospace Forces are based. Let me remind you that back in early March, the Chief of the General Staff, First Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, Army General Valery Gerasimov, said: “In the event of a threat to the lives of our military personnel, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will take retaliatory measures against both missiles and the launch vehicles that will use them.” . That is, to put it quite simply, Russia will strike at ships or planes from which missiles will be launched. One US guided-missile destroyer off the coast of Syria is already ready to launch Tomahawks; the second, according to American media reports, can reach the site within a few days.
Right now, no one can say how far the unfolding crisis may go as there are several unknowns in the equation. It is unclear to what extent the American administration controls those military personnel who are responsible for the situation in Syria and want the utmost aggravation of relations with Russia. It is also unclear the extent of Washington’s determination to cross all currently available “red lines” in order to regain its status as a power that is capable of changing the world order with the help of military force far beyond the borders of the United States.
The fact that such intentions undoubtedly exist is evidenced by the reluctance of the Americans to wait for the conclusions and decisions of the UN. The American administration clearly plans to act unilaterally, enlisting the support of its allies in the coalition against Bashar al-Assad. Nevertheless, we are, of course, not talking about the outbreak of a third world war, the threat of which some particularly alarmed subjects are warning about.
In the best case, there will be an exchange of demonstration strikes, the target of which will not be the locations of the Russian or American armed forces, but the sites where the forces of Assad and the factions opposing him are stationed. At worst, things will come to a direct collision, when the Tomahawks will be sent to the same Khmeimim base. In this situation, Russia will have no choice but to implement the threat made by General Valery Gerasimov.
The first option will be more of a symbolic nature; as a result of the second, one of the parties may have to tacitly admit defeat in order to put an end to the conflict. I am sure that for all the apparent readiness to flex their muscles, neither in Moscow nor in Washington, no one is even thinking about the confrontation going beyond the borders of Syria. Still, there is a lot at stake.
Russia, which is gaining more and more weight in the Middle East, could suddenly lose its status as a party that is capable of providing security guarantees to its allies who intend to defend their sovereignty under pressure from the liberal globalist elite. For Washington, a loss would have much more dramatic consequences, since it would mean that, firstly, America is unable to contain Russia in any theater of military operations where the protection of American political and economic interests is involved, and secondly, the prospects of the United States regaining the role of a world leader, rewarding excellent students and severely punishing obstinate upstarts, is becoming increasingly elusive.
Everything should become clearer in the next couple of days.
This article may seem scary. But we all live in a time when the start of a new war on a global scale is becoming a real prospect. In the article we will answer the question of whether the start date of the Third World War is predicted or not.
Modern warfare
In the minds of most people who grew up watching films based on the Great Patriotic War, the standard of military operations looks like a cutout from a film. Reasoning logically, we understand that just as ridiculous a saber from 1917 would look in the hands of a Soviet soldier in 1941, it would be strange to observe the picture of barbed wire cut at night by partisans in our time.
And you must admit, having weapons of mass destruction in the form of nuclear charges, bacteriological crops and climate control, it is paradoxical to expect a repetition of the classics in the form of a bayonet and a dugout.
The quiet panic, gradually eroding Internet users and skillfully fueled by the media, is felt in the thousands of requests received hourly. People are so convinced of the inevitability of trouble that they hardly ask questions - will it happen? The clumsy formulation sounds much more relevant: when is the exact date set for the start of the Third World War?
And this is already scary.
Battle for resources
The era when the main contribution to the winner were forests, fields, rivers and the defeated people has passed forever. Today, the greatness of a country is dictated not by population or rich history of victories, but by the possession of underground treasures: oil sources, natural gas deposits, coal seams, uranium deposits.
The date of the start of World War III is not kept silent. It simply passed so long ago that its exact date is unlikely to remain in our minds. The dream of the drivers of trade policy has come true - the economy and the struggle for first place in the leadership elite have become at the forefront of the main life values.
Here it is worth recalling the main method of trade relations, which works everywhere and at all times. The most choice piece never went to those bargaining and fighting for it - there was always a third person standing on the sidelines and sympathetically watching the fight.
Based on events: how can this be
Many will interfere, but only one will get it. It is no secret that the main threat to Russia is attributed to the United States, but the events unfolding around the world's largest leaders suggest that the general tension creates only the appearance of a real threat. The flow of information masterfully maintains the highest bar on the scale of mass hysteria, while the war unleashed by a powerful power (read - the USA) began a long time ago.
Events in Ukraine, Iraq and Syria speak not of spontaneous, but of carefully thought-out actions, which were worked on by hundreds of analysts with such a wealth of strategic experience that simply does not exist in any of these countries. After all, we are not talking about random clashes reminiscent of previous “yard to yard” fights - we are talking about a war that drags on the masses. And here all sorts of peacekeeping missions with the introduction of friendly troops armed with friendly weapons only fuel the hostile mood.
The EU readily accepts information in the form in which the United States presents it - the European Union apparently has neither the time nor the initiative to investigate. Like a bull to a red rag, the leaders of the European Union will react to the slightest movement by the United States towards military action against Russia.
This will give the Chinese government, which has been restraining itself for a long time, a reason to talk. The stagnation of American troops in the Pacific region has long been poisoning the existence of the patient Chinese, whose hand is already tired of trembling over the nuclear button. Israel's reaction is also predictable - the long-awaited nod of consent from the United States will allow them to attack Tehran, but how long Israel itself will survive after this is a big question. The last salvos on Iraq will hardly have time to die down before the Libyan, Omani, Yemeni and (where would we be without them) Egyptian bombs will simply sweep away the hapless aggressor.
Anyone else curious about the start date of World War III? Then we discuss further.
A look from the outside - how it will be
It is useful to listen to what retired Colonel General Anatoly Lopata, former Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and First Deputy Minister of Defense of Ukraine, thinks about the events, scary to say, coming. Looking ahead, we note that the former Secretary of Defense's remark about the location of the future battlefield completely coincides with the opinion of British Air Force Colonel Ian Shields.
When asked by journalists what World War III essentially is and when it will begin, Anatoly Lopata calmly explained that the war is in full swing and the aggressor country in it is called - who do you think? - of course, Russia. And even in relation to America, at least in the fact that it responds with sympathy to the Assad regime in Syria (!). At the same time, the Colonel General admits that the United States is forced to reckon with the Russian Federation and this will remain unchanged, due to the latter’s enormous economic and military potential.
The date of the start of the Third World War, according to the expert, thus belongs to the distant past, but its development to the scale of epic battles belongs to the future, which we still have to live to see. Anatoly Lopata even shared a mysterious figure - 50. In his opinion, it is after this number of years that warring powers will collide in the vast expanses of space.
Analysts' forecasts
Joachim Hagopian, known since 2015, warned that the recruitment of “friends” by the countries of the USA and Russia is not accidental. China and India will follow Russia in any case, and the EU countries will have no choice but to accept America’s policies. For Korea, Hagopian predicted military neutrality in relation to both powers, but a rather violent internecine war with the likelihood of the activation of nuclear charges. It can be assumed that the day when the powerful weapon is activated is the date the Third World War began.
Alexander Richard Schiffer, an interesting personality and former head of NATO, in his book: “2017: War with Russia,” predicted the defeat of the United States due to financial collapse, followed by the collapse of the American army.
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, as always, is unambiguous and says what the majority is delicately silent about. He is confident that America will not begin any open action until all the countries involved in the military conflict squabble among themselves to the point of collapse, and, exhausted, lay down what remains of their weapons. Then the US will magnanimously gather the dejected losers and emerge as the sole winner.
Sergei Glazyev, Advisor to the President of the Russian Federation, proposes to create a coalition that does not fundamentally support military policy against Russia. According to him, the number of countries that are officially ready to speak out in favor of abandoning armed conflict will be such that America will simply be forced to curb its appetites.
As Vanga believed
Vanga, the most famous Bulgarian seer, either could not or did not want to predict the date of the beginning of the Third World War. In order not to confuse minds with specifics, the clairvoyant only said that she sees religious strife around the world as the cause of the war. Drawing a parallel with current events, we can assume that the date of the start of the Third World War, which Vanga never predicted, falls during the period of terrorist acts of the ISIS group disguised as offended religious feelings.
Using exact dates
How can we not mention the world-famous American Horatio Villegas, whose vision of fiery spheres striking the earth from the sky became a sensation in 2015. Adapting completely materialistic tasks to the act of clairvoyance, Horatio hastened to announce that he knew the date of the start of the Third World War - 05/13/2017. It is with regret or great joy that we note that no one was able to observe the fireballs on May 13th.
We can only hope that people who were expecting big events in March 2017 were not too upset when they lost confirmation of the words of astrologer Vlad Ross. Let us recall that this person also named the date of the beginning of the Third World War - 03/26/2017, which did not find a response in reality.
If Russia sends its troops into the territory of Ukraine, it demands an answer. Our answer is that there is no possibility of a Third World War. In fact, the threat of World War III is a consequence of our inadequate perception of the surrounding reality.
This threat comes from ourselves, from our disfigured inoculation of the folk principles of the Anglo-Saxon cultural and historical type of national identity. Self-intimidation of this kind has an ingrained habit in us of living under the pressure of propaganda about our own insignificance, scolding everything that is Russian, rewarding it with base epithets and looking up from this “lowland” into which we have lowered ourselves to the advantages of Western civilization, which , in fact, practically none for us. Ultimately, we live, make decisions and implement them in conditions of European inoculation in the most dangerous form for Russian civilization: in the habit of looking at our problems through the prism of the interests of Western civilization, constantly yielding to it in its increasingly arrogant demands, like this demonstrated today in Ukraine.
There will not be a third world war in the “hot” form, which our intelligentsia fears, since Western civilization has already resolved all its internal contradictions that could have been resolved by military means during the Second World War.
All the so-called world wars - both the First and the Second - began as wars for the redistribution of influences within Western civilization itself, that is, in essence, they were civil wars, wars between related peoples of the same civilization. All other countries were simply drawn into the whirlpool of events with one single goal - to reduce their own losses and “raking in the heat with the hands of others.” At the heart of both (1914 and 1939) world wars were the contradictions between Germany on the one hand, and Great Britain and France on the other. The British brought Russia into this war on their side. Russia did not need this war at all. German Emperor Wilhelm II, as you know, did not want war with Russia. Only the habit of looking at its affairs through the prism of European interests drew Russia into this disastrous war for it.
Historiosophy N.Ya. Danilevsky points to the main reason for this war. The historical movement of peoples of the Western cultural-historical type is determined by one law: the law of balance of all its component parts, this balance was violated by the claims of Germany. These peoples do not tolerate claims to hegemony. Germany, having united into one political whole only in the second half of the 19th century, made such a demand and was suppressed by the united forces of the entire Western civilization, which, moreover, managed to involve Russia in this massacre and simultaneously solve the problem of weakening it as a present, from their point of view sight, your enemy. Historiosophy N.Ya. Danilevsky argues that the West poses a danger to Russia only when the political system of Western states achieves balance in the relations of all its members among themselves. And there is absolutely no danger when some country appears within Western civilization itself, which tries to claim hegemony in relations with its “relatives”. In this case, Russia's position should be neutral. It was this “geopolitical law of Danilevsky” that was violated by Russia in 1914 - it came out on one of the sides, namely Great Britain, and itself became a party to the conflict (the Serbs, allegedly because of whom Russia got into the war, could have waited for other more favorable circumstances , which would certainly have developed in the case of a policy of neutrality). Here, let us add one important circumstance in advance to the “notes” of our research: all the peoples of Western civilization during the period under review were ready to make human sacrifices to achieve their national interests. And these victims numbered in the millions during the First World War.
The same story repeated itself in World War II, but the USSR simply had no choice. Great Britain and the USA literally raised German fascism, solving two main problems for themselves. The first is to finally suppress the passionarity of the Germans so that they can never again claim leadership positions in the world, and doing this at the expense of Russia, and the second is to establish world hegemony. Both tasks were quite successful, only the United States, and not Great Britain, came into first place (although, perhaps, the British play a much larger role in world politics today than is commonly thought).
The German attack on the USSR on June 22, 1941 is a mystery to historians. Germany did not need this war; all of Europe, including the Slavic countries, was under it. Expediency spoke of the need to stop and begin a long period of Germanization of the conquered peoples of already conquered Europe, and the Germans have such experience; it is worth remembering the fate of the Polabian Slavs, who were all either destroyed or assimilated.
The only acceptable explanation of what happened is given by the historiosophy N.Ya. Danilevsky: the fascism of the popular principles of Western civilization - the natural historical right to provide benefits for their peoples at the expense of other peoples, prevailed over practical expediency. Nazi Germany, with a belly full to capacity, climbed onto the USSR and choked. Of course, an additional role was played by Hitler's transformation into a mystic, as a result of which he ceased to see the real interests of his people and to distinguish the possible from the impossible.
And, both in the First World War and in the Second, Germany was defeated by the united efforts of the entire Western civilization, but with the decisive role of Russia in the legal form of the USSR. The so-called Second World War showed that the popular principles of Western civilization had by that time largely lost their passionarity, the internal driving force it needed for its historical development, and the peoples of this civilization, unlike the times of the First World War, were completely unprepared for big sacrifices. This statement, of course, does not apply to the Germans of this period of history. This people, having united into one political whole only in the second half of the 19th century, twice in the history of the 20th century made an attempt to establish hegemony among the peoples of their cultural and historical type and lost both times due to the role of Russia in these wars.
In 1940, the French and their British allies turned out to be completely unable to resist the Germans on their own without the participation of Russia, unlike in 1914. France was defeated in less than a month. The German offensive began on May 10, 1940, and already at the end of May - beginning of June the allies were evacuated from the port of Dunkirk, which went down in history as the “Miracle of Dunkirk,” since Hitler, for reasons unknown to modern historians, gave the order to his tank divisions to stop the offensive (apparently, he pitied the peoples of his sister civilization). In three weeks, the Germans defeated the combined forces of the French, British, Belgians and Dutch. The main reason lies in low morale. After Dunkirk, the French surrendered, and on June 22, 1940, the Compiegne Armistice was signed, essentially an act of surrender. That is, the French decided to sit it out and preferred to accept the costs of maintaining the occupying German army rather than make millions of victims, as in the First World War. Therefore, as a result of the Second World War, the losses of France, like Great Britain, were already in the hundreds of thousands, not millions, which indicates the unwillingness of Western civilization to solve its internal problems at its own expense. The same applies to the United States: the Americans were also not ready to accept “unacceptable losses”, having behind them the experience of the bloody civil war of 1861-1865, in which their human losses were greater than their total losses in the two world wars.
All the previous internal contradictions of Western civilization, which could have been resolved by military means, were resolved in 1945, there are no longer any reasons for internecine wars within itself (essentially civil, since they occur within one civilization), and yet only these internal wars of Western civilization and can be the source of world wars, as happened twice in the 20th century.
Indeed, Germany has actually become a protectorate of the United States, has undergone the “denazification” procedure, does not have a country, there is an insanely large (547) number of American military bases in Europe, all the states of the Western Slavs have been broken, the majority have joined the EU and NATO.
But the most important thing is that after World War II, the United States managed to turn its national currency into world money. By the mid-40s of the 20th century, the United States concentrated 70% of the world's total gold reserves. Apparently, supplies, food, etc. played a decisive role in this. allied countries, including the USSR, for which payment was made in gold. Please note: in the midst of the landing of Allied troops in Normandy (the operation lasted from June 6 to August 31, 1944), on July 1, a conference was convened in Bretton Woods (USA) to determine the entire post-war system of organizing monetary relations and trade settlements. As a result of the agreements adopted, the “gold dollar standard” was approved: the dollar was firmly tied to gold (35 dollars per troy ounce), and the currencies of 44 countries were pegged to the US dollar. The instruments of this system were the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, formed in 1944.
This gold-dollar monetary system, having replaced the monetary system based on the gold standard (when each national currency is tied to gold and freely exchanged), was only an intermediate stage towards the complete abandonment of the US obligations for the free exchange of the dollar for gold, which was finally consolidated in 1973 year at the Jamaican International Conference, which subordinated exchange rates to the laws of the market. This system is still in effect today. The system of fixed exchange rates ceased to exist.
Thus, the Americans proved the rightness of our Russian scientist Sergei Fedorovich Sharapov, who developed a harmonious monetary system based on paper money, not tied to gold, but tied only to the level of development of the productive forces of a particular country (we recommend reading Valentin Katasonov’s book “Theory of the Slavophiles and modern Russia. “The paper ruble of S. Sharapov”). This system was successfully introduced by the Bolsheviks, to which, in fact, we owe industrialization in the first place - only this system allows us to mobilize all the internal resources of the people (this is exactly what needs to be done in Novorossiya).
But the trick turned out to be that the dollar, no longer backed by anything, having received inertia since 1944, continued to perform the function of world money. It is this status of the dollar that is the main achievement of the United States; it is this instrument that gives Americans a gigantic advantage over other nations in the development of their economy. The possibility of such an advantage is associated with the function of paper and non-cash money in conditions of developed commodity-money circulation, which politicians carefully hide from the people.
To carry out the free exchange of produced goods, the mere presence of consumer demand for these goods is not enough; this exchange will be possible only if there is also effective demand for the goods. And the satisfaction of this second condition ultimately depends only on the saturation of the economy with money in an amount equivalent to the entire potentially produced mass of goods that the population and industry need. If there is less money in the economy than is necessary for the productive forces (Sharapov used the concept of “industriousness of the people”), production stops and death occurs. If it is more, then inflation, which, first of all, means a uniform increase in prices across all sectors and is not something fatal to the economy. But this is only if the state issues its banknotes primarily in strict accordance with the needs of its economy, perhaps with some reserve towards excess.
In the United States, as is known, the function of the Central Bank is performed by the Federal Reserve System, an organization owned by several private banks. The issue of a “backed dollar” is carried out in quantities that obviously exceed the needs of the US economy and is carried out not only to finance its economy, but also to perform the function of the dollar as world money.
There is no hyperinflation in the United States because other countries are forced to conduct their foreign trade in dollars, especially when it comes to trading hydrocarbons. Next - you cannot spend all your foreign exchange earnings, but must store it in gold and foreign currency reserves (gold and foreign exchange reserves). But the most interesting thing is that you cannot print your banknotes in quantities corresponding to the needs of your economy, and you are allowed to do this only in an amount proportional to your dollar savings in gold and foreign currency reserves. Not only Russia, but also China, which is entangled in various international agreements with structures such as the IMF, is in this trap.
This is how the modern neocolonial system works. All countries that are part of this system pay a gigantic tax, which is expressed in the freezing of their dollar assets in “dollar reserves,” while the Americans also manage to keep gold from other countries, supposedly in storage. Even if we assume that you will ever manage to get your money out of these financial refrigerators, you will still lose due to inflation. But the entire foreign policy of the United States is aimed at ensuring that you never receive this money, at least the bulk of it, so that you never leave the dollar zone, so that you cannot fully develop your economy because for the artificial compression of its own money supply.
The United States has established a world order in which it seeks to artificially restrain the development of other national economies that are not included in the concept of the “golden billion.” To do this, they need a powerful army and navy, they need military bases around the world, numbering more than 700. Therefore, we must understand that the real backing for the dollar is the aggressive foreign policy of the United States, carried out by them with the help of a powerful military machine, which, moreover, the country - potential victims are also supported at their own expense through the above-mentioned mechanism of dollar dependence.
The burning of extra dollars is carried out precisely through the instigation and organization of local conflicts, as a result of which the funds of not only unwanted persons, but also the very gold and currency reserves of entire states fall under arrest (freezing of holdings). At the same time, Americans seem to be able to separate not only excess non-cash money from their economy, but also cash. It is not for nothing that a new type of dollar bills have appeared in Ukraine today: they were simply printed to finance the revolution, which means that it is possible to control those individuals who have too many of them.
What conclusions can be drawn based on the analysis done?
First. The Third World War (in the understanding that we mean by this phrase) is impossible due to Russia’s military intervention on the territory of Ukraine. It is impossible because it will definitely lead to the collapse of the dollar as a world currency, which will mean the loss of an external source of income for the United States as a result of a process similar to how in the Middle Ages subject peoples suddenly refused to pay in-kind tribute in gold, furs, etc. to their enslavers. The Americans would tolerate these actions on our part just as they tolerated the annexation of Crimea, and would now pass in Congress the same bill against Russia No. 2277 (“Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014”), which is being adopted now, only We wouldn't leave the dollar zone.
What appears in our imagination when we ask ourselves about the consequences of the entry of Russian troops into the entire territory of Ukraine?
We think that the United States, for its part, will also definitely send in its troops and a war will begin between Russia and the United States directly, which, naturally, we think with our Western-phile consciousness, will lead to our complete defeat.
It is this inadequate understanding of the realities of the modern world order that is the key to our defeat in the future, and we will definitely lose if we do not sober up. Americans understand well that a war using conventional weapons with a country that has nuclear weapons, which can destroy you more than once, is fraught with the risk of this war spilling over into a nuclear one. And the American man in the street is completely unprepared for this. Moreover, those puppet masters invisible to the world who actually rule America are absolutely not prepared for this: for them, not a single scenario for the development of events that carries with it the slightest probability of damage to their property and position is acceptable.
The best example is the US reluctance to strike North Korea, which possesses, and Iran, which may possess a dirty atomic bomb. The unacceptable damage that Russia's nuclear deterrent forces can inflict on US territory is incomparable with the capabilities of North Korea and Iran, which have nothing to reach the United States, and only American aircraft carriers off their coasts can suffer. And, apparently, this is enough for the Americans not to get involved in the war.
Oddly enough, our ally in the current situation of a hypothetical conflict with the United States is Hollywood and the entire long-term system of American propaganda against Russia, which has implanted in the minds of Americans the confidence that Russia is the evil empire, that there are no worse Russian bears in the world, that we ruthless, we enslave all peoples, destroy them, etc., even to the point of eating babies. Remember how recently Western propaganda tried to discredit our Olympics: their television showed fabricated videos about wolves walking around hotels in Sochi. And what an ordinary American thinks, it is not difficult to assume: that this Russian “sub-human”, a beast, in fact, without hesitation, will use nuclear weapons in the event of a direct clash with American soldiers.
This is the only reason why a direct war with Russia has no chance of happening. And note that nowhere, not a single US TV channel, not a single newspaper depicts the prospect of such a military clash for them. Why? Because they understand well that panic may begin in their society, which may have unpredictable consequences.
US public figures watch what they say, not to mention government officials. But our intelligentsia does not follow and, speaking about the possibility of a Third World War, actually joins the ranks of the Pentagon’s propaganda army. In fact, we should find American dissidents and pay them, so that what our provocateurs say, they voice within the United States itself. The benefit for us would be enormous: the United States would be covered by a wave of anti-war demonstrations.
The dollar's function as world money allows the United States to provide its citizens with an undeservedly high standard of living at the expense of a hidden form of exploitation of other peoples. But this very circumstance is also the factor keeping America from starting a large-scale war with a nuclear power. Only the very thought of such a possibility, having captured public opinion in one country or another, can force other countries to begin preparing for defense against the United States. One of the measures of this preparation will inevitably be the transition to the direct issue of their national currencies, that is, leaving the dollar zone.
This will first lead to a weakening of the dollar as a world currency, and in the event of a real war, to its complete collapse. The entire system of exploitation, built on the results of World War II, will collapse. How does this threaten the USA? The undeservedly high standard of living of US citizens that they now enjoy will collapse, and the violent foundations of the popular principles of the Anglo-Saxon national character will finally begin to “nightmare” their own government, as a result of which the peoples of the world will have to send humanitarian aid to the United States.
Second. To support the modern world neocolonial system, the United States needs to constantly organize local crises and wars, in which, if possible, they try not to participate with their troops due to the low morale of the army, but try to use their mercenaries, whom they raise in advance around the world. And where the United States decides to take part with its soldiers, it is forced to strictly monitor the level of losses in manpower so that it does not exceed what is psychologically unacceptable by society. Wars end immediately as soon as this bar goes off scale. At the same time, we must see that this level has been constantly and sharply declining since the Civil War of 1861-1865, in which, according to various estimates, from 500 to 600 thousand people died, which exceeds the losses of the United States in the two world wars combined. In Vietnam, this threshold has dropped to 50 thousand people. In Iraq and Afghanistan there are up to three, two or one thousand people. In Libya, the United States limited itself to air support for militants, and in Syria only military-technical assistance to militants, seeing Bashar al-Assad’s ability to resist in a ground war. Proof of the importance for America of an acceptable threshold of losses is the relationship of the United States with North Korea and Iran, with which the United States never decided to fight, since the people of these countries are ready for their own Patriotic Wars.
It follows from this that in the current situation in Ukraine, it is in the interests of the United States and not in the interests of Russia that a protracted conflict along the front “the army of Novorossiya - the army of Ukraine” will take place, in which both countries will each support their side.
Therefore, our newspaper constantly wrote about the need to send Russian troops into the entire territory of Ukraine in order to immediately stop NATO’s advances into the zone of Russian vital interests, which, due to our inadequacy, had shrunk to the size of historical Russia (in fact, the zone of vital interests of Russia is the territory of all border countries, especially the Slavic and Baltic countries, which should not be part of NATO, but at least neutral).
Third. There will not be a “Third World War” in the sense that we put into this phrase (i.e. in the sense of a military offensive by the West against Russia), because - even though for the first time in our history we are confronting a united Western civilization - there is an objective factor that significantly weakening this united West. The weakness of the united Western civilization lies in the fact that its unification took place on the basis of US hegemony, and not on the basis of the balance of all nation-states that make up the Western cultural and historical type. It is natural to classify the United States as a Western cultural-historical type, which N.Ya. Danilevsky at one time called it Romano-Germanic or Anglo-Saxon. No new civilization has developed in the USA; it is the same Western civilization, transferred to another continent from the Old World by the method of colonization, only the Anglo-Saxon principle won in it.
When we say that the West united for the first time, we mean not only that supranational political institutions (NATO, EU) were created for the first time, but also that for the first time the West set the task of the total destruction of Russia. We somehow forgot that it was precisely this task that Hitler, and since 1945, the Americans, tried to realize.
But in our history there is still an example of the role of balance: Europe united against Russia in the Crimean War of 1853 and won, but lost under Napoleon in 1812. Here's what N.Ya writes about it. Danilevsky in his book “Russia and Europe”: “The campaign against Russia during a time of disturbed balance, under the leadership of one of the greatest military geniuses (red Napoleon), who held the forces and destinies of Europe in his hands, ends in the complete defeat of the enemies. The campaign against Russia (edited in 1853) during a time of equilibrium, led by the most notorious mediocrities, ends in their complete success, despite the fact that Russia has become (materially, at least) twice as strong as in 1812.”… “It is precisely the balance of political forces in Europe that is harmful, even disastrous for Russia, and its violation on any side is beneficial and beneficial.”
Both world wars, as mentioned above, were, in fact, civil wars within one Western civilization. Political balance was not achieved.
In order to determine our foreign policy course today, we must know the “geopolitical law of Danilevsky” described above. Only then will we be able to formulate the main question and answer it: has Western civilization reached that political balance that will allow it to unleash all its forces on us? The answer is obvious: no, I haven’t achieved it. And this is our chance and the chance of all other peoples to live longer, preserving their original folk principles, to live up to new geopolitical realities, which Russia will be able to shape if it frees itself from the shackles of Western culture in the organization of all spheres of life.
The political system of the peoples of Western civilization today is built on the principle of US hegemony and is therefore not in balance. We see that all local crises in different countries are caused by the United States, sometimes involving NATO allies for decoration. The position of European countries on the Ukrainian crisis is another example of the contradictions between the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe that has joined them.
On the other hand, there are insoluble contradictions within Europe itself: between the Germans, who still retain their passionarity, and the French, on the one hand, and other peoples, on the other. Voting in the European Union is structured like in a joint-stock company. The founding fathers (primarily Germany and France) tied voting to the population of the participating countries so that they always had a majority and therefore they could “legally” dictate their will to the unfortunate foreigners: the Greeks, Romanians, Slavs, who are all today learn from their own experience the veracity of the Russian proverb that warns that free cheese can only be found in a mousetrap. European integration is based on the principle of “woe to the vanquished.” It is impossible not to see this today, if we proceed from the priority of preserving the diversity of God-created peoples.
So, let us repeat our conclusion: Russia is opposed by Western civilization, which has failed to achieve political balance among its parts. Therefore, from this point of view, we have a chance for the Russian Renaissance!
Fourth. The Third World War has already been going on since 1945, and Western civilization, united under US hegemony, is waging it against the whole world very successfully, and there is no need for them to unleash a full-scale hot world war: its consequences are beyond the scope of forecasts and can “accidentally” cause a new strengthening of Russia or China, for example. In all our previous articles, our newspaper constantly focuses on this.
You just need to learn to see that only the forms of this war have changed: firstly, the United States has secured superiority in military potential due to the possession of nuclear weapons, which generally excludes the possibility of an attack on the United States by anyone; secondly, the tactic of sneaking their military bases towards potentially dangerous (according to the Americans) countries is actively used; thirdly, the advantages of the American-Western civilization, such as “democracy”, “human rights”, are actively imposed on other countries, which ends with the introduction of their agents of influence into the ruling elites of other nation-states, such as Gorbachev, with subsequent changes the entire legislation of these states towards complete capitulation.
An obstacle to the world domination of Western civilization was the Russian-Slavic civilization, one of whose states not only retained its political independence, but achieved a power unprecedented in its history. This is our state - Russia, and it does not matter at all that during the period when this power was achieved, we existed in the legal form of the USSR.
They say we lost the Cold War. Nothing like this. Russia was able to single-handedly resist the West in this war and prevent it from escalating into a hot nuclear phase: it was the Americans who were the first to develop plans to attack 50 cities of the USSR with atomic bombs, this is known today. It is by this criterion that the results of the war must be judged. The collapse of our statehood in the USSR format is not associated with the costs of the Cold War, but with the rejection of the Kosygin economic reforms of the 1960s, which was the starting point of the crisis of the 1980-90s (we will develop this topic in the following articles).
Following the results of World War II, the Western elite made an important conclusion for itself: in open confrontation we cannot be defeated, since, falling into a period of severe trials, the Russian man wakes up from hibernation and discovers gigantic strength and a willingness to “not stand up for the price,” as the famous song says song. Therefore, they adopted a strategy of corrupting us from within by implanting their civilizational values, built solely on the enslavement of man to carnal needs, from which it is very difficult for non-church people to escape (this topic, apparently, also needs to be developed in the future).
But in Ukraine, the Americans made a mistake, or are acting very risky for themselves. Instead of corrupting the citizens of Ukraine with their values for another generation, they attacked us today, when not only the older generation is alive, but also the middle one is able to quite adequately assess the situation. And this attack is being carried out through an intermediary in the form of the Kyiv junta (they can’t do it any other way), which uses the neo-Nazi ideology of “Ukrainianism”, and which has finally openly revealed itself as the personification of total Russophobia, which is exactly what was intended even by the Austro-Hungarians into the very idea of creating a special Ukrainian identity, different from Russian. This policy of the American-Kyiv junta has already led to the mass death of several thousand people. Before our eyes, the genocide of the Russian people of the “former Ukraine” is unfolding at the hands of those who only yesterday were talking about the “Holodomor”. We have every reason for decisive action and for this we have sufficient support from the population in Ukraine itself due to the incompleteness of the process of both Ukrainization and Europeanization (Americanization) of its inhabitants.
If we had lived all these years with an awareness of our vital interests, we would have been able to see that the Americans, who staged the February revolution in Kyiv, made a mistake by giving us both a pretext and a reason for simultaneously sending the army into the entire territory of Ukraine. They cannot answer in any way at the present time; their strength lies only in the weakness of our national self-awareness and in its fragmentation.
If we got rid of the habit of looking at our affairs through the prism of the interests of Western civilization, we would see that Providence gives us a chance to resolve the issue of reuniting the divided Russian people with minimal losses for ourselves. To do this, you need to decide to send troops to the entire territory of Ukraine and start from its Central part (Kyiv) and Western regions (Lviv-Rivne-Volyn-Uzhgorod). At the same time, Russia must consider as belonging to the divided Russian people not only the Russian residents of Novorossiya, but also the Russian Ukrainians of Little Russia (Central Ukraine), the Russian Ukrainians of Galician Rus, the Rusyns of Transcarpathian Rus (I apologize if I forgot anyone, I confess that I previously considered the Galician Ukrainians to be separate ethnic group, they are Russians, Russians!). And it should not be at all important to us that part of the population of Ukraine today is negatively opposed to Russia. We must understand that not everyone is able to endure the propaganda of lies that is pouring on the heads of our compatriots in Ukraine. We must proceed from responsibility not only to ourselves and our descendants, whose lives will be subject to physical destruction as a result of NATO approaching our borders, but also to the Russians of Little Russia and Galicia, who are only a hundred years old or so Western political strategists (to one of the groups which should include both the Bolsheviks and all the presidents of Ukraine over the past 23 years) got it into their heads that they are not Russians. Our propaganda can be based on the naked truth, unlike the one pouring out of Kyiv today. On our website we post a story about the catastrophic situation in which Bulgaria found itself as a result of joining the EU (now they eat not bell peppers and tomatoes, but Dutch ones, and only if they have enough money after paying for housing and communal services).
The same will happen in the territories of Western Ukraine: there are no historical examples that would even suggest that, for example, those black soils that ordinary workers in Western Ukraine own today will remain their property. Everything will be taken away “by law”: through high taxes, for example, and given to Western agricultural corporations. Information has already flashed that Poroshenko is committing to reduce sugar beet crops in favor of genetically modified crops from American companies like Monsanto.
And if today the working people of Western Ukraine feed themselves from their land by subsistence farming, and get clothes and housing from waste trades in Russia and Poland, then after the final loss of political independence, all families will have to simply go to waste trades, as is happening in Bulgaria (it has come to this). to the point that children abandon old people in villages to live in poverty and go to other countries). By this we want to say that in our propaganda baggage there is only the truth, which we are obliged to convey to all residents of Ukraine.
We need to finally understand that the United States, like all its predecessors, does not need any reasons for war against us.
We need to see that they have been waging war against us for a long time in the manner described above.
We need to understand that those unfriendly actions that they can commit against us, they will commit in any case if there is a collaborationist government in Kyiv, controlled by an American Gauleiter in the form of the US Ambassador.
We need to understand that US Law (BILL) No. 2277 “Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014”, which has already passed two readings, would have been accepted by the Americans even without the accomplished fact of annexing Crimea to us. The accusation of persecution of gays, Pussy Riot, Navalny, etc. would be used as a reason. This can be clearly seen from just the title of this document, and the text itself is much more eloquent... It has already become a banality to say that the aggressor, in fact, is the United States, which after 1945 has done nothing but constantly fight, considering it their zone of life. interests the entire globe.
We need to understand that all our guilt in the eyes of the West (and this is clearly seen from US Law No. 2277) lies only in the fact that we exist, that we exist and want to live an independent life in the political, economic, religious, cultural spheres .
Events are unfolding in such a way that you can already hear from many opponents regret that we did not decide to send troops to all of Ukraine in March, when the Crimean events were developing. But we must see that the events unfolding in Ukraine today cry out for themselves: the Americans will not leave us alone. The only adequate solution is to send troops now. Yes, there will already be victims, but still incomparable even with the tragedy that is playing out in Novorossiya today, and even more so, incomparable with the future victims that Russia will have to make if the United States settles on the former borders of the former Ukraine (the former because Ukraine is already cannot be considered an independent subject of international law; it is a US colony). There is even a very definite possibility for this: legal elections for the President of Ukraine should take place in March 1915. At the same time, the elections of May 25 should not be recognized.
Unfortunately, events are developing in such a way that the scenario described by our newspaper is not being considered. In this case, we can only join the opinions already expressed (in particular by Kurginyan, Prokhanov, Bagdasarov) that Russia should provide military-technical assistance to the army of Novorossiya by sending volunteers there, even if registered in private armies, as Kurginyan proposes, so that the soldiers' families are protected. But only with one caveat. This assistance should be so large-scale that the tasks mentioned above can be solved by the army of Novorossiya.
Visited us Igor Korotchenko, Chairman of the Public Council under the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, Editor-in-Chief of the National Defense magazine, Director of the Center for Analysis of the Global Arms Trade, military expert. Our military expert, a retired colonel, was also present Nikolay Poroskov, military columnist for the newspaper "Vek", deputy editor-in-chief of the magazine "Military Parade".
The idea was to talk seriously about World War III. How real are modern military threats, what are they? Is our state well armed? And, of course, a soldier - what should he be like in a modern army? The conversation turned out to be interesting and long. Therefore, for ease of reading, we have divided it into three parts. Today – the first part, about the Third World War.
From Voenternet took part in the conversation Mikhail Kozhukhov, Alexander Roshka And Nikolay Ushanov.
M. Kozhukhov
Do you think there are real reasons for concern today? For example, the situation on the Korean Peninsula? It's important to deal with this. I remember that in the Soviet years the threat of nuclear war was not just a phobia, but one of the basic elements of ideology, that is, consider that politics. I even gave some lectures myself through the Knowledge Society about nuclear winter and other nonsense. And then everyone suddenly started talking only about local threats, about the need for cooperation, and forgot about the nuclear threat. It turns out that the question of the possibility of a Third World War is now off the agenda? Is it not in Russian doctrine?
I. Korotchenko
In principle, we are not preparing for a global war. It is considered unlikely due to the fact that an exchange of nuclear strikes would be fatal for the entire civilization. Firstly, the threat of a big war with NATO seemed to have been lifted. At least, the officially mentioned documents clearly state that in the event of aggression against Russia using even conventional armed forces, if as a result the existence of the state is endangered by the aggressors, we will respond with a nuclear strike. In response to normal aggression. That is, it is understood that we reserve the right to preventive use of nuclear weapons. For Europe, for example, receiving 2-3 nuclear strikes of 150 kilotons each is death. In principle, today the result of the use of conventional weapons, through which, for example, a nuclear power plant, a large hydroelectric complex or a dam in the Netherlands is destroyed, will result in a fatal disaster for Europe. But it is officially believed that a major war with the West is – for now – impossible within the next 15-20 years. We don’t go into Europe and don’t project power there. On the Chinese side, we also insure ourselves with nuclear weapons, especially since China, according to its latest official doctrinal guidelines, wants to go to Southeast Asia. This region falls a little out of our sight, but imagine, even some kind of Singapore - it would seem, a city-state - is now beginning to actively invest in defense. Moreover, crazy money. I'm not even talking about Australia or other large states. And this makes China very nervous.
N. Ushanov
Indeed, we are all thinking about Europe and the States, but the Asia-Pacific region is huge. And China is not small. And not at all weak, what could be especially unnerving there?
I. Korotchenko
Well, firstly, the region is very conflict-prone. Secondly, there are many island territories around which there have been disputes between different states for decades. And the only argument in these disputes is military force. And finally, the third, very important circumstance is the shelf. Hydrocarbons. Resources. What are you talking about, this is all very serious. Last year I was in China, in Beijing. The Chinese, quite high-ranking ones, say: “But we are concerned that Vietnam is buying six submarines from Russia.” I say: “Come on! What do you need these six boats with your fleet..." - “No,” they say, “we are really worried.” That is, even Vietnam is assessed there from the point of view of a possible threat to China. And what is China doing now? That's right - it builds aircraft carriers. And these aircraft carriers will go there. So far our open spaces are not very attractive to them and... that’s good for us.
M. Kozhukhov
Does it follow that Chinese global concepts do not include the option of a global conflict?
I. Korotchenko
Not yet provided. The percentage of actual occurrence of local conflicts around the world today is unrealistically high. They already exist and will definitely exist, and these will be wars for resources. For example, one wonders why the French went to Mali, to Africa? Protect the local government from Islamists? Whatever the case! They went to defend their free access to African uranium, since the French nuclear fleet (both military and civilian) is completely tied to Africa. For prey. They went there to defend their national interests.
M. Kozhukhov
That is, it is clear that the world community is not preparing for a global war. But, you must admit, it can break out suddenly, out of stupidity, for reasons of some private selfish interests, or even due to drunkenness, in the end (I know a country where this can happen).
I. Korotchenko
Maybe no one denies it. And where it all might begin is difficult to guess. Let's try to imagine a purely hypothetical scenario: another coup in Pakistan, Islamists seize power, and atomic weapons end up in their hands. No matter how much the Americans shout that they are blocking and controlling this whole thing, don’t believe it, it’s a bluff. All of them are physically beyond their control. So the Pakistanis are launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike on India. They, of course, answer. And off we go! What happens next could be just a catastrophic chain of events, anything, and no one can calculate it. In fact, the scenario for the outbreak of a major war may be completely illogical. But, alas, this will become a reality that we will have to face tomorrow. I don’t want to say “World War III is on the agenda,” but it could be provoked. Take a look at the Korean Peninsula. These guys, so to speak, do not have the ability to make a compact bomb (after all, this is a large device), but they do have the opportunity to place it in a trailer and explode it at the border. Or delivered by sea to Japan. Well, anything can happen – a country with such a regime is unpredictable. Or, imagine, suddenly a large-scale nuclear disaster occurs in the United States. Purely theoretically...
A.Rosca
What could this really be?
M. Kozhukhov
Why not? Anything is possible!
I. Korotchenko
In any case, there were real nuclear incidents that the Americans tried not to advertise. For example, flights of strategic bombers with nuclear weapons on board, which were not listed anywhere. There have been a lot of strange stories, but Americans simply don’t wash dirty linen in public. Well, and the human factor – there’s no getting around it.
N. Poroskov
One day, an American bomber flew from base to base and carried missiles with nuclear warheads under its planes. Moreover, the crew did not know about it. But when we landed, it was discovered - ah! So anything can happen...
I. Korotchenko
There is a risk of a Third World War. It is insignificant, but, again, who, for example, could have predicted the meteorite over Chelyabinsk? However, today, for Russia, our main problem is the Afghan threat. There are opinions that when NATO leaves Afghanistan, they will deal with Karzai in exactly the same way as they did with Najibullah. Power will pass into the hands of the Taliban and they may begin expansion into the post-Soviet space. What is the situation in Afghanistan now? In fact, NATO troops are subject to tribute. For the wire under escort (to avoid losses) you have to pay cash. Either field commanders, or hire a private military company and pay cash. And only then this private military company pays cash to the field commanders. People simply cut their heads, sitting and controlling individual areas. There is no industry in Afghanistan. What do they live off of - drugs and plus this - the fact that they simply shake money for every convoy escort. And so it is in almost everything. So that the base is not shelled, so that there are no losses, you have to pay. This is some kind of racket. As soon as the Americans leave there, the Taliban close to the border will cross it and move on.
N. Ushanov
Why do they need this, what is the benefit? They're not thinking of building factories or production, are they?
I. Korotchenko
No, what kind of factories are there! But there will definitely be expansion. The very ideology of Islamic extremism will provide for expansion. And these ideas will very soon become popular in our former Central Asian republics. Already popular. There are two weak links here – Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. The internal situation in these countries is depressing, people there crave Islamic extremist slogans and they get them - there is a powerful terrorist underground there.
N. Poroskov
There is... the prevailing opinion is that a world war is unlikely to take place. And even front-line army operations are impossible today. This idea is constantly imposed by experts of various kinds - Western, American. However, Iraq included an army of 400,000. That is, there was a front-line operation, at least. It is difficult to talk about a world war. That it could be spontaneous, it will arise, no one plans it, but... I get drunk and so on, maybe... there may be front-line operations. But still, I think that in the near future we need to count on so-called network-centric wars. This is when heterogeneous armed military forces are united in the information space, in a single information field. Moreover, they are closely tied to each other through this information field. Let's say here are missiles, here are ground forces, here is reconnaissance. And the one who controls the situation through this information can activate individual forces at the right time...
Illustrations by Konstantin Batynkov
To be continued
The two world wars that shook humanity had their own preconditions. In the first case, the redistribution of spheres of influence, both in Europe and in the colonial world, in the second - the insatiable thirst for revenge of the side that played the game and a new racial theory. The result is tens of millions of dead, civil wars, epidemics, changing the political system. And that's just on the surface. The deep processes launched as a result of world wars completely changed the face of humanity, but at what cost?
Today the world is in turmoil. The cauldron of conflicts is fueled by the constant fire of Kalashnikov assault rifles in Africa, NATO rifles and missiles in the Middle East, and “Lead Sunsets” in Palestine.
The prerequisites for conflicts to escalate into a full-scale war certainly exist.
Let's turn to our past and accept the theory of the Pendulum in the development of humanity. At first, the Moors owned Spain and raided Europe, then the Pendulum swung and the Moors left, and the Europeans set up a raw materials colony out of Africa. If we accept this theory, then the time of the “Moors” has come. North Africa is on fire, and who will now rule the proud sons of Africa is completely unclear. The coming to power of radicals will provide us all with an alarming future.
And back to history. We all know about the Crusades. And we can all see today in the USA a new prototype of the Holy See and the army of crusaders, measuredly marching towards the Holy Sepulcher. The coffin, of course, is now measured in barrels of oil, but the essence remains the same. Again the redistribution of spheres of influence, everything as in 1914. Does this signal a precursor to global carnage?
Probably not. Still, humanity has drawn conclusions: we have the UN, we have a multipolar world, and there are several powers with nuclear weapons, which act as a guarantor of the impossibility of a global conflict. Chernobyl in 1986, and Fukushima in 2011, clearly demonstrated what radiation brings with it, so there are no more madmen left who believe that a nuclear strike will win the war.
Wars have always haunted humanity, and will continue to be a way to resolve conflict situations for a long time. Born in the offices of big politicians and big corporations, they today pursue only one goal - profit. Financial gain, and again profit. The third world war is not included in the plans of the true rulers of the world, because people are needed for financial gain.
The soothsayers also talk about this. Now let's move on to people whose extrasensory abilities push the boundaries of the accepted concept of reality in our world.
Predictions that can be associated with the third world war are simply a dime a dozen, so to speak. Almost every famous seer has visions in which mountains of corpses and seas of blood, and fire comes down from heaven, and water becomes poison. Without questioning the gift of clairvoyants, we will still try to explain this from the perspective of our time. What could the seers see? Fire from the sky, monstrous servants of hell, seas of blood?
When oil rigs were burning in Iraq, and US tanks were rapidly approaching Baghdad, what were the terrible pictures of the Third World War?
You need to understand that the topic of the Great War will always remain popular, yes, yes, popular, and in addition to true psychics, there are and have been many schemers and crooks who simply made a name for themselves by “predicting world carnage.”
However, serious visionaries warn that humanity is constantly walking on the edge of a knife, playing at war. And, nevertheless, planetary conflict can be avoided, whether through repentance, as Orthodox soothsayers say, or through internal enlightenment, as clairvoyants say, but everything is in the hands of man.
Pictures of a terrifying war always visit psychics; these are fragments of the future that can happen. There are no exact dates, just as there is no exact certainty about the possibility of such a development. Humanity always has several roads along which we can continue our journey, and perhaps in this direction the world collapse awaits us. However, if we had always lived by the predictions, perhaps Atlantis would still be between Europe and America, and the Earth would continue to be the center of the Universe, around which the Sun revolves.
The main thing in all predictions is the moment of choice, and our future depends on what we choose. Whether it will be illuminated by flashes of nuclear mushrooms and the shadow of the green banner of Mohammed, or whether a peaceful existence awaits us, depends not only on the trembling hand over the red nuclear launch button, but also on our consciousness.
