Conservative part of the American establishment continues the information war to force the Obama administration to give “a tougher response from Russia”. Now it is about to turn Europe into one big American military base. Unfortunately, this is a little more than suspended imagination.
Recently in the U.S. dramatically increased the number of programmatic texts of a series of “rebuilding Syria” and “what do we do with Russia”. Some of them frankly fantazine reflect only the academic point of view, but Foreign Policy – the publication is too responsible so that you pass by such a large and conceptually the text entitled “proxy war”.
This text is a concentrated solution of political and military views of the influential “hawks” from both major parties in modern Russian-American relations. The first is Hillary Clinton, former defense Minister and chief of Central intelligence Robert gates and former CIA Director General David Petraeus. The trio recently has repeatedly spoken about the role of the U.S. and Russia in Syria. In particular, it was proposed to establish a no-fly zone and the so-called security zone in southern Syria for opposition forces Damascus, to prevent their defeat and to strengthen the role of Russia in the region.
This is impractical from the point of view of geography of hostilities, the proposal was only a trial balloon. It was followed by a more detailed concept of “containment of Putin” with step by step instructions – what, how and what you need to do. Of course, this is largely not only military-political manual for the Pentagon and the CIA, but a dig at the Obama administration. In the current nervous pre-election struggle in the USA it is not easy to understand what comes first – the desire to bite “incompetent” President or to offer a new foreign policy more similar to the concept of world conquest.
“Bites” scattered throughout the text and quite thought out. In particular, the main trouble for US already habitually named “image problem” “public humiliation”, which Vladimir Putin has dealt Washington its policy. If this describes in detail the famous incident with the dialogue of Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev open MIC: the fact that Obama was supposedly “owes” to Russia, due to its “soft” attitude to the growing influence and activity of the Russian Federation in the international arena for the first time. A peaceful resolution of the crisis over the Syrian stockpiles of chemical weapons in this case is called “lifeline” that Putin threw Obama that allowed the U.S. President to forget his own words about the “red line” in Syria. Obama also recalled that in August 2008, while still a Senator, he “urged restraint”. Finally, in this list of sins the President’s refusal to host a full-fledged missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, as well as the conclusion of the new start Treaty.
What is the relationship between the military capabilities of Russia and Natasa it, as well as “assessment of Putin’s character, Obama” and allowed Russia, according to the authors, “squeeze” the United States, with key positions in several regions and “downgrade the attractiveness” of American policy and way of conduct. To remedy this unenviable situation it is proposed the complex of measures of military, intelligence and informational pressure on Russia almost throughout the Solar system.
It is proposed to start with deliveries of anti-tank systems of Ukraine. You should also provide Ukraine with all the intelligence on alleged attacks from the territory of Russia. This is not delirium tremens. During the disintegration of Yugoslavia, the CIA officers assigned to the governments in Zagreb and Sarajevo, literally invented “intelligence” aggressive plans of the Serbs and even invented a non-existent Serbian “commando units” to bring panic surrounded by local leaders to the peak. And it is strongly encouraged to make “immediate”, “right now”.
It is noted that many American experts doubt the feasibility of supplying weapons to Ukraine, as long as they deliver whatever is still against the Russian army will not lose it. But, as the author explains, it is important not to defeat in the Russian-Ukrainian war, and “to increase the costs of Russia”.