How long will the EU last and what might the Syrian truce result in? Is the world really on the brink of disaster? About this and much more in this article!
Who stands for war?
The main news of recent days is, of course, the announced truce in Syria. The problem with this action is that Russia and some countries understand this term differently. The policy of the Russian Federation is initially aimed at a complete ceasefire by the interested parties, while the United States still cannot decide where the really bad guys are. At least there is clarity regarding the DAISH and Jabhat al-Nusra groups (both banned in the Russian Federation), but where did the no less odious Jaishal-Islam, which is at war with everyone, and Ahrarash-Sham, whose goal - the overthrow of the Assad regime?
From midnight on Saturday (2016-27-02), the Russian Aerospace Forces stopped airstrikes on gangs that had applied to the Reconciliation Center. However, about a hundred militants from Turkish territory, supported by heavy artillery from the Turkish side, crossed the border that night and occupied the outskirts of the city of Ett Tell el-Abyad, from where they were driven out in the morning by Kurdish militia forces.
Given the use of heavy artillery systems, we see that Turkey's "peace policy" is completelynot interested, although there is a UN-backed ceasefire resolution. Which is understandable, because President Erdogan is least of all interested in peace, because his dreams of reviving the Ottoman Empire are crumbling.
Stone towards Russia
The policy directions of a number of Middle Eastern states are seen quite clearly. Let's take Saudi Arabia for example. SA King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud recently visited Moscow, where he had a private conversation with Russian President V. V. Putin.
The details of this meeting are not particularly advertised, but they definitely agreed on something. And certainly not about the fact that on February 28, 2016, Adel al-Jubeir, the head of the Kingdom's Foreign Ministry, will accuse Syria and Russia of violating the truce. In the best tradition of Washington, no evidence of any provocative actions was presented.
Politics in the modern world is such that the tail wags the dog, and not vice versa. Such is life, nothing can be changed. And by the way, a statement made by a well-known politician can be annulled by a careless go-ahead from his deputy (remember Kerry's gesture to S. Lavrov's question about Obama's statement). And given the specifics of the East, which, as you know, is a delicate matter, it is generally not clear how to regard the statement of Mr. al-Jubeir. But taking into account his own remark that “there is no place for Assad in Syria,” we can say with confidence: this diplomat is in no way inclined towards a peaceful solution to the issue. His task is to discredit the current Syrian government, and at the same time Russia.
Foggy affairs of Foggy Albion
As the well-known politician and part-time British Prime Minister D. Cameron says, Britain's exit from the EU will be the wildest adventure. However, it was he who actually delivered an ultimatum to the European Union: either we infringe on the rights of our migrants, or we are no longer with you. The EU, of course, does not want to lose such a partner, so Cameron managed to negotiate a lot of concessions for Britain, the main of which is the curtailment of the rights of migrants.
Now for 4 whole years they will not be able to live at the expense of taxpayers. So the country is no longer so attractive for lovers of "life for free", therefore, their influx into the country will decrease.
23.06.2016 a referendum will be held on whether the UK will leave the EU. This, of course, is a big risk for the economy, since many members of the British business community have enterprises abroad, with all the benefits and indulgences that rely as a member of the European Union. It can also undermine cooperation on security issues, because all existing agreements will need to be reviewed and re-signed on new terms.
The Prime Minister points to external threats, the solution of which can only be complete within the EU. This is "Russian aggression", and "nuclear Iran", and the crisis with Middle Eastern migrants.
What do the British want?
The politics of the world in general and Europe in particular are now under threat. Polls conducted among the British show that the number of supporters and opponents of leaving the EU is almost equal, and the majority of government members are in favor of maintaining membership. But we all know how Cameron loves to scare people and make promises. Without a doubt, he sincerely cares for his country, its security and integrity.
Recalling the referendum in Scotland, when the prime minister went out of his way to persuade the proud descendants of Wallace and Bruce not to secede from the state, one can draw a parallel. Then he also promised heavenly life, self-government and whatever you wish. Unity won with a minimal margin. But none of Cameron's promises were kept, which, however, did not inspire the Scots to mass protests.
The British are tired of visitors. The peaceful policy and the notorious tolerance have led to the fact that the inhabitants of their former colonies begin to dictate their terms to stiff Britain on their own streets, which cannot but revolt the people. And EU membership will make them equally bear the burden of helping the unfortunate people of Africa and the Middle East. So 1-2 terrorist attacks in any British city or media reports about the rape of a woman by a migrant will take the UK out of the EU by a majority vote, which will completely destroy the EU.
What is Ukraine going to fight with?
As you know, the politics of Russia and the world do not always look at things the same way. For example, we don't shake our fist at our neighbors by calculating their possible losses in advance, as Mr. Fedichev from the Department of Social and Humanitarian Policy of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry did. But, according to the officials of independent Ukraine, this is a great way to show the "allies" that they are strong and courageous.
According to the forecasts of the above-mentioned humanitarian, the losses of the Russian army will be up to 20 thousand people. only killed, while the valiant Armed Forces of Ukraine will lose 4-5 times less. Yes, any textbook on tactics will say that the defender needs 3 times less forces for effective resistance. But if we remember that 4 waves of all-Ukrainian mobilization perished under the fire of miners with Berdanks (at first there were no other weapons), and the conscripts paid off or fled to Russia…
Some questions…
The above is not at all consistent with the recent statement of the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine A. Avakov, who said that the country has nothing. It is necessary to create anew the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the police and the National Guard, and then go to liberate Crimea from the "occupiers". A reasonable question arises - with what forces Mr. Fedichev is going to fight. The policy of the Russian Federation is such that it is not going to attack anyone. You can still understand the capture of the B altic states, as in 1940, because extra ports on the B altic Sea will not interfere, but why does Russia need a destroyed Ukraine?
Russian tanks in Europe?
This is exactly what the people who heard the statement of F. Breedlove, commander of the NATO Allied Forces in Europe, might think. And how else to regard his words about the readiness of the United States to defeat Russia on European territory? General Breedlove is known for his Russophobic sentiments, although he did not sit in a hole in Vietnam for several years, like McCain. So he decided, apparently on the eve of his resignation from the post, as he was informed by M. Thornby, head of the Committee on the Armed Forces of the Congress, to scare the already trembling Europeans at parting.
The directions of US policy go exclusively to confrontation with all objectionable regimes, and soon it will be necessary to adopt the country's budget and justify an increase in defense spending. It is in this context that the statement of the almost former commander should be considered.
Another thing is that Europe, contrary to the hopes of Washington, does not want to aggravate the already difficult relations with the Russian Federation. German students, unlike politicians, are well aware that in the event of an attack on Russia from their territory, the answer will be on Berlin, and not on Capitol Hill. So the next general attack caused only bewilderment among the political elite of the Old World.
On the brink of war
The main problem of the "civilized world" is that it does not understand the direction of Russian policy at all. The colonialist cannot understand in any way that Russia is not a country that will fight with someone for the expansion of living space or resources, and yet this has always been the reason for the invasion.
The entire policy of the world from time immemorial has been aimed at dominance, at world hegemony. This was due to their own poverty and the presence of exorbitant ambitions. In some cases, states simply got rid of declassed elements, exiling them to distant lands with the promise of a new happy life.
The situation in the world: the policy is now such that the entire planet is under threat of destruction. There were always enough leaders who could, on occasion, press the “red button”. And now the world is on the brink of a big war. In fact, everything could have already begun if the Russian Federation had decided to take revenge militarily for the downed "Sushka" in Syria.
Perhaps this is exactly what was expected of her, because Article 5 of the NATO Charter clearly explains in which cases the Alliance begins hostilities. But, as it turns out, they miscalculated. The anti-Russian peace policy, aimed solely at the military destruction of our country, has once again failed. We hope this will continue to be the case.
Summarize
In this article, we discussed the main political events that are taking place in the world in this period. We hope you found all the information you are interested in.
