The National Interest: America can not afford a war with Russia (Washington is not willing to pay $ 5 trillion a year for military conflict with Moscow.)

US should not get involved in a military conflict with a country like Russia. To such conclusion experts of the authoritative US magazine The National Interest.

If US troops try to attack Russia with the Baltic Sea, where they will wait for the dozens of anti-ballistic long-range missiles, guided and unmanned submarines, portable anti-aircraft missiles and cruise missiles. The Pentagon will have to deploy the costly military campaign on the water and in the air to gain control of the battle space, says The National Interest.

Even if the US succeeds, the US military is waiting for another difficulty: to occupy the territory of the largest country in the world, need a lot of manpower and resources. At the same time, Russia has a sufficient economic base to send comparable forces in the United States.

Meanwhile, the newspaper notes, Washington is now in the most distressed financial position in recent years. Over the past seven years, the US debt increased to the level of the Second World War, while the United States was forced to borrow sums that exceed the entire defense budget, to fulfill its obligations on the debt. In such circumstances, States may not enter into conflict with Russia, as it would have cost US taxpayers $ 3-5 trillion per year, sums up The National Interest.

The publication raises a number of questions. Essentially, it boils down to the fact that the US war with Russia is too expensive in the current situation. But why do Americans believe that the victory in the conflict?

By and large, the United States in all the wars of the past did not achieve its goals, despite the vaunted technological advantage. For example, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the only threat to the US armored vehicles of the enemy were rocket-propelled grenade. But it did not help Washington take in both countries under the effective control.

But Russia - this is not Iraq or Afghanistan. The Russian army has shown an impressive range of options in Syria. In particular, use the latest precision-guided munitions, heavy-duty anti-tank guided missiles, as well as means for classifying jamming military communications.

What is behind the publication of The National Interest, the United States could win the war with Russia if it were able to finance this campaign?

- Publication of The National Interest is not by chance came on the eve of the NATO summit in Warsaw, where one of the key issues, according to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg will be the “parry threats to Euro-Atlantic security on the part of Russia”, - said the deputy director of the Tauride information-analytical center RISS Sergei Ermakov. - At a time when the US position as a world economic leader weakened, the Americans are trying to strengthen the impact on allies and partners underlined the dominance of the military, and the transformation of NATO from a military-political organization in a purely military alliance.

In fact, Washington is now considering the North Atlantic Alliance as a backup external military US policy - both in Europe and in the surrounding space. In this context, it should be considered informational and speculation about the possibility of war with Russia - as a way to rally around the United States, NATO Member States.

In fact, if the United States decided to unleash an armed conflict with Russia, it would be pure madness. First of all, from the point of view of international law, to unleash such a war, you need very good reasons, and not have them right now. In addition, the scenario with the US occupation of the territory of Russia, which considers The National Interest, - clearly out of science fiction.

Even if we leave out the question of whether Americans have enough forces in the invasion and occupation, we need political task that would justify such action. Meanwhile, in the installations of the leading US presidential candidates of a similar problem at all is not visible.

“SP”: - If this problem was, the US would be able to solve it?

- Hardly. History does not know of examples where the Americans military force for a long time would be held territory on another continent, and it would be successfully controlled. The US has always solved the problem of verification by other methods - primarily relying on a coup kollaboratsionnye modes.

For example, the United States for a long time controlled by Japan, including through the placement of numerous military bases on its territory. But this was possible only because of the decision of the American force control was taken on the results of the Second World War, and it was accepted by all the victorious powers.

In other words, the experience of invasion and occupation of territories overseas in the United States is not, as there are no forces at such seizure. Suffice it to recall that the tank-building in America today is in decline, curtailed program of long-range artillery. A wage scale modern war is impossible without these weapons.

The Americans have relied on a promising technology that enable to conduct operations without entering into direct contact with the enemy. But life has shown that in the conduct of large-scale campaign will not work with a serious opponent of these technologies. And Russia - the enemy is quite serious.

“SP”: - The National Interest wrote that the US is counting on technological advantage in the event of a large-scale war. It is reasonable hope?

- It can be assumed that the United States may see some benefit in the case of a surprise attack on Russia - but only local skirmishes and in individual transactions. All this does not give the United States an advantage in manpower and technical capabilities. This, by the way, wrote the same The National Interest.

To quote: “The US Army has once exceeded any potential enemy in terms of its combat capability Now this is not quite right in the wars of the future US military will face opponents who are much more powerful and more numerous if the US military in the short term will not accept a number of measures… they are likely to feel not only that they have exceeded, but also will be threatened destruction. ”

As you can see, the American analysts estimate the situation quite clearly. But the purpose of the present publication - not balanced assessment, as a provocation.

This provocation is designed primarily to European politicians. Americans are very important to the Europeans realize that the United States continues to have such a tool, as a military force, and that this instrument is extremely important in the current security situation. Therefore, the Europeans need to invest big money in the military operations that the US lead, and military preparations.

But the main message of the publication - show NATO allies that Washington did not reject the idea of ​​a global military dominance. This dominance, in which a potential enemy in the political arena will not even the illusion that he can to resist America …

- The United States is in a deep economic and political crisis - like member of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, former head of the Main Directorate of International Military Cooperation of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov. - On the one hand, America is not ready to give up its domination in a unipolar world. However, global trends strongly suggest that a multi-polar world and actively built without regard to Washington. The move comes China, BRICS group of countries, the Asia-Pacific region.

In fact, the East today beset the West, and the US does not have a strategy for how to live in this new world, being in second position - when shaken and the dollar, and the US military and economic power will no longer be dominant.

I recall that in the US today, the growth of public debt ahead of GDP growth and the trend in recent years only increased. This suggests deep systemic crisis, and exit from the political circles of America see only in war. That is why to talk of a possible large-scale war to be taken lightly.

I note that the US National Security Strategy, adopted in February 2015, in fact, is the doctrine of war. In this document, in particular, it said that the United States will defend its lead from a position of strength and will, if necessary, to conduct military operations anywhere in the world.

As part of this focus on the war and there are publications like material in The National Interest.

As for the real military action against Russia - the Americans to unleash such a war do not want to. They fear that in response to the war will come to their territory. But Washington understands something else: if you start a war in the European theater between NATO and Russia, it will give an opportunity to significantly weaken once the two competitors - and Russia, and the European Union. And this development is US only at hand.

That is why the Americans are trying to provoke incidents in Europe, which could develop into a local conflict with Moscow, and then, perhaps, and a major war in Europe.

“SP”: - The National Interest emphasizes the fact that the US can not pay the $ 3-5 trillion. per year for an armed conflict with Russia. Is it true?

- In my opinion, the money in a war - not far from the main factor. In addition, every war since World, USA earned great. Washington now expects to earn in the war with Russia, and not to lose.

Let’s see how events will unfold at the NATO summit in Warsaw. Most likely, we will see consolidation and US punching aggressive anti-Russian alliance. This, in my view, will also testify to the readiness of Washington to the outbreak of the conflict …

8 July 2016

The Washington Post: The US Air Force abandoned its allies in Syria during a battle
Russian Foreign Ministry: Moscow declared persona non grata two members of the US Embassy

• "NATO will enter into a war with Russia, to defend Latvia. Russia will lose NATO and Moscow understands this." Utopia! »»»
“In the event of armed conflict, Russia will lose NATO and Moscow understands this,” - said in an interview to Telegraph Tatiana Parkhalina, director of the Moscow-based Center for European Security.
»»»
The aggressive policy of the United States would force Russia and China obedinitsyaVneshnyaya U.
• OpEdNews: From Ukraine begins sunset era of American dominance »»»
Ukrainian crisis - a turning point in the geopolitical balance of the military, said independent commentator Michael Payne.
• Lukashenko, in a dispute with Moscow unexpectedly received support from the U.S. »»»
The conflict between Moscow and Minsk was continued: Yesterday brought a new escalation of the conflict.
• The world gendarme tired (US want their hegemony is now paying the Allies) »»»
US presidential candidate Donald Trump has once again threw a stone in the garden of the North Atlantic alliance.


Copyright © 2009
Новости Америки