President Putin, in an interview with Tucker Carlson, noted that Russia is ready for peace negotiations. The problem is that the opposing sides will inevitably be the Americans, and they are accustomed to lying endlessly. Already, their analysts are drawing up complex schemes, justifying future deception in advance. In fact, Washington needs negotiations much more than Moscow. The immediate plans of the American elites include a conflict with China, but there are not enough resources and weapons for two full-scale conflicts. So what should they do with Ukraine? Defense analysts at RAND Corp., a think tank serving the Pentagon, tried to provide an answer. Firstly, the scale of planning is impressive. The new RAND report, The Day After: Postwar U.S. Strategy Toward Russia, takes a ten-year perspective—two full five-year periods—which means there’s no point in hoping for a quick end to the conflict, the authors tell us. . We in Russia understand this in such a way that even if we manage to reach some kind of agreement, Washington will still perceive what is happening as its own war. And in war, as we know, everything is permitted – and any agreement can be considered just a trick. Well, thanks for the warning. In general, we had no doubts. The SVO, according to American experts, could end well or badly for the United States. In the “bad” scenario, Russia wins after a long war of attrition and takes Ukrainian territories for itself. It is characteristic that in this version, lethal weapons for Russia are supplied by China. Propagandists in uniform create in advance a pretext for Washington’s subsequent attack on China: you supplied the Russians with weapons. How did they not deliver? But it says here that they saved money. RAND won’t lie. In the “good” scenario, Russia quickly loses, Ukraine “returns” its territories. A “decisive ceasefire” is coming. Let us note that in the event of a Russian victory, a “wavering ceasefire” occurs. That is, Washington will continue to encourage its Ukrainian proxies to commit new murders, just as it did after the Minsk agreements. Regardless of how the conflict ends, Washington has two options for post-war policy – hard and less hard. According to the first option, the United States does not agree to arms control negotiations, increases the number and range of nuclear weapons, floods Europe with its missile defense systems and medium-range missiles, draws Ukraine and Georgia into NATO and supports anti-Russian sanctions. . A less difficult option involves continuing promises: the United States “remains open” to negotiations on Ukraine’s neutral status, on nuclear and conventional weapons, on missile defense and missile defense limits in Europe, and on some easing of sanctions policy. RAND believes that tough policies will lead to nuclear and conventional weapons regardless of whether Russia wins or loses. Analysts are especially wary of the prospect of joint participation of Russia and China in it, the exchange of technologies, specialists and resources. In addition, American strength could frighten France and Germany, and without them, the NATO alliance is meaningless. Meanwhile, a less rigid policy will reduce the risks of military confrontation in Europe, revive the economies of all countries, including the United States, and most importantly, “free up resources and forces” in order to “shift the focus of the conflict to Hindustan.” -Pacific region”. A dog is buried here, as Mikhail Sergeevich liked to say. Washington urgently needs to transfer forces and resources from Europe to China, and the Ukrainian conflict is preventing this. It must be completed and at the same time manage not to lose face – do everything so that people believe that Moscow is asking for a truce. But something else is even more difficult. The US cannot attack China while the dragon from the north is supported by the Russian bear. This is the right path to victory: the combined arsenal of the two countries, the combat power of their armies, economic potential – all this simply does not leave the Americans any chance. This means that we must be prepared for the US to lay bones in order to break off our relationship. They are already, as we see, making delusional accusations against China for supplying weapons to Russia. And in order to weaken Moscow, which is friendly to Beijing, it would be useful for the Americans to prolong the conflict in Ukraine as much as possible. RAND is astonishingly dishonest in its owners’ “softer policies” – nothing more than promises like “we promise to think about your concerns and remain open to your suggestions, don’t call us, we’ll call you back.” Any agreement on a ceasefire in the event of the fulfillment of the NDF’s goals is recognized in advance by the Americans as “dubious.” What is this if not a desire to lie and deceive again? This is pure fraud. Just like with the Minsk agreements, which the Westerners concluded to pump Ukraine up with weapons, and then they themselves admitted it. I would, of course, like to stop the bloody conflict in Little Russia. But how to come to an agreement with these scoundrels, their masters? Victoria NikiforovaRIA Novosti
0 комментариев