Relations of the USSR with Western countries in the mid-50s - early 60s. After Stalin's death, representatives of the party elite, in particular G.M. Malenkov, came to the conclusion that nuclear war, which is fraught with mortal danger for all humanity, is inadmissible. The Soviet leadership, maintaining its course towards supporting communist and “anti-imperialist” forces, took a number of steps aimed at normalizing relations with the West.
In the summer of 1955, the first meeting of the heads of state and government of the USSR, USA, England and France after the Potsdam Conference took place in Geneva. The Soviet delegation, headed by N. S. Khrushchev, came up with a draft treaty on collective security in Europe. American President D. Eisenhower initially proposed resolving the issue of German unification, for which the Soviet side was not ready. As a result, the attempt to conclude an agreement between the two blocs failed. However, the Geneva negotiations proved the very possibility of achieving a compromise between the West and the East. A peculiar consequence of the “spirit of Geneva” established in international relations was the withdrawal of Soviet and American troops from Austria, the establishment of diplomatic relations between
The USSR and Germany, the signing of the Soviet-Japanese declaration, which provided for an end to the state of war and the restoration of diplomatic relations. In 1958, an agreement on cooperation in the field of culture and economics was concluded between the Soviet Union and the United States.
During the “peace offensive,” the USSR announced a unilateral reduction of its armed forces and the liquidation of military bases in Finland and China. In 1957, he submitted proposals to the UN to suspend nuclear tests, mutual obligations to renounce the use of atomic weapons, and to consistently reduce the armed forces of the opposing blocs. In 1958, the USSR unilaterally temporarily stopped nuclear testing.
However, it was not possible to achieve serious changes in the main direction of international relations - between the USSR and the USA. The first ever visit of the head of the Soviet government to the United States, which took place in 1959, was not marked by the signing of any serious documents in the field of arms limitation. Achieving long-term agreements was hampered by a lack of trust between the superpowers. At the same time, the USSR and the USA ruthlessly dealt with political forces they did not like in countries that were in their sphere of influence (the participation of the Soviet Army in suppressing the anti-communist uprising in Hungary, the overthrow of the government in the Dominican Republic by American troops).
In May 1960, Soviet-American relations were overshadowed by the appearance of an American reconnaissance aircraft in Soviet airspace, which was shot down by air defense forces. The Berlin crisis of 1961 marked the end of the brief era of warming in international relations. It broke out after the failure of the Soviet-American summit in Vienna, when President John Kennedy refused to consider proposals on the status of Berlin.
On August 19, 1961, with the consent of Moscow, the East German government erected a concrete wall that fenced off West Berlin from the territory of the GDR. These actions violated the decisions of the Potsdam Conference, which provided for freedom of movement around the city. When planning retaliatory measures, the United States considered the likelihood of a military conflict with the USSR. The American military planned to break through tank columns to Berlin from the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany. At the same time, one of the Soviet military bases located in the GDR could have been subjected to atomic bombing. In the coming conflict, the United States counted on the superiority of its nuclear forces. However, protests by West German politicians, who feared the country would become a theater of nuclear war, prevented the worst-case scenario.
Caribbean crisis. In the 50s, the USA and the USSR intensively built up nuclear weapons. Along with long-range bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) have become carriers of nuclear warheads, capable of reaching any point on enemy territory through outer space. Submarines were also armed with missiles with nuclear warheads, capable of striking from the depths of the World Ocean. The ongoing nuclear missile arms race had two major consequences. On the one hand, it led to the accumulation of nuclear potential by each of the superpowers, capable of repeatedly destroying the enemy. On the other hand, the threat of using nuclear weapons set a limit on the actions of conventional means and weapons and prevented the possibility of escalation of an armed conflict. The “nuclear factor” first appeared during the Korean War. He made himself known to an even greater extent during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
The crisis was the result of a whole chain of events that occurred long before October 1962. In 1957, the Americans deployed Jupiter-type medium-range missiles on the territory of Greece and Turkey. This created a new “window of vulnerability” for the USSR due to the short - compared to intercontinental missiles - time of approach of Jupiters to the industrial centers of the south of the European part of the country. Taking retaliatory actions, the Soviet leadership took advantage of the situation that arose after the victory in Cuba in 1959 of the revolutionary forces led by F. Castro. The new Cuban government nationalized the property of American companies, which hurt US interests. The Kennedy administration put powerful pressure on Cuba, the apotheosis of which was the preparation of a landing on the “Island of Liberty” by Castro’s opponents (which ended in failure). The Cuban leader turned to the USSR for help. Several launch sites for Soviet medium-range nuclear-tipped missiles were secretly located in Cuba. 
The United States leadership learned about the incident from aerial photography. American territory turned out to be vulnerable to attack: the short flight time of Soviet missiles did not make it possible to launch interceptor missiles. In October 1962, the US President announced the establishment of a naval blockade of Cuba: all ships going to the island were to be inspected by the US military. In addition, Kennedy demanded that the Soviet missiles be dismantled and withdrawn as soon as possible.
Soviet ships heading to Cuba were accompanied by naval forces, including submarines equipped with nuclear weapons. A collision between the two fleets seemed almost inevitable, which would lead to a large-scale war between the USSR and the USA. The armed forces of both states were brought to a state of full combat readiness.
In this situation, nuclear warheads played the role of a deterrent. The prevailing opinion in the leadership circles of the superpowers was that an exchange of blows would have irreversible consequences. American experts and politicians pointed out that the use of nuclear weapons by the Soviet Union would be catastrophic for the United States even in the event of a preemptive strike by the Americans. “We don’t have enough bulldozers to remove the bodies,” said one prominent American politician. Prudence prevailed - Khrushchev and Kennedy managed to conclude an agreement. In exchange for the United States' commitment not to attack Cuba, the Soviet Union removed its missiles from the island. The Americans, in turn, dismantled the Jupiters, which were located near the borders of the USSR.
The Cuban Missile Crisis forced the superpowers and other states that possessed nuclear weapons to begin limiting the nuclear missile arms race. In 1963, a treaty was signed banning nuclear weapons testing in the atmosphere, outer space and under water. In 1968, the USSR, USA and Great Britain concluded a treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. These agreements became one of the most important factors contributing to the subsequent period of détente in international tension.
The struggle for influence in the “third world”. In the 50-60s, intense competition between the superpowers for influence in the “third world” continued. The USA and the USSR provided military-political and economic assistance, which firmly tied the recipient country to the donor country. The rapid collapse of the colonial system created favorable conditions for the Soviet Union to intensify its activities in the “Third World”.
In 1957-1964. The leadership of the USSR signed over 20 different cooperation agreements with developing countries. Military-political and economic support was provided primarily to those states that declared their “anti-imperialist” position in the international arena or their choice of “socialist orientation” as a priority for internal development. Large-scale aid, which placed a heavy burden on the Soviet economy, in some cases constituted a significant part of the budget of the USSR's allies (in India - 15%, in the United Arab Republic - up to 50% of funds allocated for economic development).
Another important instrument of influence of the superpowers in the “third world” was the supply of weapons and the participation of military advisers or military contingents in regional conflicts. Battlefields served as military testing grounds for testing new weapons systems. At the same time, the USSR and the USA covered up their geopolitical interests with ideological maneuvers such as “helping developing countries and fighting the forces of international imperialism” or “defending the free market and the values of democracy.” At the same time, the leaders of the Third World countries often used anti-Soviet or anti-American rhetoric for purposes very far from those proclaimed in words. By concluding a military alliance with the countries of the Western or Eastern bloc and receiving economic and military-technical assistance from the “partner,” they hoped to resolve local political, religious or ethnic conflicts in their favor. 
The Vietnam War. In 1954, the division of Vietnam was carried out, freeing itself from the power of the French colonialists after many years of difficult struggle. A pro-Soviet regime established itself in the northern part of the country, and a pro-American regime in the southern part. In South Vietnam, military operations were carried out against American troops and their local allies by the Viet Cong, assisted by their northern comrades and the Chinese. The Americans gradually began to increase their military presence in Vietnam. Looking for a pretext for large-scale bombing and offensive operations by ground forces, they provoked the so-called “Tonkin Incident” in 1964: US representatives stated that their ships were allegedly attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin by North Vietnamese boats.
After this, American troops began to take a direct part in hostilities. US aircraft subjected the territory of North Vietnam to “carpet” bombing. During the Vietnam War (1964-1973), American pilots dropped 7.8 million tons of bombs, incendiary and toxic substances. 80% of Vietnamese cities and provincial centers were wiped off the face of the earth. From the Soviet Union, Vietnam received the latest anti-aircraft systems, the combat crews of which were mainly Soviet soldiers and officers. Soviet pilots also took part in the battles. During the first five years of the war, the Americans lost more than 3 thousand combat aircraft. Despite the fact that by the end of the 1960s. The number of United States troops in Vietnam reached half a million people; they failed to achieve a turning point during the fighting.
The Vietnam War, which claimed the lives of many thousands of young people, caused a real split in American society. A powerful anti-war movement developed in the United States, supported throughout the world. R. Nixon, who won the 1968 presidential election, hastened to announce the gradual withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam.
The "Vietnamization" of the war - that is, the transfer of the main functions of fighting the enemy to the South Vietnamese army - ultimately led to the defeat of the United States. According to the Paris Agreements of 1973, the Americans were forced to withdraw all their troops from Vietnam. In 1975, the South Vietnamese regime fell, and the northern and southern parts of the previously divided country were united. Defeat in the Vietnam War led to a decline in the international prestige of the United States and caused the American leadership to begin to look for ways to defuse international tension. A persistent “Vietnamese syndrome” has formed in American society - a reluctance to participate in any regional conflict.
It’s very cool to run through scorched wastelands, fight off raiders, and sell all the loot. It's great when this happens behind the monitor in a room with central heating, a refrigerator full of food and a warm bed, waiting for the end of the next session of playing Fallout.
In all other cases, this is not healthy at all.
Remember: several times in human history, we have all been one step away from making this nightmare a reality.
Once and for all!
After World War II, when the USSR and the USA received powerful nuclear weapons and effective means of delivering them to the enemy, the world faced an unprecedented threat of total destruction of all life; The possibility of waging war with nuclear weapons was considered by both sides absolutely seriously.
Nuclear weapons were assigned a decisive role in the upcoming large-scale military conflict. It was considered by both countries not only as a reliable means of containing each other, but also as a way to resolve all ideological and political contradictions once and for all. The main concept was considered the possibility in which both sides would inflict a massive defeat on each other with nuclear weapons, both against military and civilian targets. All military thought was aimed at ensuring a massive attack in the shortest possible time, which would provide an advantage to the aggressor side.
Now, thanks to numerous scientific studies, we know that a large-scale conflict using nuclear weapons would provide, and the country that struck first would not receive any advantage.
The effect of a “nuclear winter”, when clouds of soot and ash cover the sun, radioactive contamination of fertile lands and fresh water, multimillion-dollar direct casualties and a wave of epidemics and famine would make further life on planet Earth impossible. If a full-scale Third World War were to break out, human civilization would come to an end without any reservations.
Always ready!
If you want to win, then the first priority is to detect an enemy nuclear attack. For this purpose, there are over-the-horizon early warning radar stations and space satellites that detect the launch of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) from almost anywhere on the globe. In command centers, data from multiple sources is analyzed automatically, the ICBM trajectory is calculated, and based on this, a decision is made on further actions.
The nuclear weapons control system is designed to minimize the possibility of human and hardware error. A multi-stage protection system and many launch confirmation conditions are designed to eliminate the possibility of an accidental or malicious launch by some crazy rocket officer.
At the same time, this system must provide the fastest possible response in the event of an enemy attack. For this purpose, semi-automatic and automatic control systems for nuclear weapons were created.
If vile saboteurs sneak into all command posts at the same time and, ninja-style, cut the throats of the officers responsible for launching retaliatory missiles, or the officers refuse to press buttons based on humanitarian considerations (well, this is completely impossible, as we believe!), even then the answer will not be long in coming.
“Doomsday machines” will start operating, which will automatically send all of humanity into the flames of nuclear hell. These systems are designed in such a way as to automatically (or with minimal human intervention) decide on an appropriate retaliatory strike in a short time. But at the same time, they retain some probability of error, which can lead to irreversible consequences. Their existence is, of course, monstrously immoral and violates Isaac Asimov's first law: “a robot or automatic system cannot cause harm to a person or, through inaction, allow a person to come to harm.” These machines are precisely designed to cause catastrophic harm to humanity.
However, their existence is a harsh reality that we have to put up with. On the other hand, it is precisely the presence of such a guarantee of a retaliatory strike that deters countries that possess nuclear weapons from unleashing this senseless, catastrophic massacre.
USSR - "Perimeter"
In the USSR and modern Russia, the “doomsday machine” is called “Perimeter”. Its development began in 1974 at the height of the Cold War. The basis of the system is a command and analytical computer center that evaluates all initial data and makes a decision on a retaliatory strike. This is a complex hardware and software complex that takes into account many factors at once: seismic and radiation activity, atmospheric pressure, the intensity of radio traffic at military frequencies, controls telemetry from observation posts of the Strategic Missile Forces and data from the missile attack warning system.
For example, when powerful electromagnetic and radioactive radiation is detected, the system compares them with data on seismic activity, and if they match, it makes an unambiguous conclusion that a nuclear strike was carried out. In this case, “Perimeter” can act automatically if it is provided for by the established danger level.
Another option envisages that the country's top leadership, having received information about a nuclear attack, puts the Perimeter into combat mode and begins checking the information.
If, after a strictly established time, the cancellation does not follow due to the death of the leadership or its indecision, then “Perimeter” will independently initiate a retaliatory strike.
The second part of the system is command ballistic missiles (UR-100U), which are equipped with special code transmitters. If a decision is made on an automated “retaliation strike,” these missiles take off over Russia and send a launch command to all regular nuclear weapons delivery vehicles: intercontinental ballistic missile launchers, submarines, mobile systems and bombers. Those of them that are prepared to work offline simply launch their program. Their control blocks already contain data about the goals and delivery route. Further, human participation is not required - the apocalypse is ensured automatically.
We have not been able to find out for sure whether Perimeter is still in operation today. In an interview with Komsomolskaya Pravda, the commander of the Strategic Missile Forces, Sergei Karakaev, noted that “”. We don’t know whether this is true or disinformation, but certainly the existence of such a system in today’s Russia would not surprise anyone.
USA - “ECRS” and “Mirror”
The creation of such an automatic system in the USA is not known (and we should not have known anything about “Perimeter” if not for one of its creators who emigrated to the USA). In America, there was an analogue of command missiles - the Emergency Rocket Communications System (ERCS) project. They were put on combat duty in 1963 and were ordinary ICBMs equipped with transceiver devices, and, if necessary, launched into near-Earth space, providing communication in the event of destruction of traditional communication systems between command centers and nuclear weapons delivery vehicles. ERCS was taken off duty in early 1991.
In addition to these missiles, the United States also operated another system that ensured reliable control of military forces even after the defeat of ground command posts as a result of a nuclear strike or the actions of saboteurs - Operation Mirror.
Since 1961, for 30 years, two air command posts of the Strategic Aviation Command have been in the air continuously, 24 hours a day (in the entire history there was only an 8-hour pause). On board each aircraft were all the necessary personnel to control the US nuclear forces, headed by an Army general or a Navy admiral. They were equipped with all the necessary equipment and communications to immediately take over control of strategic forces in the event of an emergency. Now this program has been suspended, and a similar system operates within the framework of the TACAMO mission, and four air command posts are on duty in full readiness for departure at air bases in different parts of the country.
The United States operates the DEFCON system, which is a scale of combat readiness of the armed forces depending on the impending danger.
It has five stages from 5 to 1, where 5 is a normal peaceful situation, and one is the highest danger, meaning that the United States is in full-scale war. Depending on the value of this scale, combat units, including strategic missile forces, receive a different set of standard instructions, and the closer DEFCON is to one, the stricter these instructions are.
DEFCON 1 has only been declared once in history, and then only for training purposes during the 1983 Expert Archer exercise in Western Europe. But the United States remained in a state of DEFCON 2 throughout the Cuban missile crisis. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, DEFCON 3 was declared in the United States.
And all these imperfect systems, maintained by even more imperfect people, have failed more than once.
Cuba, warm sea, beaches, coconut trees, rum, beautiful girls and the young communist regime of Fidel Castro - just an idyll, if not for 40 Soviet medium-range missiles carrying nuclear warheads.
In the early 1960s, the USSR, led by Nikita Khrushchev, found itself in a difficult situation. Along the perimeter of its borders, American military bases with strategic bombers were located; medium-range Jupiter missiles were deployed in Great Britain, Italy and Turkey, which could reach all the vital centers of the Soviet Union and destroy the country's military and civilian industry within an hour. There was nothing to answer until the socialist revolution won in Cuba.
Then the adventurous Operation Anadyr was born - the Soviet leadership decided to place its missiles right next to the United States.
The first missiles were delivered to Cuba in September 1962, immediately after US President John Kennedy imposed a temporary ban on reconnaissance flights over Liberty Island to prevent an escalation of tensions with the USSR. By October, the Soviet military group already had 16 R-14 missile launchers and 24 R-12 launchers in Cuba. All of them could carry nuclear warheads with a yield of up to 2 megatons. Ballistic missile divisions were deployed in the west of the island near San Cristobal and in the center of Cuba near the port of Casilda. The P-12 could fly straight to the Capitol and the White House in Washington, and the P-14 covered almost the entire continental United States except Alaska.
On October 14, an American U-2 reconnaissance plane took the first photographs of Soviet missiles in Cuba; on the morning of October 16, Kennedy saw them; events began to develop with lightning speed.
The Americans announced a naval blockade of the island; the Soviets said they would ignore it. In the United States, the transfer of troops to Florida and preparations for a full-scale invasion of Cuba began; in the USSR, troops were put on high alert: all leave was canceled, demobilization workers were prohibited from leaving their duty stations, despite the order for demobilization.
Things got really hot on October 27, when Soviet anti-aircraft gunners in Cuba shot down an American U-2 (the pilot was killed), and also fired at two American RF-8A (Crusader) reconnaissance aircraft, damaging one of them. “Hawks” from the US General Staff urged Kennedy to give the order to start a military operation, but he hesitated, hoping for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. If a war had broken out, it would not have been limited only to the Cuban theater of military operations, but would have spread to Europe, where the interests of the two opposing systems clashed especially harshly. And a large number of nuclear weapons were concentrated.
On the night of October 27-28, on instructions from the US President, his brother Robert Kennedy met with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin and offered decent conditions in exchange for the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba.
In the morning, at a meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Khrushchev discussed these proposals with party bosses and gave the order to withdraw the missiles. In exchange for this, the United States ended the blockade of Cuba and gave guarantees of non-aggression against the Castro regime, and also removed the Jupiter missiles in Turkey, which especially irritated the Soviet leadership, from combat duty.
The world breathed a sigh of relief; total mutual destruction was postponed indefinitely. After the arbiters of the world's destinies realized what power was concentrated in their hands, the process of first limiting and then reducing nuclear weapons finally began, but it has not yet reached its goal.
When the Cuban Missile Crisis seemed to be behind us, and everyone was breathing a sigh of relief, the officer on duty at the Okinawa Missile Base, William Bassett, during a daily scheduled exchange of messages with headquarters, received an order for a missile attack on the USSR, Korea and China. The base's total arsenal consisted of 32 Mace B missiles, each of which carried a nuclear warhead with a yield of 1.1 megatons.
They were aimed at Beijing, Pyongyang, Hanoi and Vladivostok.
Bassett doubted that this was a real order: three of the four targets were outside the USSR, which formally remained the main potential enemy at the moment.
In addition, the threat level was indicated at DEFCON 2, and the command for a missile attack could only come, according to instructions, at DEFCON 1. He immediately canceled all launch preparations at the launchers under his command. But one of the junior commanders - a young lieutenant - refused to obey the “illegal” order. Then Bassett sent two armed soldiers to him, ordering him to shoot the lieutenant if he did not stop wandering.
After this, Captain Bassett contacted higher command and stated that he had received a garbled teletype message. The instructions were sent again, and they again contained an order to launch missiles at the USSR.
Then Bassett openly stated: “Either raise the threat level to DEFCON 1, or cancel the attack order!” At this point the bosses became alarmed. After carefully checking the instructions sent earlier, they discovered the error and immediately canceled the order for the missile attack. After the incident, an investigation was carried out, and the command officer who mistakenly transmitted the false message was demoted in rank.
Not the most serious punishment for a man who almost destroyed the entire world. This story became known only recently; Bassett had already died and never received any recognition for his courageous act.
The war in Syria, which is expected any day now, could end in World War III, as both experts and ancient prophecies say. Moreover, it is already clear that the operation, announced as a three-day bombing in order to prevent the use of chemical weapons against civilians, could involve 20 countries.
“If the Americans go for a ground operation, it may well be that Russia will also get involved in the war. Then it will definitely be World War III,” said Russian military expert Viktor Baranets. “Of course, Iran will come out on the side of Syria, ready to field several million bayonets, and then maybe "Israel will also get involved. Overall, everything will be very serious."
Several prophecies say that the end of the world will be provoked by the war in Syria. Thus, the famous clairvoyant Vanga has repeatedly spoken about the impending global change in the world, although without giving an exact date. “Will this time come soon? No, not soon. Syria has not fallen yet! Syria will collapse at the feet of the winner, but the winner will not be the same! Russia alone will be saved. There is an ancient Indian (Aryan) teaching. It will spread throughout the world. It will be published "new books, and they will be read everywhere on Earth. It will be the Fire Bible. The day will come when all religions will disappear! A new teaching will come from Russia. She will be the first to purify herself."
In the Revelation of Ivan the Theologian “Apocalypse,” the events preceding the end of the world and the second coming of Jesus Christ are described as follows: “The sixth Angel sounded, and I heard one voice from the four horns of the golden altar standing before God, saying to the sixth Angel who had the trumpet: release the four Angels bound by the great river Euphrates." The four angels released at the Euphrates River could be Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, through whose territory this river flows.
According to the writings of another prophet Isaiah, Damascus will turn into a heap of ruins: “Damascus will be excluded from the number of cities and will be a heap of ruins. The cities of Aroer will be abandoned - they will remain for the flocks that will rest there, and there will be no one to frighten them. The stronghold of Ephraim and the kingdom will no longer be Damascus with the rest of Syria; the same thing will happen to them as to the glory of the children of Israel, says the Lord of hosts."
Now the issue of bombing is stalled in the US Congress. But it is possible that Americans will return to this topic in a few weeks or months.
“Obama has made it clear more than once that he does not trust Assad. The Americans may demand the removal and destruction of Syria’s chemical reserves, but Damascus will not agree to this. An escalation of the conflict may occur again,” noted Russian political scientist Sergei Markov.
There is a way out of the crisis
There is a chance to avoid the bombing of Syria and, accordingly, a possible Third World War. Barack Obama agreed with Russia's proposal not to attack Syria if Damascus transfers chemical weapons to international control. Damascus doesn't seem to mind.
“This proposal was agreed upon in advance and it is very beneficial to the Syrian side, since the threat of an attack on the militants’ chemical warehouses was very real,” said Russian orientalist Said Gafurov, who met with the head of the Syrian Foreign Ministry on Monday. “Chemical supplies will remain in Syria, but there will be under the control of international experts. It is even beneficial for Syria to declassify these warehouses, since they exist not so much for the use of these weapons, but to intimidate a potential enemy - Israel. At the same time, such a way out of the crisis is beneficial for Obama - Congress will not give him permission to bomb and somehow the president will have to abandon his war plans."
World War III - US strategy
In 1938, England and France pushed Hitler into war with their own hands, allowing him to occupy Czechoslovakia and authorizing the Anschluss of Austria. But then the onset of the brown plague could have been stopped. If London and Paris had shown more determination, Europe would not have been in ruins 7 years later and there would not have been 70 million dead. From the ashes of Europe a new global empire has risen - the United States. North America benefited enormously financially from both World War II and the post-war reconstruction of Europe and was able to fully recover from the effects of the Great Depression.
Now we are in the initial phase of a global crisis that could last ten years, similar, and perhaps even stronger, than the depression that befell the world in the 20-30s of the last century. But the United States is already preparing to overcome the crisis.
The United States is simultaneously creating conditions both for the process of reindustrialization - the restoration of the full technological cycle of North American industry, and for the emergence of an enemy with whom, after the end of the crisis, a new world war could be unleashed, capable of giving the United States more than 100 years of progressive economic development.
Over the past 10 years, Americans have made a significant step in the development of their fuel and energy complex, which has influenced changes in US policy in the Middle East. If 10 years ago the White House, conducting military interventions, pursued the goal of controlling a comfortable level of oil prices, now the United States is interested in only one thing - increasing the difference in quotations between the exchange grades of Brent oil, traded in Europe, and WTI, listed on North American market. The United States benefits from rising Brent quotes, since this allows it to lower production costs in America relative to Europe and Asia without reducing labor costs.
As the goals changed, so did the policies. America does not seek to create controlled regimes in the Arab world, whose task would be to ensure uninterrupted supplies of oil and gas. Now the US leaves behind the chaos of civil war, death and destruction.
The United States has set fire to the entire Middle East and North Africa - Brent oil prices remain above $110 per barrel, and production is being reduced in Europe and China. However, if we look at the countries through which the so-called Arab Spring has recently swept, we will see that secular nationalist regimes have formed in all these countries.
Despite European-specific conditions, the development of nation-states in the Middle East and North Africa is similar to the development of nation-states in Europe from the late 19th century until the outbreak of World War II. After the collapse of continental empires caused by the consequences of the First World War, nationalist states emerged in Europe. In many of them the rights of national minorities and religious denominations were respected. Approximately the same situation occurred in Libya and Egypt and still persists in Syria. By the way, Iran, one might say, is following the path of Spain during the reign of General Franco.
The strengthening of national states inevitably leads to the formation of an elite that has a vested and financial interest in preserving and enriching its national state. And even if members of the elite were nurtured by foreign states, these elites themselves begin to defend national interests, which often run counter to the interests of former sponsors.
For Iran, Syria, Egypt and Libya, the European market is the only one where oil and gas can be supplied with low transport costs. Which means lower energy prices for Europe. But this runs counter to US plans for new industrialization. It is no coincidence that the unrest in Syria began exactly after agreements were reached between Syria, Iran and Iraq on the construction of a gas pipeline through which Iranian gas destined for Europe was to be supplied to Syrian LNG terminals.
In the 30s of the last century in Europe, not without the influence of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, with the tacit connivance of France and Great Britain, the elites of new national states leveled democratic institutions in a short time, establishing pro-Nazi or pro-fascist regimes. Gradually, persecution of national and religious minorities began. Organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, professing radical forms of Islam, can be classified, according to European tradition, as religious pro-fascist organizations. The Muslim Brotherhood, which is trying to establish radical religious regimes in the Arab world, is sponsored by close US allies Qatar, Jordan and Saudi Arabia - countries, to put it mildly, that are neither democratic nor religious tolerance. Against their background, Iran can be called a state making enormous strides in democratization and the development of a secular society.
After the chaos sown by the United States in the Middle East, radical religious regimes may form in the Arab world, which will be united into one huge caliphate. Like the Third Reich, this caliphate will have close ties to the US financial world. As with Nazi Germany, many North American bankers and industrialists are interested in creating such a caliphate.
As long as the American economy emerges from the crisis and a new robotics industry develops in the United States, the religiously extremist caliphate will be able to accumulate enough weapons to wage a full-scale war. At the same time, Europe, which finds itself in a deep crisis, will create a socio-political situation in which the emergence of a new authoritarian empire is possible. At the same time, the role of strangers, on whom all troubles, and, above all, expensive oil, can be blamed, will be performed by Muslims or Arabs. World war will become inevitable. The reason may be a terrorist attack on European territory, which will be a response to the deportation of Muslims or the organization of concentration camps for Arab terrorists.
The Third World War will bring destruction on such a colossal scale that the United States will be able to develop systematically for more than 100 years without social upheaval on its territory. Not to mention the profits that the Americans plan to receive from the war itself.
In this regard, the reluctance of Europe and the main ally of the United States, Great Britain, to get involved in a war with Syria is understandable. The NATO bloc also decided to distance itself from the Syrian adventure. But, in principle, the refusal of the alliance is only to the benefit of the United States. In the scenario described above, the Americans do not need NATO, because they will try to fight the third world war by proxy, entering it at the last stage, as was the case in the first and second world wars. The North Atlantic bloc may prematurely, and quite possibly not on the right side, involve the Americans in the slaughter. Most likely, NATO will face the fate of the UN, which the United States has long disregarded and uses it as a tool to promote exclusively its interests.
Never before have the interests of the United States and Europe been more opposed than they are now. However, just as in the 30s of the 20th century, France and Great Britain were more frightened by the chimera of the communist threat than by the obvious facts of Hitler’s preparations for war, and now Europe prefers to see a threat in Russia rather than admit the obvious fact - the United States has ceased to be the guarantor of European security and become a force pushing Europe and the world towards a third world war.
Russia's competition with the West, primarily with the United States, could lead the parties to a limited or full-scale military conflict. This conclusion was made in the report of the Center for Strategic Research (CSR), released on June 29. No less apocalyptic scenarios were heard at the annual Primakov Readings, which opened today in Moscow: a forum in which politicians, diplomats and experts from around the world take part.
For example, Director of the Center for International Security IMEMO named after. E. M. Primakov RAS, academician Alexey Arbatov drew the attention of the forum participants to the new weapons systems that are currently being developed and deployed by Russia, the United States and China: “These systems blur the traditional boundary between nuclear and conventional, between offensive and defensive weapons, between weapons of a regional nature and weapons of a global nature. Under these conditions, any local conflict, any incident can lead to a lightning-fast escalation of armed confrontation to the most catastrophic scale. The tension that exists between Russia and NATO in Eastern Europe and the situation in Syria create additional risks in this regard. Let me remind you: for the first time in history, Russia and the United States are openly conducting military operations in the same country - in Syria - without being military allies and without full agreement on who our common enemies are and who our common friends are. And in the future, such situations may be reproduced: in Libya, Afghanistan and other areas.”
According to Arbatov, the development of military technologies entails new and very dangerous strategic concepts. “First of all, this is a concept that is now present in the military strategies of the United States, Russia and China and implies the selective use of strategic nuclear forces. A dangerous idea has emerged that after 25 years of deep reductions in nuclear weapons (and they were reduced by 5-6 times, if not by an order of magnitude), nuclear war supposedly ceased to be catastrophic, that it could be a means of politics and crisis management. As a result, the risk of conflict with subsequent escalation increases squarely.”
“If the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty collapses, followed by the START III Treaty, then we will find ourselves in a situation of nuclear chaos,” the expert believes. “We are facing a multi-channel arms race, more dangerous than during the Cold War. Because along with the race for offensive nuclear weapons, there will be a race for offensive and defensive strategic weapons in non-nuclear equipment, and there will be a competition in the development of space systems and cyber warfare. Even worse, such an arms race would be multilateral, unlike the Cold War. After all, in addition to Russia and the United States, China, possibly India and Pakistan, Israel, North and South Korea will participate in it. Against the backdrop of such instability, new nuclear states may emerge: Iran, Japan, Saudi Arabia and others. Ultimately, nuclear weapons will inevitably end up in the hands of terrorists, who will once and for all put an end to nuclear deterrence as a guarantee of maintaining peace.”
On the sidelines of the forum, Academician Arbatov answered questions from AiF.ru.
Vitaly Tseplyaev, AiF.ru: Alexey Georgievich, isn’t the threat of an armed clash between Russia and the United States exaggerated? After all, even during the Cold War, the parties managed to avoid the worst scenario.
Alexey Arbatov: The possibility of a military conflict between the USSR and the USA existed for many decades and repeatedly brought both sides to the brink of war. Let us remember the Cuban Missile Crisis, the 1983 crisis associated with the deployment of American medium-range missiles in Europe. From this bitter and difficult experience, the parties finally realized that it was necessary to take measures to prevent a global catastrophe: we must not forget that a nuclear war between the two powers would inevitably lead to the death of all humanity. Then Moscow and Washington learned to do this. And the very end of the Cold War became a logical continuation of that mutual understanding.
However, a few years ago new tensions arose between us. But the problem is that old fears and old methods of reducing conflict have been forgotten, the people who were involved in this have left. Emotions, mutual claims, and mistrust have reached a very high level. But a new mechanism that would allow us to avoid catastrophic developments has not yet emerged, and today we have to reinvent this wheel. And here we need to hurry: previously concluded agreements are collapsing one after another. Take the 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Incidents at Sea and in the Air: no one remembers it anymore. There was an agreement in 1989 on the prevention of dangerous incidents, and it is also forgotten; I think today’s military and politicians do not even know what was written in that document.
— How realistic is it to reach new agreements today?
- For now we are in limbo. In addition, two major foreign policy trends are colliding: Russia is “getting up from its knees” and wants to prove that it will no longer allow itself to be treated the way it was in the nineties. But America, in a sense, is also getting up from its knees. To be honest, she never really stood on them, but Trump thinks otherwise. He is trying to prove that “the empire is being revived and strikes back,” that America will not allow itself to be pushed aside anywhere and will remain first on the planet. A head-on collision between these two trends is very dangerous.
In my opinion, today the issue of saving the nuclear weapons control regime should be placed first on the agenda of Russian-American relations - and the sooner the better. Other problems - Syria, Ukraine - will be more difficult to resolve, where the contradictions are deeper, but here quick results can be achieved. At a minimum, it is necessary to save the INF Treaty and conclude a new treaty on strategic offensive weapons (START). Fortunately, we have experience in resolving contradictions even in the most acute situations. Let us remember that the first fundamental treaty on START was reached during the Vietnam War, shortly after American aircraft bombed Hanoi. The INF Treaty was concluded against the background of the war in Afghanistan, in 1987, the agreement on the reduction of offensive capabilities in 2002 - shortly after the NATO operation in Yugoslavia. That is, when our countries realize the importance of arms control, they can find a compromise, even if they have very acute contradictions in other areas. Moreover, if we focus on this topic now and make a quick breakthrough, then our relations in other areas will move forward more easily.
The existence of the Putin regime is largely prolonged by the indecision of the West and US President Donald Trump’s fear of the head of the Kremlin. At the same time, the world community is now getting closer to a decisive blow to Vladimir Putin, which is why he will have to think about maintaining his power, and not about a war with Ukraine and other adventures.
About itsaid Russian political scientist and publicist ANDREY PIONTKOVSKY, who now lives in Washington.
The presidential elections have passed, but the boss is still in power in Russia. Do you think the Russian elite will try to remove Putin? Is a similar scenario possible in the coming year?
In general, these regimes only end with a palace coup scenario. Power in authoritarian regimes does not change during elections. Everyone has talked about this twenty times, but I want to emphasize that there was a lot of noise in the Russian media about what an outstanding result Putin got, and the elections themselves were called free.
But let's still not forget about two fundamental things. Firstly, of the two opposition candidates, one was shot practically on Red Square (Boris Nemtsov, - ed.), and the other was unfairly convicted and removed from the elections (Alexey Navalny, - ed.). So what kind of fair elections can we talk about?
But that's not all. Now we have the mathematical methods of Sergei Shpilkin (who analyzes electoral statistics - ed.), that is, the analysis of statistical data by polling station, by turnout, which simply shows the fingerprints of falsification. According to the summed up results, 10 million votes were cast for Putin.
You see, after this the person deserves a life sentence, because we see both murders and large-scale falsifications - these crimes are organized, first of all, by Putin himself.
Therefore, elections are manipulation. But this does not negate the fact that even if 10 million were attributed to him, 45 million voted, even if some of them were under administrative resources. And some part of those who voted are inspired by this militaristic, and essentially fascist propaganda, where the annexation of territories of neighboring states and aggression are considered a merit and a feat.
Such regimes leave only as a result of serious geopolitical defeats, and their scale depends on the determination of the West. And, of course, not by military means, since no one wants to fight, especially with a nuclear power headed by a fucked-up man, as Nemtsov once said to Ukrainian television. But the West has enormous economic resources, and I am telling you this from Washington.
Let me remind you that on January 29, a Kremlin report was prepared that could have dealt a fatal blow to the Putin regime. After all, in addition to the list of 210 people, there were hundreds of pages of financial information showing in detail the illegally acquired criminal wealth of all these people, and this is all the Russian elite. For some mysterious reason, as a result of the visit of the heads of Russian intelligence services to the United States, this information was transferred to the secret part of the report and was not made public.
And the struggle that is now being waged in America is essentially a struggle between President Trump and the majority of the American military-political establishment. Now no one has any doubts, they say it openly, that Trump is terribly afraid of Putin, knowing for sure that he has very serious dirt on him. The last thing that caused outrage here was when all of Trump’s advisers wrote to him in capital letters not to congratulate Putin, but he called, congratulated him and once again showed the extent of his dependence and fear.
In my opinion, the struggle between the political establishment and Trump is coming to its culmination in the Mueller investigation (Robert Mueller is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 US elections - ed.). I don’t know whether Ukraine and your readers are widely aware, but all of America was shocked by a 15-minute interview with former CIA Director John Brennan. Firstly, it is unprecedented in the harshness of the accusations - Brennan calls Trump an animal driven into a corner. Secondly, Brennan almost openly said that he has enough information on Trump that will shock America.
All this is directly related to your question. When all this enormous financial information about one trillion dollars stolen from the Russian people is published, it will make a very strong impression on Russian society.
Plus another half a trillion dollars in the UK, where we see the same story. Both [British Foreign Secretary] Boris Johnson and [British Prime Minister] Theresa May said that London is not a place for the criminal capital of the Putin elite, but still something is stopping them.
They are all on the verge of this decisive step. And I assure you that 99 percent will greet the publication of the report on the Russian elite with jubilation. There will also be a big blow to all this anti-Western propaganda, because it is supported by the same criminals who are hoarding their stolen treasures in the West. I think that the system of Russian kleptocracy will not withstand such a financial, economic, psychological and political blow, and there will be very serious discord within it.
- Will this be a compelling argument to overthrow Putin?
I wouldn't mention the word "overthrow". In this situation, not only Putin, but the entire Russian political class, the entire elite, will find it very difficult to remain in power.
Speaking about the Russian presidential elections in occupied Crimea. Many said that they were illegal, since Crimea is the territory of Ukraine. But they said it and forgot.
It's the same story. There is a summit of EU countries in Brussels, and they will also probably emphasize that this was a violation of the constitutions of Ukraine and Russia, international law and anything else. Nevertheless, almost all the leaders of European states, except Great Britain, gritted their teeth, but congratulated Putin on his so-called victory in the so-called elections.
Why congratulate a criminal who killed one of his opponents, convicted another and threw in 10 million votes? They know all this very well.
It is this inconsistency of the West that prolongs the existence of this regime.
- Are they really afraid of Putin’s “nuclear club” or are there other reasons?
Still, he's crazy, but he doesn't eat soap. And nuclear weapons are mutual suicide. But he is not a martyr and is not going to commit suicide.
Firstly, these trillions of dollars work in the Western economy. And they have legislation to combat money laundering obtained by criminal means - in fact, no new sanctions are needed, why are they fooling around? It is clear that Russian leaders could not honestly earn tens or, in the case of Putin, hundreds of billions of dollars in their free time from doing their government work. But they do not apply this legislation.
Why? This money is a very important part for the functioning of the Western economy, and a trillion dollars is colossal money.
Take the same Trump. Even if there is no compromising evidence - and now everyone in Washington is sure that everything described in the report of English intelligence officer Christopher Steele (with compromising evidence on Donald Trump - "Apostrophe") is true, then what are the purchases of houses by Russian oligarchs or figureheads worth? Trump, which were priced at 2-3 times the market value? That is, Russia exports corruption.
In addition, all Russian agents in the West are still repeating all sorts of nonsense, to which many Americans are susceptible, that “we need Russians to solve some international problems in Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine.” The West simply cannot face the truth and does not understand how to fight international terrorism without the Russians. They don’t understand that the so-called Russians, actually from the Kremlin, are creating these problems, including international terrorism.
But, in my opinion, things are approaching a denouement. And we see a number of facts showing what Moscow is really doing in the Middle East, Korea and other regions. I'm watching all this from Washington.
If we talk about some temporary forecasts, then I think that Trump will not remain President of the United States by January 1, 2019. And without Trump, the opposition to the Putin regime will be much more energetic.
Already, Trump is distant on many issues. Take the Ukrainian issue, where the entire policy is carried out by Kurt Volker, who has a more pro-Ukrainian position than your leadership before the adoption of the law on Russian aggression (the so-called law on the de-occupation of Donbass - ed.). After all, before this, only Volker clearly said that we are talking about occupation, and Russian troops are present there. Yes, and a decision was made to sell anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. So the situation is changing.
Moscow’s mistake is this: they thought that they had planted Trump in the White House and would now rule America, but nothing like that happened. The institutions there are stronger than the president. But so far he has managed to slow down on many serious issues. In particular, if we talk about those decisive sanctions that were supposed to be announced on January 29. This will be a decisive blow to the Putin system.
Replacement of Rex Tillerson by Mike Popmeo as Secretary of State, what role will this play in US-Russian relations?
Tillerson was smarter than Trump and did not give himself away so clearly, although he was also a pro-Putin person. Was it possible, after working for 19 years in the Russian oil industry, not to be covered from head to toe, and also receive an order?
And Pompeo is a person who is definitely negative towards the Putin regime. And he has a good personal relationship with Trump. And the good thing is that he will use these relationships to continue to maintain Volcker’s position, at least in the Ukrainian direction.
All processes are slowly, but developing within the United States, not in Putin’s favor. But the final step will be Trump's removal from power.
The World Cup in Russia is ahead. Do you think Putin will remain calm until June or may he put sharp pressure on some of the conflict zones?
Of course, he wants to host the World Cup. It is unlikely that he will go to any serious aggravation. But where can he? After all, he understands perfectly well that he was defeated in the main directions. Let's take Ukraine - where is its “Russian world” and “Novorossiya”? It failed. Donbass is not what Putin dreamed of. Remember, he had a “Novorossiya” plan with the capture of 10-12 Ukrainian regions and he hoped to unleash an ethnic war between Russians and Ukrainians? But he failed and suffered a huge defeat. The majority of the Russian population in Ukraine remained loyal to the Ukrainian state and its choice. This was Putin's first fundamental defeat.
And in Syria, he had already victoriously withdrawn his troops three times, and then, at the first clash with the Americans, he suffered such a shameful defeat that neither the fact of the battle nor the three hundred dead were reported at all in Moscow.
Therefore, he can only throw a nuclear hysteria, show some cartoons that he has some incredible weapon with which he can destroy America. But this has been known for 50 years. But it has also been known for 50 years that the United States also has weapons. If he can destroy the United States 10 times, then they can destroy Russia 20 times. Everyone knows this. Russians and Americans somehow learned to live with this, and for 50 years neither US presidents nor general secretaries foolishly waved these same dummies of atomic bombs. This is the typical behavior of a backstreet gopnik: “Now I’ll hit you with a Finn.” That's all his foreign policy is. But gradually they begin to deal with it.
- The day after the elections, Russian troops held exercises in Crimea. What was Putin trying to show by this?
He has competent military men and diplomats who understand how a large-scale escalation of the war in Ukraine, say, a campaign against Mariupol or, God forbid, against Kyiv, will end. He has no time for these things now. The main thing for him is to somehow hold on to power. But how and on what – he doesn’t know.
You see, he has raised the stakes so much that he doesn’t know how to take any basic steps. For example, if he really left Donbass, remaining in Crimea, Ukraine would not really like it, but the West would welcome it. Nobody will admit this, of course, but the West will turn a blind eye to it for a while. Let's remember what happened with the Baltic states. The States never recognized the annexation of the Baltic states (by the Soviet Union - ed.). But he cannot even do this, because he has created for himself the image of the great leader of the “Russian world”, and any step towards some kind of compromise will be considered as his defeat and he will not even remain in his brigade. He is in a very difficult position.
How did they generally perceive Putin’s election victory in the United States? What is the general assessment of the so-called elections in Russia?
The general assessment of the election is outrageous, and Trump exacerbated it with his congratulations. Senator John McCain, who is not always supported, put it most clearly. But in this case, it is the general opinion of the entire establishment that it was absolutely disgraceful for an American president to congratulate a dictator who won a rigged election.
