The United States is openly preparing for a big war with Russia. Is a war between two nuclear powers really possible?

American military strategists say that in the next five years they will have to fight a “nearly equal” enemy, meaning by “enemy”, of course, the Russian army. One that is rapidly modernizing and actively regaining lost positions along Russia’s borders with Europe.

And some observers mistakenly conclude that these five years will be enough for the American army to prepare for an imaginary conflict.

But no! - Lauren Thompson, executive director of the Lexington Institute, states in her column for Forbes magazine. A hypothetical war with Russia, according to the expert, will be tied to the fastest possible advance of ground forces across vast spaces.

Defeat in this war is quite possible for American military forces; moreover, this is the most likely outcome of a possible conflict so far.

And then the influence of the United States in Europe will be reduced to its minimum since World War II. At the same time, the geopolitical balance will change dramatically, Thompson is sure.

Several factors contribute to the likelihood of such an outcome: strategic miscalculations of previous presidents - George W. Bush and Barack Obama - and lack of funding for the armed forces.

According to the analyst, Bush Jr.'s mistake is associated with the withdrawal of two American heavy brigades from Europe, and Obama's miscalculation lies in his bet on the Asia-Pacific region, an echo of which was the reduction of the US military presence in the Old World.

Funding for the US Army, Thompson is sure, is indeed insufficient, especially when comparing modernization programs with Russian ones. The US military receives $22 billion annually from the federal budget for new weapons, while Russia has launched a ten-year rearmament program with a budget of $700 billion, with most of the funds, according to Thompson, going to the development of ground forces and aviation.

By the way, if we talk about the US military budget, then in the full sense it has long become a “barrel of Danaids”: although huge sums are allocated for the needs of the Pentagon, they are spent, to put it mildly, strangely.

The fact is that the American Congress, which must give the go-ahead for large military purchases, is filled with lobbyists from various companies that feed on government defense orders. As a result, anyone wins, but the combat effectiveness of the US Army does not increase at all.

Suffice it to recall the well-known story of the “newest and best in the world” aircraft, the F-35, which was first developed for quite a long time, and then actually proved the complete incompetence of its creators. As stated by the head of the test service, Michael Gilmore, to eliminate the identified problems, a structural modification of the aircraft will be required.

Nevertheless, Lockheed Martin, the manufacturing company, has such strong lobbyists in Congress and the Pentagon that the US Air Force's plans for the coming years include manning exclusively the F-35, as well as replacing with them the aircraft produced by competing companies. It should be noted that the development and pilot batch of the “world’s best” flying disgrace cost American taxpayers almost $400 billion.

But let's get back to Loren Thompson's material. All the arguments he mentions further convince the expert that the “European” war will most likely be lost by the American army. Thompson supports his thesis with five arguments.

First of all, Russia has a geographical advantage, the expert notes. The battles will take place in the territories of Eastern Europe, which are located further from the main landing points of the American contingent in Europe.

In addition, this part of the Old World is washed by seas that can only be entered through narrow straits that Russia can easily control.

The main argument is that the US military is woefully unprepared for such a conflict, Thompson adds. In Europe, the United States has only two stationary brigades, a light airborne unit and a cavalry regiment armed with armored Strykers. If there is no reinforcement, Russia will simply crush these troops, notes a Forbes columnist.

Recently, the White House decided to deploy a third rotational brigade in Europe, along with this it was decided to send a thousand soldiers to Poland and each of the Baltic countries, but this will not get rid of all the problems. After 15 years of fighting opponents like the Taliban (an organization banned in the Russian Federation - ed.), the US Army is still vulnerable. This applies to air defense, electronic warfare, precision weapons and insufficiently protected equipment. This is where the US Army is no match for the Russian military, Thompson concludes.

Such tragic forecasts from the mouths of American analysts, and military strategists too, are heard constantly. For example, former deputy commander-in-chief of NATO in Europe Richard Shirreff told The Independent that the North Atlantic Alliance will enter into a nuclear war with Russia during 2017. The current NATO commander in Europe, General Philip Breedlove, also stated that “American soldiers are ready to fight and defeat Russia.” The Pentagon leadership and NATO representatives also made statements about Russia as an “enemy.”

Earlier, political scientist Steven Cohen wrote that “the US State Department is deliberately intensifying military confrontation with Russia,” considering this “a very unwise strategy.” Such Cold War games with a nuclear power are becoming increasingly dangerous as Moscow moves heavy weapons and missile systems closer to its western borders in response to US actions.

I also remember the information that appeared in the media that “the combat forecasting of Operation Bear Spear, carried out by the US Strategic Command, ended in failure.” The purpose of the training was supposedly “to simulate a fast, high-precision and partial nuclear strike on Russia.” “As a result, the world was in ruins, and the United States (as, alas, Russia) was wiped off the face of the Earth.”

Of course, the US military is deliberately exaggerating the so-called “Russian threat” in order to receive a larger share of budget allocations, and this causes bewilderment even in the Pentagon itself.

At the same time, the main alarmists are Lieutenant General Herbert McMaster, who is responsible for developing the concept of the “army of the future” in the United States, and Air Force General Philip Breedlove, who recently resigned from his duties as commander-in-chief of NATO’s Joint Armed Forces in Europe.

Russia is a country that can give a worthy response to the United States in any armed conflict. Now one of the main questions worrying the world community is whether there will be a war in 2017 between the United States and Russia? Below we will try to answer it.

Events that make war possible

The first event is the return of Crimea to Russia. The Americans, who had no idea about this development of events until 2014, were already setting up their warships in the Sevastopol roadstead in their dreams. And, of course, the changes that occurred in the state ownership of the port could not help but anger them.

This was followed by the crash of Boeing flight MH17. And although there is no evidence indicating the guilt or involvement of the Russian side in this, Russia continues to be blamed for this disaster. Cause? We need an aggressor with whom we can start a just war.

Another event is the announcement by North American partners of their refusal to take joint action in Syria. Why? Because the Russian armed forces have shown themselves to be self-sufficient, capable of solving combat missions of any complexity, without the advice and help of overseas guys.

All this caused panic, if not hysteria, in the US State Department, whose representative immediately, I think not without gloating, noted that the actions of the Russian army would entail attacks on Russian cities. It is clear to everyone who will be the main organizer and coordinator of these strikes. In addition, there is irrefutable evidence that Americans in Syria are providing assistance to terrorists. And the Russian military is well aware of the locations of US specialists. The weapons provided to terrorists leave no doubt that the conflict between the United States and the Russian Federation is already in full swing. It’s good that the parties have not yet come into direct combat.

Will these events lead to war in 2017?

All the actions of the US leadership make it clear that they really want to fight with Russia. But no one will take responsibility for starting a direct armed conflict with Russia.

Firstly, the entire history of the United States speaks about this. There has never been a case where Americans fought a worthy enemy capable of adequate resistance. The United States enters a war on the winning side, when the weaker enemy has already been weakened to the maximum. Another of their victims may be countries collapsing due to civil conflicts. Nothing similar can be said about Russia now.

Secondly, Russia can only be defeated by using nuclear weapons. But in this case, America itself will suffer so much that even if it recovers, it will never become a leading world power.

About the coming big war

Since January 2015, US preparations for an attack on Russia have become obvious.

First, let me remind you only of some of the events accompanying this preparation - combat, logistics, information. Fragmentary data collected together will help assess the scale of preparations. Then briefly about the meaning of the events happening right now.

War is a competition of organizational structures. The initial task is not the massive transfer of heavy equipment, but the deployment of headquarters and preparation of conditions for the massive deployment of troops. The question being solved is not “how much?”, but “where?” And How?". This includes a whole range of activities - familiarization of command personnel with the terrain in which they will have to fight, organization of premises for future barracks and hospitals, determination of places for storing ammunition and parking of equipment, information training of the local population - people are accustomed to the fact that armored vehicles roaming the roads is becoming commonplace In the background, the enemy is being “dehumanized” in the media and public opinion is being prepared for the inevitability of war. Etc. etc. etc.

January 2015 ("Barbarossa 2.0. Our chances in the coming war") “The European Command of the US Armed Forces is preparing to send so-called monitoring groups to Eastern Europe. Military experts must determine locations for tanks and other weapons. This mission is carried out as part of a large-scale strengthening of the US military presence near the borders with Russia. Writes about thisofficial publication of the Pentagon Stars and Stripes. “In the next few weeks we will send a monitoring team toEstonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria "- the newspaper quotes the words of the commander of US ground forces in Europe, Lieutenant GeneralBen Hodges …»

2015, winter-spring « History of the Third World War. The skeleton is overgrown with muscles"

February 24: Narva, columns of American armored vehicles move towards the Russian-Estonian border; March 2: Mass reactivation and loading of military equipment began in the United States; March 6: Units of the 3rd Infantry Division, the most combat-ready unit of the US ground forces that took Baghdad in 2003, arrive in Latvia; March 10: transfer of American armored vehicles toLatvia , plus another column of American armored vehicles on the Latvian road, but from a different batch (not sand-colored), plus the transfer of Abrams toLithuania ; March 12: transfer of American tanks and paratroopers to Tapa,Estonia ; March 15: Trains of NATO armored vehicles move east through the territoryRomania ; March 22: BRiga Michigan Guard soldiers and 155mm howitzers arrived; March 25: The US began military exercises inRomania and Bulgaria …

The Czechs are scared: US preparations for an attack on Russia are reaching the point of no return; March 26: Trains with US armored vehicles pass throughAustria towards Russia; March 28:Polish hotels received orders to prepare for the reception of military personnel and for conversion into hospitals and headquarters... The United States transferred a motorized infantry regiment toRomanian-Ukrainian border; April 20: American paratroopers and tank crews began training inEstonia ; April 21: NATO aviation,Sweden and Finland conducts exercises in the Baltic states; April 23:France throws toPoland armored unit; April 27:Finns preparing for war with Russia; May 6: US moves troops and equipment toGeorgia May 7: US deployed toEstonia A-10 Thunderbolt attack aircraft; May 25: More than 100 NATO aircraft are practicing an attack on the Russian Federation from the territoryFinland, Sweden and Norway

October 2015 « Baltic puzzles form an ominous picture»

"In the hotels of the capitalEstonia every tenth person staying overnight is a military personnel from NATO countries.” “A single railway connection along the so-called “European gauge” (1435 mm) route Warsaw - Tallinn (Rail Baltica project) speeds up the delivery of military equipment and equipment from NATO allies to the Baltic states.”

Then it progressed progressively - amid laughter about “three Baltic tanks”, military equipment was constantly being pulled up to our borders, NATO commanders were studying the area of ​​future military operations, Western propagandists were intensively dehumanizing the Russians.

April 2017 « America is preparing for a big war. And it will be long.»

May 2017 « Reconnaissance of strategic places» (Italian article about NATO deployment plans in case of war with Russia and the current deployment of US and NATO troops in Eastern Europe).

I missed a lot. News of US and NATO military preparations on our western borders has become so familiar that ordinary citizens, including myself, have practically stopped paying attention to them. Man is designed in such a way that even if he lives on a powder keg, he cannot constantly think about it.

Now about the present moment. Briefly

Recently, another American tank brigade was transferred to our borders. Finally, Russian officials began to express open concern about the accumulation of enemy troops. But this is no longer the most interesting thing. Everything is already clear with this - troops are being concentrated. And not at all to “calm down the Eastern European allies.” On the contrary, the “allies” were told to actively “worry” in order to explain the gathering of troops to our border.

There are even more interesting moments. The question is why the Americans began to intimidate so actively North Korea. Why does she bother them so much? They put up with its existence for more than 60 years, and nothing. And the Koreans have had nuclear weapons for a long time, about 20 years already. Now what happened?

The answer is that under the guise of preparing to “repel a nuclear attack by the DPRK,” civil defense forces (FEMA) exercises are being conducted, anti-nuclear shelters are being put in order, etc. - the entire range of measures to prepare for a possible nuclear war is being rapidly carried out. Only not with the DPRK, but with Russia- “Korean threat” is just a cover. We don’t know what role Kim Jong-un plays in this. Maybe he is acting on orders from the United States (hardly, but anything is possible), maybe he is simply being cleverly provoked into aggressive rhetoric.

In any case, the situation with the DPRK gives the Americans the opportunity to openly prepare for a nuclear war with Russia, and for an attack on us from the Pacific Ocean. A similar purpose is served by the suspicious swarm of hurricanes that have hit the United States in recent months. Whether they are caused artificially (which is quite real), or whether their power is artificially inflated by the media is not so important. It is important that, under the guise of fighting the elements, it is possible to conduct exercises for the mass evacuation of residents from large populated areas.

Another extremely alarming moment is the situation with Russian diplomatic missions, intentionally aggressive and offensive American behavior towards our diplomats. Why is all this? Why was it necessary to tear down our flags from diplomatic missions, for example? What pettiness is this?
I suspect that this is not at all a matter of innate Anglo-Saxon-Jewish rudeness.

We are being provoked to a very harsh response. The result is a complete severance of diplomatic relations. Target? The evacuation of the embassy is one of the important signs of the last phase of preparations for war. Take it yourself and, for no apparent reason, take all your diplomats, agents, etc. out of Russia. - means to give the enemy an alarm signal. It is better for such an evacuation to occur as if by itself, step by step, as if even on our initiative. But it is important to see the meaning behind the rhetoric - American diplomats are being evacuated on the eve of war.

I'd like to be wrong. But Trump's recent statement at a meeting of senior US military leaders about the "calm before the storm" refers to an imminent war with Russia. That Trump was made president precisely to prepare for a big war, I suspected a year ago. True, I didn’t think that he was such a smart guy - he gave me several years to prepare. Although, perhaps, another six months or a year will pass before the decisive events.

Will start simultaneously on Ukraine- they will waste the cannon fodder of the Ukrainian Armed Forces to pin down part of our forces, attack Crimea, will hit Kaliningrad from Poland, will hit from Baltic states deep into Russia - there are directions to Smolensk, cutting off Belarus(they are trying to agree on neutrality with Lukashenko, it’s not a fact that they can, but they are trying), to Moscow and St. Petersburg. They will strike from the North from Scandinavia at the bases of the Northern Fleet. From Georgia. And from the Pacific direction.

They can light it in one place - Donbass, Baltic transit, Syria- doesn't matter. But then, to have a chance of winning, they need to attack from all directions at the same time. That's what they will do. In the end we will win, but a lot of people will die. Perhaps Putin will decide on a preemptive strike - then we will win faster and an order of magnitude fewer people will die on our side.

Nuclear weapon- a separate topic. Let me just remind you that chemical weapons did not prevent the Second World War. Well, about the fact that its reserves, in comparison with the 70s-80s of the last century, are not at all so large. Many military experts believe that nuclear war is quite possible, and there may be a winner. Whether it is true or not, I don’t know. The criterion of truth is practice. We'll live to find out. The question is - what about the losses of the American military? The answer is that it is not the loss figure itself that is important. What matters is what you get in return. For the victory over the great and terrible, but not bothering anyone, North Korea, it would be a pity to give up even one aircraft carrier. For victory over Russia and, as a consequence, absolute world domination, it would not be a pity to give up all the aircraft carriers and 90 percent of the fleet. Then you can build more, there will be no competitors in the military sphere, and there won’t be any at all, no one will dare to contradict.

The question is - have they gone crazy?

Long-term service to evil really seriously undermines mental abilities. Perhaps they simply have no choice and believe that an external war is better than the loss of world hegemony, a sharp decline in consumption levels and a violent surge in violence within the United States itself.

I would very much like the self-preservation instinct of the Western elite to somehow work and the operation to attack Russia to be cancelled. The only question is whether they have the physical ability to stop the already running mechanism of war.

The US Army can now accept recruits with various mental problems into its ranks, USA Today reports.

The ranks of the American military will also accept people who had problems with alcohol and drugs, and suffered from depression. Those who have ever engaged in self-harm without suicidal intent and who have suffered from bipolar affective disorder will be allowed to serve.

As the publication clarifies, the decision was made back in August, but it was not publicly announced. According to journalists, the new rules are due to the fact that by September 2018 the American army needs to recruit 80 thousand recruits. This order was given by the President of the United States Donald Trump which intends to expand the fight against terrorist groups. Previously, when it was necessary to recruit 69 thousand recruits, the United States allowed to draft into the army young people who had previously used marijuana and those who showed poor results on entrance tests.

If someone thought it was funny, I wouldn't have much fun.

Note to those who do not understand - the United States is not preparing for local wars, not for showdowns with the DPRK or Iran, but specifically to attack Russia. There was so much irony in the comments to the material “The United States is preparing to attack not the DPRK, but Russia” - https://dima-piterski.livejournal.com/567431.html

Well, let citizens explain with a sense of humor why the Pentagon needed to recruit tens of thousands of inadequate. For Afghanistan and other local conflicts? So that the hatred of the local population towards the Americans will intensify even more?

I'll tell you what kind of war such people are needed for - this cannon fodder for the Last Great War, when it will no longer give a damn about the “opinion of the world community” and even more so about the opinion of the local population, which is subject to destruction. For the War, after which, as they plan, no one in the world will ever dare to contradict them in anything.

The intensity of hatred towards Russia among Western propagandists is staggering. Such an emotional barrage cannot end in anything, just disappear. Throughout the Western direction, from Norway to Ukraine and Georgia, troops are gathering. Going to Eastern European and Ukrainian cannon fodder, which it would not be a shame to put in the first strategic echelon - to exchange hundreds of thousands of lives of “second-class people” to gain momentum, to tie down the forces of the Russian army at least for a short time in secondary directions in order to deliver a powerful blow to one or two decisive ones.

We have to stop this entire horde.

From the latest:

NATO is calling on European countries to upgrade their infrastructure for the rapid deployment of troops and military equipment, reports the Daily Mail. As the publication notes, delivering a speech to NATO defense ministers in Brussels, the Alliance Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stressed that European roads, bridges and railway networks must be suitable for the transport of tanks and heavy military equipment.

A report in the German magazine Der Spiegel (issue 43/2017), based on a secret NATO document, indicates how far war plans have progressed. The magazine concludes: “In plain English: NATO is preparing for war with Russia.” NATO is establishing two new command centers in Europe.Transfer of American combat helicopters to Europe

Expert: The United States is preparing the population of Poland for a military strike on Kaliningrad

The United States is preparing the Polish population for a preemptive strike on Kaliningrad. This assumption was expressed to a REGNUM correspondent by a political scientist and expert on Poland. Marina Klebanovich, commenting on the publication in Poland of the book “Suwalki Corridor. Russia versus NATO,” where the author discusses the advisability of NATO seizing the Russian exclave.

“I am sure that the author of the book performs NATO order- voice the Alliance’s far-reaching plans for the preventive seizure of the Kaliningrad region. This book is the first sign,” says the political scientist. In her opinion, one of the most important elements of modern information warfare is the “right mood of the population” to justify certain actions.

“Today, even the United States must explain to the population - at least its own and the European one - why they come here or there for military purposes, to convince them that they are doing the right thing, that they have no other choice, that they are actually defenders , Klebanovich continued. “And under the premise that Russia allegedly wants to seize the Suwalki corridor, plans are being made for a preventive attack on the Kaliningrad region.” The political scientist noted that today the Polish population has already succumbed to US information processing.

“Last week I read the latest sociological survey data on Poland and was amazed that 85% of the population does not exclude an attack by Russian troops on Poland. These figures were published exactly on the eve of Polish Independence Day. These are more than alarming figures,” summed up Marina Klebanovich.

A REGNUM correspondent clarifies that the author of the book “Suwalki Corridor. Russia versus NATO" Tadeusz Kisielewski in an interview with the Polish portal WPolityce.pl, he said that he sees two options for the capture of the Kaliningrad region by NATO troops. According to Kiselevsky, the first option is “a preemptive operation designed to prevent a Russian attack on the Suwalki corridor.” The second is “the capture of the Kaliningrad region as a result of the Russian defeat in the Suwalki corridor.”

Let us remind you that the 60-kilometer section of the land border between Poland and Lithuania is the object of increased attention from NATO military analysts. This corridor is the shortest route to reunite the Armed Forces of the Union State. In June 2017, more than 1.5 thousand NATO troops trained in Lithuania protection of the Suwalki corridor.

Putin: the economy and civil departments must be prepared to work in wartime conditions

November 22. President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin called for studying the shortcomings identified during the Zapad-2017 exercises and developing additional measures to increase mobilization readiness.

“As a result of the exercises, certain shortcomings were identified, we need to carefully study them, develop additional measures to increase mobilization readiness,” Putin said, opening a meeting with the leadership of the Russian Ministry of Defense, defense industry enterprises and a number of regions of the country. The President noted that during the meeting they plan to primarily touch upon the civilian aspects of the past exercises, since many civilian departments and regions were involved.

Summing up the results of the exercises, Putin called for an analysis capabilities of defense enterprises to quickly increase production volumes.

“I would like to note that the ability of the economy to quickly increase the volume of defense products and services in wartime is one of the most important conditions for ensuring the military security of the state; all strategic and simply large enterprises, regardless of their form of ownership, must be prepared for this,” Putin emphasized.

Putin about the Third World War. 2017

USA - RUSSIA war is inevitable

An attack by the US and NATO on Russia could begin in THREE directions. How can the Russian army respond?

More details and a variety of information about events taking place in Russia, Ukraine and other countries of our beautiful planet can be obtained at Internet Conferences, constantly held on the website “Keys of Knowledge”. All Conferences are open and completely free. We invite everyone who wakes up and is interested...

Experts from the American think tank Council on Foreign Relations said that the conflict between Russia and NATO countries is the main threat to the world community in 2017.

The authors of the report “Top Threats to Watch for in 2017,” which was published by the American Council on Foreign Relations, put the DPRK problem in second place. Analysts singled out “Russia’s aggressive behavior in Eastern Europe” as the reason for this distribution of places.

At the same time, in terms of the degree of threat to the world community, the North Korean crisis, which was caused by the testing of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles and military provocations, is proposed to be rated lower than the “threat from Russia.” The consequences of a “highly destructive cyber attack on critical American infrastructure” are also considered dangerous for the United States.

They make an enemy from Russia with such frequency and creativity that it is no longer surprising. Recently, the British military conducted exercises in which they worked out the scenario of a Russian invasion of Estonia. According to legend, Great Britain, the United States and other Western countries are obliged by treaty to come to the defense of another NATO member.

Moreover, the alleged enemy at these maneuvers wears a uniform similar to the Russian one and uses weapons that are in service with the Russian army. According to the Daily Mail, due to lack of funds, representatives of the civilian population and Nepalese soldiers are playing this enemy. In addition, suspected Russian forces carried out the attack using a model of the T-72 tank.

The UK military did not deny that the idea behind the maneuvers was to simulate “Russia’s 2014 invasion of eastern Ukraine, which included a rapid land grab that led to the annexation of Crimea.” Former NATO General Richard Shirreff called these exercises extremely important and calls the Baltic countries the “new frontier”, the same as, for example, Berlin was during the Cold War.

According to former deputy head of the CIA Morell, the tactics used by the United States in armed conflicts perfectly illustrate the goals pursued by American intelligence agencies in Syria. Morell explained that the most effective way to resolve the Syrian conflict would be to “secretly kill Russians and Iranians.”

US military strategists say they will be fighting a "near-peer" enemy in the next five years and need to prepare for an imaginary conflict. At the same time, the executive director of the Lexington Institute, Lauren Thompson, explains that a hypothetical war with Russia, according to the expert, would be tied to the fastest possible movement of ground forces across vast spaces. Russia will simply crush NATO troops, notes a Forbes columnist.

Let us recall that earlier the same former deputy commander-in-chief of NATO in Europe Richard Shirreff told The Independent that the North Atlantic Alliance will enter into a nuclear war with Russia during 2017. The current NATO commander in Europe, General Philip Breedlove, also stated that “American soldiers are ready to fight and defeat Russia.” The man who wrote the book “War with Russia: 2017” about a hypothetical war between Europe and Moscow is sure that when the Baltics completely “strangle” the Russian-speaking population, Russia may begin sending troops into its territory.

Political scientist Steven Cohen has recently often focused on the fact that “the US State Department is deliberately intensifying military confrontation with Russia,” considering this “a very unwise strategy.” Such Cold War games with a nuclear power are becoming increasingly dangerous as Moscow moves heavy weapons and missile systems closer to its western borders in response to US actions.

It is the United States that is in fact preparing for a nuclear conflict, noted Leonid Ivashov. “And here the main players, of course, are not the Europeans. The main player is the Americans. In addition to the task of stopping Russia, they have a second task - to prevent Europe from getting out of US control. The Europeans, somewhere in the economy, in politics, tried to carry out independent line, they do not want to sign the colonial Transatlantic Agreement. And in the military sphere, there is complete American control. Even the Commander-in-Chief of NATO forces in Europe is an American. Thus, through military obedience, they keep both politicians and businesses in Europe," the analyst emphasized.

Currently, the build-up of US forces in the theater of operations in Eastern Europe is being tested. “The Americans may not even launch their “global strike”, but will create an incident that will escalate into an armed conflict. And then they will shed tears that they do not want to fight, but are obliged to protect their NATO allies. It is important for them that the war be fought "not on the territory of the United States, but in Europe. After all, Europe is not only their ally, but also their competitor in the economy. They need to weaken Europe. And the best way to do this is by starting a conflict with Russia in Europe," the expert concluded.

It is worth recalling the recent statement by US Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work that, if necessary, Washington is ready to use nuclear weapons first. The experts' conclusion is this: thermonuclear war between Russia and the United States is close and more likely than ever - confirming the opinions of scientists who moved the "doomsday clock" to "three minutes to Armageddon."

Every third Russian admits war with the United States. International tensions have increased, in particular, after US military strikes on a Syrian air base, the dispatch of a nuclear aircraft carrier to the shores of South Korea and Washington's threat to launch a pre-emptive strike on North Korea. In addition, the public mood was influenced by the use of the GBU-43 bomb by the US Armed Forces in Afghanistan - one of the most powerful aircraft munitions in the world. I found out whether the Americans would decide to fight with Russia from Russian parliamentarians responsible for issues of international politics and defense.

Theory and practice

“Theoretically, this is possible, because there are too many problems in our relations, we treat world problems too differently. In particular, we assess the situation in the Middle East differently; we have many controversial issues regarding Ukraine. But we understand the responsibility that lies with our countries for maintaining peace on earth. Because the nuclear and military potential that our countries possess is capable of destroying the entire globe.

I was especially concerned about the situation with North Korea. If the Americans had struck after the test, North Korea could have responded, despite the fact that their military and economic capabilities are disproportionate. Then China could have intervened, here we are nearby...

To prevent this from happening, we need to return real status, because it was this that helped us maintain peace on the planet for half a century after the Second World War.”

Nobody wants complications

“These figures are very alarming: a third of the Russian population thinks about the possibility of a conflict with the United States. For my part, I would like to reassure citizens: I think it will not come to conflict. We are well aware of the complexity of the international situation, and the recent visit of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to Moscow showed the tough line that the leadership of our country adheres to.

Naturally, no one wants any complications or military action; everyone sees what is happening in Korea and understands perfectly well that any unpredictable actions could cause irreparable damage to the entire Korean Peninsula. South Korea, which will be a deterrent in this conflict, is not primarily interested in this.

We need to reassure this third of people, let them understand that we have enough sensible and wise politicians in our country who will never lead to a conflict. And America understands well that Moscow will not allow this.”

Not in the interests of corporations

, first deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on Defense:

“There will be no military conflict between Russia and the United States, because in America transnational corporations rule the country. For American rulers, unlike Russian ones, the material component is paramount, for us it is the spiritual and moral component. If we start from a spiritual and moral point of view, we are ready to defend our country. Do not attack anyone, but defend.

Why won't America attack us? Based on the fact that they are materialists, they all understand that this will be very troublesome and expensive for them. The Rothschilds and Rockefellers will not spend money that they cannot recoup later. Because you can get such a retaliatory blow from the Russian Federation that they will get bogged down in heaviest bloodshed.”

On foreign territory

Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Information Policy, Information Technologies and Communications:

“A clash between Russia and the United States is indeed possible - on the territory of countries such as Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, maybe even the Korean Peninsula, because the situation around Russia is nervous. The US president-elect is struggling to please his domestic political class, which hates him and considers him a friend of Russia. And, of course, he is not a professional politician, but an entrepreneur and can mess things up.

Because of this, some small conflict with missile attacks on ships or bases is indeed possible. Because internal specialists and intelligence agencies can mislead Trump by saying that there are terrorists in those territories. The Russian armed forces will resist this blow.

We, citizens of Russia, have nothing to worry about here, because this conflict, if it happens, will be far beyond the borders of the Russian Federation. “In addition, it will most likely take place in the format of exchanging shots, and I hope that this will not lead to casualties.”

War for everyone

Yuri Shvytkin, Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Defense:

“I can’t even imagine that such a war is possible, because we are two nuclear powers. This will not be a war between Russia and the United States; almost all countries of the world will be drawn into the conflict. This must not be allowed under any circumstances. All existing contradictions can be resolved diplomatically. I think that the United States realizes and understands that today there is no hegemony and a built unipolar world that would benefit the United States of America.”

Restraining factor

, Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on International Affairs:

“The fact is that a much larger number of respondents in the United States believe that such a conflict with Russia is possible, which is why we still have a peaceful indicator. This is the first thing. Secondly, let's not forget that my generation and older lived in the era of the Cold War, when people not only believed, but were confident that World War III could happen any day now. Now there is nothing like this in Russia: no one collects supplies in case of war, no one hides a gas mask in the apartment. But this generation also influences the survey results, and there are citizens who are quite far from politics, who, let’s say, draw information from case to case - they may believe that such processes are possible.

As for a large-scale armed conflict between Russia and the United States, nothing like this has happened over the last hundred years and, I hope, there will not be. Still, the two nuclear superpowers understand that each of them can repeatedly destroy not only the enemy, but the entire Earth. This is a deterrent and remains a deterrent. Another thing is that there are local wars, hybrid wars, a very powerful confrontation in the information field, there is what I would call a diplomatic war. Yes, this really happens. But I would be careful not to talk about a direct clash between Russia and the United States.”