Where will the third world war begin? Global War Battle for Resources

CHAPTER 2 GLOBAL WAR: SPIES AND SABOTEISTS Although international relationships escalated every now and then, until 1914 Europe managed to avoid war. However, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife Sophia, Duchess of Hohenberg, during

Global War

Global War The British turned to the Dominions with a request to seize nearby German colonies, and they happily agreed. By October 1914, the Samoan Islands had submitted to New Zealand, and the German New Guinea and the Bismarck Archipelago (now Papua New Guinea) -

The global war has begun

Global War Has Begun "War on Terrorism"? If this were a film, its script would have been rejected as deliberately false and worthless. The first lie: In 1999, and then in 2001, the Taliban came to the conclusion that Bin Laden’s presence on their territory was an obstacle

Global war or world revolution? Shamil Sultanov October 30, 2014 4 Politics Economics memories of the future Within general theory systems "Cold War" can be interpreted as a specific mechanism for managing a fairly long and stable

Global war or world revolution?

Global war or world revolution? Shamil Sultanov November 6, 2014 2 Politics Economics memories of the future End. Beginning - in No. 44 (1093) Inter-clade contradictions The sixth technological structure is fundamentally different from all previous ones in that there is radically

The feeling of the loss of basic positions, an irreversible turn of fortune began to weaken in the ranks of the Wehrmacht, the German military machine began to return to the orderly channel of daily painstaking activity. In mid-January, Hitler agreed to a number of Kluge's proposals for a retreat in some areas of the central front. The Red Army's communications lengthened, the supply task became more difficult, reserves were depleted, and forward progress slowed. Gradually the Germans began to come to the conclusion that the worst was over for them. The huge front has stabilized. Reinvigorated, Hitler reveled in yet another “triumph of will.” He told everyone the story of the general who came to him in December asking him to allow him to retreat. To which Hitler responded with a question: “Do you really think that fifty kilometers to the west you will be warmer?” The retreat was preparing for us, Hitler said enthusiastically, “the fate of Napoleon. But I got out of this quagmire! The fact that we survived this winter and are today in a position from which we can continue our victorious march is based on my will, no matter what the cost.”

Personally, this winter cost Hitler a lot. Those around him could see traces of enormous physical and psychological pressure. The shock of unfulfilled fantastic hopes was noticeable to everyone who saw him at that time. Goebbels, after another visit to Wolfschanze, writes about how Hitler turned gray and aged. And he admitted to his minister of propaganda that the stress of winter was at times simply unbearable.

On January 18, 1942, Japan, Germany and Italy delimited the spatial scope of their military operations. The “subordinate” zone of Japan became “the waters east of 70 degrees east longitude up to the western coast of the American continent, as well as the continent and islands of Australia, the Dutch East Indies and New Zealand", plus the share of the Eurasian continent east of 70 degrees east longitude. It was assumed that if the United States and England withdrew all their navies to the Atlantic, Japan would send part of its fleet there. If the Americans and British concentrate on Pacific Ocean, the Germans and Italians will come to the aid of their ally.

The American position in the Philippines was desperate. In the face of landing Japanese troops under the command of General Homme, the Americans quickly retreated; General MacArthur was forced to admit to the Filipinos he was “defending” that he would fight only on the Bataan Peninsula. The American troops who retreated to this peninsula found themselves caught in the ring of the Japanese siege. General MacArthur escaped capture only by hastily leaving for Australia. He did not believe that Washington would agree to the death of an unprecedented American history troop contingent. Such a start to the war could undermine F. Roosevelt's prestige as supreme commander in chief. He was wrong, Washington made this sacrifice. According to the allied plans agreed upon between Washington and London during Churchill's visits to the American continent, it was assumed that actions against Japan would be entrusted mainly to the United States. The plan was to stop Japanese expansion in mid-1942, and then blockade Japan and begin a war of attrition.

And the phenomenal expansion of the zone of influence of imperial Japan continued. In January 1942 landing troops The Japanese captured the oil fields of Borneo. The main ports of the Dutch East Indies - the harbors of Borneo and Celebes - were now in their hands. They also landed in New Guinea, a territory under Australian jurisdiction, and the Rabaul airstrips became the starting point for the Japanese attack on Australia. On February 14, 1942, the pride of the British Empire, the fortress of Singapore, fell. The humiliation of the British Empire was exorbitant; the sixty-thousand-strong Japanese army captured the 130,000-strong British army. On the sixteenth of February, Sumatra (an island larger than California in area and twice the population) was captured by ten thousand Japanese. Three days later, the Australian port of Darwin was subjected to an air raid by Japanese pilots - the “heroes of Pearl Harbor”. President Roosevelt ordered MacArthur to lead Australia's defense. MacArthur already knew that 20,000 British soldiers had surrendered to the Japanese in Burma. On the twenty-fifth of February, Field Marshal Sir Archibald Wywell, commander of the Allied forces in Indonesia, left his headquarters and retired to India. The squadron, which included American ships, was sunk in the Java Sea - it was the largest naval battle since the Battle of Jutland between the British and the Germans (1916), and in it the Japanese did not lose a single ship, destroying five enemy cruisers. The Japanese navy and army began preparations for the landing of troops in Australia.

To bring a measure of shaken confidence into the homes of shocked Americans, President Roosevelt decided to analyze in front of the whole country in a radio address to the country low start, from which they begin to fight on a global scale. Roosevelt urged Americans to stock up on large-scale maps. “I'm going to talk about strange places that most people have never heard of, places that are now the battlegrounds of civilization... If they understand the problem and where we're going, then they can trust that any bad news will be accepted they are at peace." On February 23, 1942, more than eighty percent of the country's adults, armed with maps, were making sense of the retreat of the past weeks. To the current generation a difficult fate awaits, and Americans must be prepared for losses “before the tide goes out. This war is special character, it is being carried out on all continents, in every sea, in all the air spaces of the world.” The road ahead will be difficult, but America's creative genius "is capable of securing the preponderance of the war materials necessary for ultimate triumph."

In the first two months of 1942, the White House turns into command post a warring country. From now on, a strategy is being developed here, economic life country and its military efforts. The entrances to the White House were fenced off with chains, and a guard service appeared. Anti-aircraft guns were installed on the roof of the presidential mansion, although it was difficult to imagine where, from what airfield, a plane could take off to hit the residence of the American president. In these most difficult, from the point of view of the situation on all fronts, the first weeks and months of 1942, the Americans began building that colossal zone of influence that the Americans would gain by the end of the war. In the days of quick victories of the Japanese, the Australian government decides that relying only on London is dangerous and, bypassing Churchill and the British commander in chief in the Asian region Wavell, the Australian Prime Minister J. Kurtan asks the American president, firstly, to protect the northern coast of Australia, and secondly, to help the main forces of the Australian army concentrated in Malaya. "The army in Malaya must receive air protection, otherwise there will be a repeat of Greece and Crete." The fall of Singapore weakened Australia's ties with the mother country, its prime minister declared Australia's independence from London: "I want to say with all clarity that Australia looks to America, free from all the ties that traditionally connected it with the United Kingdom."

General Eisenhower, who headed the planning department of the War Department, proposed creating American bases in Australia and building an “Asian redoubt” there. Secretary of War Stimson believed that it was important for America to gain a foothold in two key Asian regions - China and Australia - this would guarantee American dominance throughout the vast Asia as a whole. Roosevelt promised the Australian prime minister military assistance and protection. One of the features of Roosevelt's strategic vision was faith in the combat potential of Chiang Kai-shek China. The President asked Churchill what the power of five hundred million Chinese would be if they reached Japan's level of development and had access to modern weapons? Churchill believed much less in the power of China. But Roosevelt wanted to transform the Chinese front - distant and difficult to reach - into one of the main fronts of the war. Already in December 1941, Roosevelt promised Chiang Kai-shek help.

Perhaps Roosevelt, not without satisfaction, looked at the quarrel between Chiang Kai-shek and the British at that time (General Wavell allowed only one Chinese division to guard Burmese communications, the British confiscated all lend-lease supplies accumulated in Burma). The President wanted to take advantage of these complications in order to show Chiang Kai-shek that he had no better ally than the United States. Even at the Arcadia Conference, he convinced Churchill to make Chiang Kai-shek supreme commander of the allied forces in China, Thailand and Indochina, to create connections between Chiang Kai-shek's headquarters and the allied headquarters in India and the southwest Pacific. President Roosevelt appoints American General J. Stilwell as commander of American forces in China, India and Burma, as well as chief of staff under Chiang Kai-shek. The long-range goal is visible here: to rely on China in Asia, to fetter the dynamism of Japan, to create a counterweight to the USSR in Eurasia. Roosevelt said to Stilwell, who was leaving for China: “Tell Chiang Kai-shek that we intend to return to China all the territories it has lost.” In early 1942, the Chinese in Chongqing received a loan of $50 million.

The decision taken at that time by Roosevelt to create an air bridge leading to a practically surrounded ally should have served to strengthen China (and the US position in it). At the cost and sacrifice, Roosevelt ordered the opening of an air route through India. Churchill already then, at the beginning of 1942, came to the conclusion that Roosevelt was wishful thinking and was taking a simplified view of Chinese opportunities, “giving China an importance almost equal to the British Empire,” equating the opportunities Chinese army to the combat power of the USSR.

In March 1942, the Americans and the British, at the suggestion of F. Roosevelt, delimited areas of responsibility - the world was divided into three zones. In the Pacific region, the United States assumed strategic responsibility; in the Middle East and Indian Ocean– England; in the Atlantic and Europe - joint leadership. In Washington, under the chairmanship of F. Roosevelt (deputy G. Hopkins), the Council for the Conduct of the War in the Pacific was created, which included representatives of nine countries.

At the beginning of March, a meeting of the country's top leaders was held in Tokyo, at which the document “Basic principles of future operations” was adopted, in which the leaders of militaristic Japan came to the conclusion that it was facing overexertion, which it could only avoid by consolidating the occupied territories. The lines of main combat operations were determined: for the army - the Burmese front with access to the plains of India; the combined forces of the army and navy take control of New Guinea and Solomon Islands to isolate Australia from the United States; Admiral Yamamoto's fleet turns against the American fleet in the Pacific.

In April 1942, Admiral Nagumo's aircraft carriers and battleships, famous for the operation against Pearl Harbor, devastated the Bay of Bengal and forced the British to withdraw to Africa. Japan now exercised naval control from Madagascar to the Caroline Islands. On January 22, 1942, Prime Minister Tojo declared in the Japanese Diet: “Our goal is to exercise military control over those territories which are absolutely necessary for the defense of the Greater East Asian Sphere.” In Washington, so far they have set modest goals: “To hold what we have, repulsing any attacks that the Japanese are capable of.” But these tasks were also carried out with great difficulty. Seventy thousand Filipino-American troops on Bataan surrendered to the Japanese; in March 1942, 112 thousand people were captured or killed - this is six thousand more than all American losses in the First World War. Hell has broken out for American prisoners of war Japanese camps. The Japanese leadership encouraged the atrocities of their soldiers, believing that they themselves would be terrified of being captured by the enemy and therefore would fight with the despair of the doomed.

Even purely psychologically, something had to be done to counter the avalanche of Japanese victories. On the morning of April 18, 1942, from a distance of 668 miles east of Tokyo, a squadron of sixteen B-26 bombers under the command of Colonel J. Doolittle, based on two aircraft carriers, carried out an air raid on Tokyo with only one way of fuel. The Japanese did not expect a carrier-based aircraft attack, which had a limited range. Dolittle flew his own plane past the imperial palace, which he was ordered not to bomb, and dropped the “cargo” in the very center of densely populated areas of Tokyo. Sixteen bombers overall caused disproportionate damage, hitting a camouflaged oil storage facility, damaging a Kawasaki aircraft plant, and much more. This was the first successful maneuver by American forces in the war against Japan. For the first time, the Japanese were shown that they too were vulnerable.

Could World War III break out in 2018?

If so, here are five risk areas where this could happen, as identified by Aftonbladet.

“There is an increased risk,” says Isak Svensson, professor of peace and conflict studies at Uppsala University.

Republican Senator Bob Corker has warned that Donald Trump could lead the US "on the path to World War III."
There is a risk that he is not entirely wrong.

According to Isak Svensson, professor of peace and conflict studies, three factors are more likely to prevent war than others.

All of them are now collapsing, largely due to Trump and growing nationalism.

1. International organizations

“One of the goals of the UN, OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe), the EU and so on similar organizations— reduce the risk of armed conflict. But due to the fact that Trump is constantly trying to dismantle the international cooperation, these organizations may weaken. This will affect the risk of war,” says Isak Svensson.

2. International trade

During his election campaign, Trump accused China of “raping” the American economy. Therefore, many experts expected that he would introduce customs duties on Chinese goods, which would result in a full-fledged trade war.

“That hasn't happened yet, but at least he has signaled that he is not particularly interested in promoting free trade,” said Isak Svensson.

3. Democracy

The two democracies have never fought each other. But the wave of nationalism that is sweeping the world could rock democracies.

“Populist nationalism targets democratic institutions: universities, courts, media, electoral bodies and so on. This is noticeable in the US under Trump, in Hungary, Poland and Russia, for example,” says Isak Svensson.

The threat from nationalism

Svensson sees how nationalism threatens all three factors that prevent war.

“Nationalism is not only present in peripheral countries, it is now spreading among the main players in the international arena: in the USA, in the UK in the form of Brexit, in the EU with its Poland and Hungary, which can weaken European cooperation. India and China are very much influenced by nationalist ideologies, as are Turkey and Russia. All this, together with Trump, negatively affects these three factors. There is a considerable risk of interstate conflicts,” says Isak Svensson.

However, he does not believe that a major global war is likely.

“The likelihood of this is low. In general, interstate conflicts are very unusual, and they are becoming less common over time. But if this happens, then events unfold very intensely,” says Isak Svensson.

Here are the hottest spots of tension.

North Korea

States: North Korea, USA, Japan, China.

North Korea conducts test explosions of nuclear weapons and is constantly developing new missiles. One of the newest missiles tested this summer is capable of striking the United States, but it is unclear whether North Korea could equip it with a nuclear warhead.

North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un and US President Donald Trump exchanged hateful verbal provocations, including Trump promising to meet North Korea with “fire and fury.”

The US is allied with South Korea and Japan, which also feel threatened by North Korea. And this closed dictatorship, in turn, receives support from China.

“In the short term, the most problematic area is the Korean Peninsula,” says Niklas Swanström, head of the Institute for Security and Development Policy.

“At the same time, the likelihood that China will defend North Korea is very low. This will only happen if there is a threat to China's direct interests, that is, if the US sends troops to the Chinese borders or something like that."

Isak Svensson agrees that Korea is the most worrying place because the situation there is unpredictable.

“It’s not very likely, but it’s possible that something will happen there. Everyone is on edge, there are various exercises and demonstrations of strength to each other, there is a high risk that something will go wrong. This can start the process even if no one actually wants it. No one is interested in bringing things to a full-scale war, but there is still a risk of this,” says Isak Svensson.

The biggest problem is poor communication, says Niklas Svanström.

“There are no security structures in Northeast Asia. Military confrontation can escalate very sharply.”

South China Sea

Countries: USA, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei.

Here is one of the most serious areas of tension, according to Isak Svensson.

“There is incredibly great military potential there. The likelihood of something happening is small, but if it does, the consequences will be catastrophic. There is nuclear weapon, and there are alliances between different countries, so that they can drag each other into all sorts of complications in relations.”

At first glance, the conflict is centered around hundreds of small islands and cays near China, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines. About half of the islands are under the control of one of the four countries.

China, Taiwan and Vietnam all lay claim to the entire Spratly archipelago, and the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei also have their own claims.

In early 2014, China began clearing seven reefs between the islands under its control and establishing bases on them.

The situation is marked by ever-increasing tensions between China and the US, as a rising Chinese power increasingly challenges the US as the world's sole superpower.

“This century will be marked by the relationship between the US and China,” says Niklas Granholm, research director at the Total Defense Institute, FOI.

"IN international system There is a shift in power and means of influence. In relative terms, China's power is growing and the US's is declining. It is the conflicts that may arise around this division of power that will become most important. We can talk about China's position in relation to Taiwan, China in relation to Japan, relations with North Korea. There are a lot of things that can make a difference,” adds Niklas Granholm.

Niklas Svanström also believes that the relationship between China and the United States is the most dangerous in the long term.

“The only option for a third world war that can be imagined obviously involves China and the United States. I can’t say that this worries me, in my opinion, indirect conflicts may arise, that is, the war will be fought in a third country,” says Niklas Svanström.

India - Pakistan

States: India, Pakistan, USA, China, Russia.

The disputed northern province of Kashmir is effectively divided between India and Pakistan. There have been several wars between countries over the rights to this area, and new conflicts are constantly breaking out.

After 18 Indian soldiers were killed in a terrorist attack on a military base in September 2016, India's Home Minister tweeted:

“Pakistan is a terrorist state that should be labeled as such and isolated.”

Pakistan vehemently denied any involvement in the incident.

“Relations between India and Pakistan are always turbulent. Right now it doesn’t look like there will be a strong escalation, but nothing points to any big moves towards their rapprochement in the future,” says Isak Svensson.

Both countries - nuclear powers, and each is believed to have more than 100 nuclear warheads.

“It’s easy to imagine an inadvertent escalation to a full-blown nuclear war that no one wants but could be provoked by terrorism,” Matthew Bunn, a nuclear weapons analyst at Harvard’s Belfer Center, told the Huffington Post.

India has a policy of not being the first to use nuclear weapons. Instead, an attempt was made to increase the ability to respond to provocations by rapidly sending armored columns deep into Pakistani territory.

Militarily weaker Pakistan responded by introducing short-range Nasr missiles that can be equipped with nuclear warheads.

Many experts fear that this development, in which Pakistan feels forced to use tactical nuclear weapons to defend itself, could quickly turn a small conflict into a full-scale one. nuclear war.

Niklas Svanström, however, believes that the likelihood of a world war is low.

“Other countries there have no interests related to security policy. Pakistan has close relations with China, and India has close relations with Russia. But neither Russia nor China will risk starting a large-scale military confrontation. I also find it difficult to imagine that the United States would intervene in such a conflict.”

India - China

Indian Army General Bipin Rawat said in early September that the country must prepare for a two-front war against Pakistan and China.

Shortly before this, a ten-week confrontation between China and India over the definition of the border ended in the Himalayas. Chinese road construction workers, accompanied by military personnel, were stopped by Indian troops. The Chinese claimed that they were in China, the Indians claimed that they were in Bhutan, an ally of India.

According to Bipin Rawat, such a situation could easily escalate into a conflict, and Pakistan could then take advantage of this situation to its advantage.

“We must be prepared. In the context of our situation, war is very real,” Rawat said, as reported by the Press Trust of India.

The border between China and India has long been a point of contention, but the atmosphere is now quite relaxed. But even as China and Pakistan have moved closer economically, aggressive nationalism suggests that may be changing.

“It is difficult to see any hints as to why conflict might break out there, but there is an increased risk of this happening. Both countries' economies are growing rapidly, and both countries are fueled by rather aggressive nationalism. The unresolved territorial issue is of course a clear risk factor,” says Isak Svensson.

Niklas Svanström does not think that China will gain much from this conflict, and India simply cannot win a war against China. Conflicts will continue, but on a limited scale.

“The only situation that could lead to a full-scale war is if India recognizes Tibet independent country and will begin to support the Tibetan military movement that is fighting against China. I regard this as extremely unlikely,” says Niklas Svanström.

Baltics

States: Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, NATO military alliance.

One of the biggest risks that could now lead to conflict is Russia's growing ambitions against Europe, believes Niklas Granholm, director of research at the Total Defense Institute, FOI.

“Russia has thrown out the rulebook that has been in place since the early 1990s to define European security,” says Niklas Granholm. — The main milestone in this matter was the war against Ukraine, when in 2014 there was an invasion of this country and Crimea was annexed, which marked the beginning of the conflict in eastern Ukraine. Russia has demonstrated great faith in military means. The Baltic region once again found itself on the line of confrontation between East and West, which seemed completely implausible to many just a few years ago.”

The cause of the conflict may be ethnic Russian minorities in the Baltic countries, says Isak Svensson.

“In Ukraine, Russia has shown that it is ready to use military force, in order, from her point of view, to protect Russian-speaking minorities. Thus, there is a hidden risk of Russian intervention in the Baltics if an internal crisis begins in any of the countries. Such a scenario is quite imaginable. It’s quite unlikely today, but possible in the future.”

Follow us

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

Risk remains

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

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

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

Political poles

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

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

The financial and political elite of the United States, as in the good old days, under democratic slogans continues to carry out military expansion far from its borders, while at the same time successfully imposing beneficial “anti-crisis” and “anti-terrorism” policies on the leading countries.

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

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

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

Unions

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

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

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

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

Resources

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

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

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

Who is first?

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

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

It is characteristic that the famous Bulgarian clairvoyant Vanga did not dare to predict the start date of the Third World War, indicating only that its cause would most likely be religious strife around the world.

"Hybrid Wars"

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

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

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

Capital can do anything

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

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

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

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

Global War

What could be the role of the Chelyabinsk region in the situation of the unfolding of the global conflict...

Let's not engage in self-deception. Let's call a spade a spade.

Today there is a global redistribution of the world, which will influence the development of humanity in the coming centuries.

World leaders understand this very well, and the Third World War has actually already begun, which, in order to avoid panic among the population, is masked by certain “habitual” words and actions.

It is no secret that America has long been nurturing plans to create the United States of the Planet under the protectorate of, naturally, America itself. These plans were implemented gradually, stepbystep. The United States did not force events so as not to “scare off” the peoples of other countries, while clear agreements were reached with the leaders of these countries.

An example and confirmation of this: the unification of Europe. This action, which seems to create a counterweight to the United States, actually plays into the hands of globalist plans. Europeans are taught to live in... common house, more precisely: in a common barracks. They were robbed of their currency, their laws, their identity. All that remains is to distribute striped robes with numbers, convincing everyone, of course, that these are comfortable pajamas for a carefree life.

To make sure that “the States think for you” and care about your safety, occupation troops have already been introduced into most European countries. “Uncle Sam’s” military bases control almost the majority of any significant countries in the world community.

Yes, during the period of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, a lot of money and effort was invested in Russia. A corrupt elite of businessmen and officials was created, the economy was destroyed and the legislative framework, the energy system was practically destroyed, finances were devalued and the population was demoralized. Formally: the country fell and the pro-American sentiments cultivated in it should have contributed to the smooth passage of the process.

In addition, it seemed to someone that Putin, having accepted power from Yeltsin, accepted both his submission and his agreements. Which, of course, was not the case.

They demanded stupid, martinet submission from Putin. It’s like, well, your bosses and I have already agreed on everything, you’ve been given a puppet chair, be happy and do what you’re told!

Putin was not satisfied with this situation (for many objective and subjective reasons).

So, due to the inadequacy and inflexibility of the United States in relation to Russia and its leader, the world has turned from a comfortably unipolar into a bipolar one.

The States began direct military action by, firstly, activating the “fifth column” in Russia. Secondly, they introduced a broad blockade of goods, called “sanctions”.

In response, Russia harshly suppressed the “white ribbon movement” and agreed with the proposal of the Republic of Crimea to join the Russian Federation, supported similar aspirations of the residents of Donbass, who historically and mentally gravitated towards Russia.

The States were infuriated by this and in retaliation they... captured almost all of Europe, especially putting pressure (just in case) on the countries of the Slavic world. Today the occupation forces at home are fed (in alphabetical order): Australia; Afghanistan; Bahrain; Bulgaria; Belgium; Brazil; Great Britain; Germany; Honduras; Denmark; Greece; Djibouti; Israel; Spain; Italy; Qatar; Kosovo; Cuba; Kuwait; Netherlands; Norway; United Arab Emirates; Oman; Portugal; The Republic of Korea; Romania; Saudi Arabia; Singapore; Türkiye; Japan. Under the guise of strategic exercises, NATO troops are deployed in the Baltic countries.

In total, the United States has prepared about 1,500 strategic bases in what has actually begun as a world war.

It is clear that this situation cannot but worry other countries that are not included in the Pan-American Global War Alliance. Filled with fair self-respect, China, India, the CIS countries and other countries are certainly not interested in being participants in this conflict, but they have no choice but to unite with Russia, for example, within the framework of the SCO and BRICS. Everyone understands: it will not be possible to sit on the sidelines. But Russia, unlike the United States, does not demand unconditional submission or complete surrender from its allies.

Russia's current economic weakness confuses Russia's hesitant potential allies.

Opposition to sanctions and the global blockade have shown, of course, that a self-sufficient country can easily do without any special food products and technologies. Russia’s serious military potential, its combat readiness and ability to adequately respond to any aggression were also clearly demonstrated.

By and large, two things hinder the normal development and growth of Russia’s economic potential: 1- insufficient legislative protection of property; 2- insufficient development of the richest natural resources.

The first factor restrains the entrepreneurial initiative of Russian business itself, does not allow the investment process to unfold, and contributes to the withdrawal of money from the country.

The second factor not only hinders the process of development of import substitution in industry, but also, frankly speaking, angers neighbors who do not have similar resources, who consider Russia a dog in the manger, which itself does not eat it and does not give it to others.

But these same factors could become the basis for uniting the anti-globalist opposition.

Today, a number of regions of Russia, including - Chelyabinsk region, entered the competitive process to host the SCO-BRICS summit. This promises the territories certain material and political dividends.

It is noticeable that the leadership of the Chelyabinsk region was concerned with the formal side of organizing the visit: hotels, congress halls, etc. This is, of course, good, but I think this is not the main thing.

Probably, the winner will be the territory to which the member countries of these organizations would be interested in coming. And this interest does not lie in the theatrical sphere.

To be specific, today the Chelyabinsk region can initiate the improvement of legislation regarding the protection of property. Deputies of the regional parliament and representatives of the region in the State Duma of the Russian Federation need to develop new mechanisms that will cut off the claims of third parties to the property of citizens and enterprises. It is necessary to look at what can be done within the framework of the current legislation, and what needs to be supplemented by improving it. For example, you can provide for the principle of inheritance of debts legal entities for private entrepreneurs (individuals) in exchange for the seizure of means of production. Thus, a mechanism for the development of production by subsequent generations will be created. This will give confidence to business and give a feeling of reliability in the development of industry in this territory.

The same mechanism, extended to foreign investors, will make it possible to attract enterprises from the SCO and BRICS member countries to this area. The presence of an enterprise from one's own country in this region will be an additional argument when choosing a venue for the summit for the participating countries.

But the most important thing is to create a common topic of conversation. Cursing the “American military” is not productive, but discussing the conditions for developing the richest natural resources of the Urals and Siberia is of unconditional interest.

The Chelyabinsk region is able to again initiate a project similar to the Ural Industrial - Ural Polar project, but in a more on a large scale and in a new context. For example, as geological exploration of deposits by an international alliance with their subsequent development. Of course, such a pie can attract many guests with good appetites. In any case, everyone is ready to talk about this topic.

There is no doubt that the regional initiative of the South Urals will be supported by Moscow. After all, Russia is the third Rome. And there will never be a fourth Rome.

There is a Global War going on, here we need decisive, offensive actions, powerful reasons for allies, powerful countermeasures against opponents.

The USA has dollars, green bills, belligerence and the closed Bilderberg Club.

Russia has natural resources, natural products and complete openness and friendliness.

Whose scales tip the scales will win.

It is necessary that ours...