What is a global war. Global War

CHAPTER 2 GLOBAL WAR: SPIES AND SABOTEISTS Although international relations became increasingly tense, until 1914 Europe managed to avoid war. However, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife Sophia, Duchess of Hohenberg, during

Global War

Global War The British turned to the Dominions with a request to seize nearby German colonies, and they happily agreed. By October 1914, the Samoan Islands submitted to New Zealand, and German New Guinea and the Bismarck Archipelago (now Papua New Guinea) -

The global war has begun

Global War Has Begun "War on Terrorism"? If this were a film, its script would have been rejected as deliberately false and worthless. The first lie: In 1999, and then in 2001, the Taliban came to the conclusion that Bin Laden’s presence on their territory was an obstacle

Global war or world revolution? Shamil Sultanov October 30, 2014 4 Politics Economics of memories of the future Within the framework of the general theory of systems, the Cold War can be interpreted as a specific mechanism for managing a fairly long and stable

Global war or world revolution?

Global war or world revolution? Shamil Sultanov November 6, 2014 2 Politics Economics memories of the future End. Beginning - in No. 44 (1093) Inter-clade contradictions The sixth technological structure is fundamentally different from all previous ones in that there is radically

This topic has not ceased to excite people's minds since the end of World War II and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs.

The Cold War that had begun then seemed about to escalate into the Third World War, as a result of which entire continents could be covered in radioactive ash. But this did not happen, and the main participants in the Cold War signed an agreement on arms reduction. This was followed by the collapse of the socialist camp and the Soviet Union. In fact, the peoples of the USSR lost this war.

Today, against the background of the worsening situation in Europe (Ukrainian), Syria is increasingly aware of the threat of armed forces.

In its recently published White Paper, the People's Republic of China declares that a new military conflict is inevitable. The strategy does not talk about specific dates or participants, but directly states the inevitability of the Third World War. In this regard, the Chinese authorities intend to strengthen their armed forces, increase the production of weapons, and strengthen forces for possible defense. Thus, the largest country in the world (both in terms of numbers and numbers) recognizes that the world could be interrupted any day by a new global conflict, which will seem like a dummy compared to the First and Second World Wars.

This cannot alarm the average person who is used to living in peace and tranquility, to whom carpet bombing of neighborhoods, nights in basements, and daily human losses are alien. Our average person is used to plugging into gadgets and TVs every day, watching news and TV series, while getting ready for work and drinking another portion of coffee. The average person does not want to notice that a global collision has already begun. Already today we are witnesses of a certain quiet, when, under the curtains of diplomatic conversations and slogans, the extermination of entire nations occurs.

Fact: Since the end of World War II, there has been no peace on our planet. Wars happen everywhere and all the time. Wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine - this is just a small list of those countries on whose territory heinous crimes are committed, covered up by certain slogans and ideas. We do not take into account that the economic wars launched against us, which include not only sanctions and blockades, but also lending, as a result of which we become dependent on individual financial institutions, information wars, in which human consciousness is rewritten to what is necessary for those who ordered the war okay, political, when, against the backdrop of public opinion formed by the information influence, individual political forces come to power, representing not the general population, but the business elite - all this is included in the concept of a global Third World War.

We do not understand that our enemy is not the people, not the people zombified by the masses, not the people poisoned by an idea, but the oligarchs - the real customers of the massacre. Just imagine how today the Soros, Rothschilds and Rockefellers who started the war in Ukraine and Syria are rubbing their hands with pleasure. In fact, they crossed all borders a long time ago. With globalization, they have embraced everything and everyone. Our enterprises, resources, our culture and education, our countries and peoples - all this is under the control of a handful of billionaires (both national and international). And here their nationality is not important, their place of residence is not important, but what is important is that with the help of our own media we are being pushed into a global massacre called the Third World War. And this happens in all countries of the world.

We are being drawn into credit bondage, when countries and peoples are doomed to long-term obligations at interest rates. Our lands, resources, enterprises are being bought for green candy wrappers printed by the Federal Reserve System, which is completely under the control of the oligarchs, dictating their terms to the whole world. Any IMF, European or Asian banks are nothing more than a gang of oligarchs whose goal is to establish control over countries and peoples, hiding behind beautiful words about help. It’s a paradox, but we are even accustomed to the idea that gratitude is needed for help, although this very concept implies a selfless action in favor of another subject.

Given the current situation, different conclusions can be drawn. One thing is clear: our capitalist world, so praised by all politicians and the media, has long been rotten. Neither the monarch, nor the aristocracy or elite, nor all sorts of liberal democrats can preserve it. It will not collapse on its own as long as we believe in the bright future of the market economy, as long as we believe that the market will sort everything out. Yes, it will regulate the population, i.e. the time of our birth and death will settle everything as the customers need it, but not us. We still remain naive people who believe that the division of the world into empires and civilizations is natural, who blindly swallow the idea of ​​“divide and conquer” that is instilled in us.

That is why, perhaps, the Third World War is inevitable. As well as the fourth, fifth and sixth. We will fight until we wipe everything off the face of the Earth or until we are left with stones and sticks in our hands, hungry stomachs and a completely destroyed infrastructure. If we come to our senses and deploy our weapons against the warmongers, we begin a world crusade not against peoples and nations, but against the system, against the oligarchs and pseudo-politicians representing their interests, then we will be able to talk about peace throughout the world. Well, for now it’s too early to talk about it.

The feeling of the loss of basic positions, an irreversible turn of fortune began to weaken in the ranks of the Wehrmacht, the German military machine began to return to the orderly channel of daily painstaking activity. In mid-January, Hitler agreed to a number of Kluge's proposals for a retreat in some areas of the central front. The Red Army's communications lengthened, the supply task became more difficult, reserves were depleted, and forward progress slowed. Gradually the Germans began to come to the conclusion that the worst was over for them. The huge front has stabilized. Reinvigorated, Hitler reveled in yet another “triumph of will.” He told everyone the story of the general who came to him in December asking him to allow him to retreat. To which Hitler responded with a question: “Do you really think that fifty kilometers to the west you will be warmer?” The retreat was preparing for us, Hitler said enthusiastically, “the fate of Napoleon. But I got out of this quagmire! The fact that we survived this winter and are today in a position from which we can continue our victorious march is based on my will, no matter what the cost.”

Personally, this winter cost Hitler a lot. Those around him could see traces of enormous physical and psychological pressure. The shock of unfulfilled fantastic hopes was noticeable to everyone who saw him at that time. Goebbels, after another visit to Wolfschanze, writes about how Hitler turned gray and aged. And he admitted to his minister of propaganda that the stress of winter was at times simply unbearable.

On January 18, 1942, Japan, Germany and Italy delimited the spatial scope of their military operations. Japan’s “subordinate” zone became “the waters east of 70 degrees east longitude up to the west coast of the American continent, as well as the continent and islands of Australia, the Dutch East Indies and New Zealand,” plus the share of the Eurasian continent east of 70 degrees east longitude. It was assumed that if the United States and England withdrew all their navies to the Atlantic, Japan would send part of its fleet there. In the event of a concentration of Americans and British in the Pacific Ocean, the Germans and Italians will come to the aid of their ally.

The American position in the Philippines was desperate. In the face of landing Japanese troops under the command of General Homme, the Americans quickly retreated; General MacArthur was forced to admit to the Filipinos he was “defending” that he would fight only on the Bataan Peninsula. The American troops who retreated to this peninsula found themselves caught in the ring of the Japanese siege. General MacArthur escaped capture only by hastily leaving for Australia. He did not believe that Washington would agree to the death of a contingent of troops unprecedented in American history. Such a start to the war could undermine F. Roosevelt's prestige as supreme commander in chief. He was wrong, Washington made this sacrifice. According to the allied plans agreed upon between Washington and London during Churchill's visits to the American continent, it was assumed that actions against Japan would be entrusted mainly to the United States. The plan was to stop Japanese expansion in mid-1942, and then blockade Japan and begin a war of attrition.

And the phenomenal expansion of the zone of influence of imperial Japan continued. In January 1942, Japanese landing forces captured the oil fields of Borneo. The main ports of the Dutch East Indies - the harbors of Borneo and Celebes - were now in their hands. They also landed in New Guinea, a territory under Australian jurisdiction, and the Rabaul airstrips became the starting point for the Japanese attack on Australia. On February 14, 1942, the pride of the British Empire, the fortress of Singapore, fell. The humiliation of the British Empire was exorbitant; the sixty-thousand-strong Japanese army captured the 130,000-strong British army. On the sixteenth of February, Sumatra (an island larger than California in area and twice the population) was captured by ten thousand Japanese. Three days later, the Australian port of Darwin was subjected to an air raid by Japanese pilots - the “heroes of Pearl Harbor”. President Roosevelt ordered MacArthur to lead Australia's defense. MacArthur already knew that 20,000 British soldiers had surrendered to the Japanese in Burma. On the twenty-fifth of February, Field Marshal Sir Archibald Wywell, commander of the Allied forces in Indonesia, left his headquarters and retired to India. The squadron, which included American ships, was sunk in the Java Sea - it was the largest naval battle since the Battle of Jutland between the British and the Germans (1916), and in it the Japanese did not lose a single ship, destroying five enemy cruisers. The Japanese navy and army began preparations for the landing of troops in Australia.

To bring a measure of shaken confidence into the homes of shocked Americans, President Roosevelt decided in a radio address to the country to analyze in front of the entire country the low start from which they were beginning the struggle on a global scale. Roosevelt urged Americans to stock up on large-scale maps. “I'm going to talk about strange places that most people have never heard of, places that are now the battlegrounds of civilization... If they understand the problem and where we're going, then they can trust that any bad news will be accepted they are at peace." On February 23, 1942, more than eighty percent of the country's adults, armed with maps, were making sense of the retreat of the past weeks. The current generation faces a difficult fate, and Americans must be prepared for losses “before the tide goes out. This war is of a special nature, it is being waged on all continents, in every sea, in all the air spaces of the world.” The road ahead will be difficult, but America's creative genius "is capable of securing the preponderance of the war materials necessary for ultimate triumph."

In the first two months of 1942, the White House turns into a command post for a country at war. From now on, strategy is developed here, the economic life of the country and its military efforts are regulated. The entrances to the White House were fenced off with chains, and a guard service appeared. Anti-aircraft guns were installed on the roof of the presidential mansion, although it was difficult to imagine where, from what airfield, a plane could take off to hit the residence of the American president. In these most difficult, from the point of view of the situation on all fronts, the first weeks and months of 1942, the Americans began building that colossal zone of influence that the Americans would gain by the end of the war. In the days of quick victories of the Japanese, the Australian government decides that relying only on London is dangerous and, bypassing Churchill and the British commander in chief in the Asian region Wavell, the Australian Prime Minister J. Kurtan asks the American president, firstly, to protect the northern coast of Australia, and secondly, to help the main forces of the Australian army concentrated in Malaya. "The army in Malaya must receive air protection, otherwise there will be a repeat of Greece and Crete." The fall of Singapore weakened Australia's ties with the mother country, its prime minister declared Australia's independence from London: "I want to say with all clarity that Australia looks to America, free from all the ties that traditionally connected it with the United Kingdom."

General Eisenhower, who headed the planning department of the War Department, proposed creating American bases in Australia and building an “Asian redoubt” there. Secretary of War Stimson believed that it was important for America to gain a foothold in two key Asian regions - China and Australia - this would guarantee American dominance throughout the vast Asia as a whole. Roosevelt promised the Australian prime minister military assistance and protection. One of the features of Roosevelt's strategic vision was faith in the combat potential of Chiang Kai-shek China. The President asked Churchill what the power of five hundred million Chinese would be if they reached Japan's level of development and had access to modern weapons? Churchill believed much less in the power of China. But Roosevelt wanted to transform the Chinese front - distant and difficult to reach - into one of the main fronts of the war. Already in December 1941, Roosevelt promised Chiang Kai-shek help.

Perhaps Roosevelt, not without satisfaction, looked at the quarrel between Chiang Kai-shek and the British at that time (General Wavell allowed only one Chinese division to guard Burmese communications, the British confiscated all lend-lease supplies accumulated in Burma). The President wanted to take advantage of these complications in order to show Chiang Kai-shek that he had no better ally than the United States. Even at the Arcadia Conference, he convinced Churchill to make Chiang Kai-shek supreme commander of the allied forces in China, Thailand and Indochina, to create connections between Chiang Kai-shek's headquarters and the allied headquarters in India and the southwest Pacific. President Roosevelt appoints American General J. Stilwell as commander of American forces in China, India and Burma, as well as chief of staff under Chiang Kai-shek. The long-range goal is visible here: to rely on China in Asia, to fetter the dynamism of Japan, to create a counterweight to the USSR in Eurasia. Roosevelt said to Stilwell, who was leaving for China: “Tell Chiang Kai-shek that we intend to return to China all the territories it has lost.” In early 1942, the Chinese in Chongqing received a loan of $50 million.

The decision taken at that time by Roosevelt to create an air bridge leading to a practically surrounded ally should have served to strengthen China (and the US position in it). At the cost and sacrifice, Roosevelt ordered the opening of an air route through India. Churchill already then, at the beginning of 1942, came to the conclusion that Roosevelt was wishful thinking and was taking a simplified view of Chinese capabilities, “giving China a significance almost equal to the British Empire,” equating the capabilities of the Chinese army with the combat power of the USSR.

In March 1942, the Americans and the British, at the suggestion of F. Roosevelt, delimited areas of responsibility - the world was divided into three zones. In the Pacific region, the United States assumed strategic responsibility; in the Middle East and Indian Ocean - England; in the Atlantic and Europe - joint leadership. In Washington, under the chairmanship of F. Roosevelt (deputy G. Hopkins), the Council for the Conduct of the War in the Pacific was created, which included representatives of nine countries.

At the beginning of March, a meeting of the country's top leaders was held in Tokyo, at which the document “Basic principles of future operations” was adopted, in which the leaders of militaristic Japan came to the conclusion that it was facing overexertion, which it could only avoid by consolidating the occupied territories. The lines of main combat operations were determined: for the army - the Burmese front with access to the plains of India; the combined forces of the army and navy seize control of New Guinea and the Solomon Islands in order to isolate Australia from the United States; Admiral Yamamoto's fleet turns against the American fleet in the Pacific.

In April 1942, Admiral Nagumo's aircraft carriers and battleships, famous for the operation against Pearl Harbor, devastated the Bay of Bengal and forced the British to withdraw to Africa. Japan now exercised naval control from Madagascar to the Caroline Islands. On January 22, 1942, Prime Minister Tojo declared in the Japanese Diet: “Our goal is to exercise military control over those territories which are absolutely necessary for the defense of the Greater East Asian Sphere.” In Washington, so far they have set modest goals: “To hold what we have, repulsing any attacks that the Japanese are capable of.” But these tasks were also carried out with great difficulty. Seventy thousand Filipino-American troops on Bataan surrendered to the Japanese; in March 1942, 112 thousand people were captured or killed - this is six thousand more than all American losses in the First World War. For American prisoners of war, the hell of the Japanese camps began. The Japanese leadership encouraged the atrocities of their soldiers, believing that they themselves would be terrified of being captured by the enemy and therefore would fight with the despair of the doomed.

Even purely psychologically, something had to be done to counter the avalanche of Japanese victories. On the morning of April 18, 1942, from a distance of 668 miles east of Tokyo, a squadron of sixteen B-26 bombers under the command of Colonel J. Doolittle, based on two aircraft carriers, carried out an air raid on Tokyo with only one way of fuel. The Japanese did not expect a carrier-based aircraft attack, which had a limited range. Dolittle flew his own plane past the imperial palace, which he was ordered not to bomb, and dropped the “cargo” in the very center of densely populated areas of Tokyo. Sixteen bombers overall caused disproportionate damage, hitting a camouflaged oil storage facility, damaging a Kawasaki aircraft plant, and much more. This was the first successful maneuver by American forces in the war against Japan. For the first time, the Japanese were shown that they too were vulnerable.

Socio-political tension is constantly growing in the world. And some experts predict that everything could result in a global conflict. How realistic is it in the near future?

Risk remains

It is unlikely that anyone today is pursuing the goal of starting a world war. Previously, if a large-scale conflict was brewing, the instigator always expected to end it as quickly as possible and with minimal losses. However, as history shows, almost all “blitzkriegs” resulted in a protracted confrontation involving a huge amount of human and material resources. Such wars caused damage to both the loser and the winner.

Nevertheless, wars have always existed and, unfortunately, will arise, because someone wants to have more resources, and someone protects their borders, including from mass illegal migration, fights terrorism or demands the restoration of their rights in accordance with with previously concluded agreements.

If countries still decide to get involved in a global war, then, according to many experts, they will certainly be divided into different camps, which will be approximately equal in strength. The combined military, primarily nuclear, potential of the powers that will hypothetically take part in the clash is capable of destroying all life on the planet dozens of times. How likely is it that the coalitions will start this suicidal war? Analysts say that it is not great, but the danger remains.

Political poles

The modern world order is far from what it was after the Second World War. However, formally it continues to exist on the basis of the Yalta and Bretton Woods agreements of the states of the anti-Hitler coalition. The only thing that has changed is the balance of power that was formed during the Cold War. The two poles of world geopolitics today, as half a century ago, are determined by Russia and the United States.

Russia crossed the Rubicon, and it did not pass without a trace and painlessly for it: it temporarily lost its superpower status and lost its traditional allies. However, our country managed to maintain its integrity, maintain influence in the post-Soviet space, revive the military-industrial complex and acquire new strategic partners.

The financial and political elite of the United States, as in the good old days, under democratic slogans continues to carry out military expansion far from its borders, while at the same time successfully imposing beneficial “anti-crisis” and “anti-terrorism” policies on the leading countries.

In recent years, China has been persistently wedging itself into the confrontation between Russia and the United States. The Eastern Dragon, while maintaining good relations with Russia, nevertheless does not take sides. Possessing the largest army and carrying out rearmament on an unprecedented scale, he has every reason to do so.

A united Europe also remains an influential player on the world stage. Despite the dependence on the North Atlantic Alliance, certain forces in the Old World advocate an independent political course. The reconstruction of the armed forces of the European Union, which will be carried out by Germany and France, is just around the corner. In the face of energy shortages, Europe will act decisively, analysts say.

One cannot but pay attention to the growing threat posed by radical Islam in the Middle East. This is not only the increasing extremist nature of the actions of Islamic groups in the region every year, but also the expansion of the geography and tools of terrorism.

Unions

Recently, we are increasingly observing the consolidation of various union associations. This is evidenced, on the one hand, by the summits of Donald Trump and the leaders of Israel, South Korea, Japan, Britain and other leading European countries, and on the other, by the meetings of heads of state within the framework of the activities of the BRICS bloc, which attracts new international partners. During the negotiations, not only trade, economic and political issues are discussed, but also all kinds of aspects of military cooperation.

The famous military analyst Joachim Hagopian emphasized back in 2015 that the “recruitment of friends” by America and Russia is not accidental. China and India, in his opinion, will be drawn into Russia's orbit, and the European Union will inevitably follow the United States. This is supported by the intensified exercises of NATO countries in Eastern Europe and the military parade with the participation of Indian and Chinese units on Red Square.

Advisor to the President of Russia Sergei Glazyev states that it will be beneficial and even fundamentally important for our country to create a coalition of any countries that do not support bellicose rhetoric directed against the Russian state. Then, according to him, the United States will be forced to moderate its ardor.

At the same time, it will be of great importance what position Turkey will take, which is perhaps the key figure capable of acting as a catalyst for relations between Europe and the Middle East, and, more broadly, between the West and the countries of the Asian region. What we are seeing now is Istanbul’s cunning play on the differences between the United States and Russia.

Resources

Foreign and domestic analysts are inclined to conclude that a global war could be provoked by the global financial crisis. The most serious problem of the world's leading countries lies in the close intertwining of their economies: the collapse of one of them will have dire consequences for the others.

The war that may follow a devastating crisis will be fought not so much over territory as over resources. For example, analysts Alexander Sobyanin and Marat Shibutov build the following hierarchy of resources that the beneficiary will receive: people, uranium, gas, oil, coal, mining raw materials, drinking water, agricultural land.

It is curious that, from the point of view of some experts, the status of a generally recognized world leader does not guarantee the United States victory in such a war. In the past, NATO commander-in-chief Richard Schieffer, in his book “2017: War with Russia,” predicted defeat for the United States, which would be caused by financial collapse and the collapse of the American army.

Who is first?

Today, the trigger that could launch the mechanism, if not a world war, then a global collision, could be the crisis on the Korean Peninsula. Joachim Hagopian, however, predicts that it is fraught with the use of nuclear charges and at first Russia and the United States will not get involved in it.

Glazyev does not see serious grounds for a global war, but notes that its risk will persist until the United States abandons its claims to world domination. The most dangerous period, according to Glazyev, is the beginning of the 2020s, when the West will emerge from depression, and developed countries, including China and the United States, will begin the next round of rearmament. At the peak of a new technological leap, there will be a threat of global conflict.

It is characteristic that the famous Bulgarian clairvoyant Vanga did not dare to predict the start date of the Third World War, indicating only that its cause would most likely be religious strife around the world.

"Hybrid Wars"

Not everyone believes in the reality of World War III. Why commit mass casualties and destruction if there is a long-tested and more effective means - “hybrid war”. The “White Book”, intended for commanders of special forces of the American army, in the section “Winning in a Complex World” contains all the comprehensive information on this matter.

It says that any military operations against the authorities primarily involve covert and secret actions. Their essence is an attack by rebel forces or terrorist organizations (which are supplied with money and weapons from abroad) on government structures. Sooner or later, the existing regime loses control over the situation and hands over its country to the sponsors of the coup.

The Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, General Valery Gerasimov, considers “hybrid war” a means that is many times superior in results to any open military clashes.

Capital can do anything

Nowadays, not only conspiracy theorists are confident that both world wars were largely provoked by Anglo-American financial corporations, which made fabulous profits from militarization. And their ultimate goal is the establishment of the so-called “American peace.”

“Today we stand on the threshold of a grandiose reformatting of the world order, the instrument of which will again be war,” says writer Alexei Kungurov. This will be a financial war of world capitalism, directed mainly against developing countries.

The goal of such a war is to not give the periphery any chance of any independence. In underdeveloped or dependent countries, a system of external exchange control is established, which forces them to exchange their output, resources and other material assets for dollars. The more transactions there are, the more American machines will print currencies.

But the main goal of world capital is the “Heartland”: the territory of the Eurasian continent, most of which is controlled by Russia. Whoever owns the Heartland with its colossal resource base will own the world - this is what the English geopolitician Halford Mackinder said.

I love electronic media. I love the opportunity to quickly get readers’ reactions to an article. Among the comments there are often ones that not only expand knowledge, but also provide topics for thought. And sometimes, as it happened yesterday, such thoughts appear that, whether you want it or not, a philosophical essay is written in your head. The reader is a great stimulant for such thoughts. Even a roughly structured head, not very prone to romance, begins to produce logically correct, but at the same time philosophical ideas.

In an article about NATO, which “covered up” Poland and the Baltic states, I expressed the idea that there would be no global war. The modern world is structured in such a way that, in principle, does not allow global war. The simplest thing that comes to mind about military globalization can often be heard or read in your comments. Remember: " Why do we need to capture them (hereinafter the name of the country)? To get another 40 (30, 20, 10...) million parasites? We haven't solved a lot of our problems yet.«.

So why won't the world go to war globally today? Why do the main geopolitical players avoid direct military conflicts in every possible way? Why are small states destroyed, but the confrontation between the “great” ones persists? Ultimately, why didn’t the United States “finish off” Russia after the bacchanalia of the 90s? Why is a huge country with a population of 40 million killing itself today? And methodically, using any methods. Kills in such a way that there is no possibility of quick recovery.

To begin with, I will give a figure that will amaze most readers. More precisely, a fact based on this figure. The 21st century to date is the most peaceful time in human history! Now our readers from the LDNR are urgently writing angry comments about my not being entirely adequate. They talk about the dead. They give examples of destruction... Another part writes about the horrors of Syria... Alas, you are right from the point of view of human morality, but not statistics. Arithmetic has no morality. She is rather committed to formal logic.

And the logic of the development of the modern world is such that while there is a clear increase in the number of casualties and material losses in modern wars, in percentage terms this is much less than in the very recent past. Today, for example, cars cause much more harm to humanity than wars. The death toll in accidents is disproportionately higher. Today, a hot dog, which makes many earthlings obese, is worse than an artillery shell. He kills more people... Even suicides claim more lives than human cruelty in war.

I’ll give you the numbers I read in one smart economic publication. Even in the era of the formation of modern society, the loss of humanity from wars was approximately 15%! So, our ancestors very often died in war. But the 20th century showed a much “better” result. Even with two of the most destructive world wars. “Only” 5% of deaths. And the numbers of the 21st century are quite “good”. About 1%! Of course, it is blasphemous to talk about death in the dry language of numbers, but I initially set myself the goal of not getting into the jungle of emotions. Logic, logic and more logic...

But let's return to the original thesis. On the impossibility of a global war. Let's remember what we were told about in history lessons at school. In the name of what did wars begin in ancient times? In the name of what did Napoleon set out on a campaign against Russia? Why did Hitler need part of the USSR?

Victory in a big war always brought (!) enormous material benefits. They did not fight in order to “destroy the regime”, they fought for living space, for resources, for wealth... In extreme cases, for the redistribution of the world economy in their favor. Memories of the great victories of our ancestors are probably in the memory of all peoples of the world.

We have the Battle of the Ice, the Battle of Kulikovo, the expulsion of Napoleon, and the Great Patriotic War... The Americans are proud of the victory over Mexico. After all, it was this victory that “brought” California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, part of Colorado, Kansas, Wyoming, Oklahoma to the country’s flag... The Japanese still talk with trepidation about their victories over China and Russia... The Germans talk about victories over France... The list is endless.

The last victory of this plan was probably the victory over Nazi Germany. It has really benefited some of the winners. Precisely material benefit. Human losses were compensated by new territories, technologies and other things. And the Americans created a global banking system “for themselves”...

True, there is a “war”, which is often mentioned in the Western press and in the speeches of Western politicians. A war that did not happen in reality, but which brought real results for Russia. I mean the annexation of Crimea. But it’s not worth talking about a fictitious war. It is enough to know the opinion of Crimeans about this. And they are the most interested and “suffered” in this “war”.

Even a state like Israel is not at war today... A paradox? Remember the last time the Israelis actually won a major military victory? Exactly 50 years ago! So what is next? There are conflicts, but Israel's prosperity for half a century has been based not on military victories, but in spite of them. Even the conquered territories, it seems to me, are not so much to the benefit of the Israelis as to their detriment. This is a heaviest burden for the country’s economy...

Iran, Iraq and the United States fell into exactly the same trap in the Middle East. Remember the Iran-Iraq war. What has Iran achieved by trying to achieve hegemony in the region through military means? What have the Americans achieved by getting involved in this conflict? Absolutely nothing. More precisely, the opposite result. The region “heated up”, and the war began to “spread” to other countries... Moreover, today there is no solution to this issue. The situation is stuck. The war is on. The end of this massacre is not in sight. All talk about some kind of “democratic” transformations runs up against the reluctance of any of the parties...

What about those countries that were quite successful economically, but today are turned into ruins? Where is successful Libya? She simply doesn't exist. And the opportunities for other countries to “take advantage” of Libya’s riches have melted away like morning fog...

Some readers will now reasonably ask about Daesh (banned in Russia). After all, again, from a purely economic, material, if you like, point of view, the project is successful. Remember the $500 million in Iranian money seized from banks in 2014. Remember the $500 million from oil sales in 2015... A whole billion “produced in the war”...

Now let's think about whether Russia, and especially the United States or China, should start a war for the sake of a billion dollars? Estimate the cost of military expenditures for such a war. How much does a Tomahawk or Caliber cost there? How much does an air raid cost? How much does a fleet cost in a combat area?.. But there are many more “how much does it cost”. And compare the possible “income” with the export income of these countries. Here's your answer...

One successful campaign in these countries is “worth” much more than all the possible gains from, again, a possible victory in the war. Our Gazprom is much more valuable. What about American Apple, Facebook and Google? What about the German automobile giants?

It seems to me that today there is no point in fighting globally, primarily for this reason. As I wrote in the article already mentioned above, today’s wars will be regional. And “great” countries will participate in them indirectly. How this happens in Ukraine. How it happened in Georgia in 2008.

Now about the use of nuclear weapons. Many are frightening the world with the possibility of a global missile strike by the Americans or Russians... Let's consider this option in the light of the thoughts I have already expressed. Just based on the results of such a strike.

Let us assume that one of the parties manages to strike and successfully repel the counterattack of the “dead hand”. And what? The territories have been “cleared” from…the possibility of their use for many hundreds of years. But local nuclear strikes will not solve the problem of a response to your state. Dead end. What smart people have talked about many times has come true. There is a scarecrow. But this scarecrow no longer really “scares” the hawks...

Much more terrible, again, in my opinion, is what “Petya” recently showed us. Petya is not the same person. And the one that is a computer virus. A perfect example of how modern technology can be used to plunge a country into chaos. Imagine such a “Petya”, “Vasya”, “John”, “Mahmud” or any other “guy” who overnight destroyed the entire system of government. Naturally, including military control. Imagine a virus that is now “sleeping” in missile control units. In other military “secrets”. But he will “wake up” when necessary. And how is the picture? It’s just that your TV is “snoring”... There is no connection, no information, no water, no light, control of the vehicle is lost... And so on.

Now let me remind you of the statements of some politicians. The leading countries of the world have long understood the futility of modern weapons in a global war. Beat the weaker ones? Yes. Throw punches knowing that they won't answer you? Yes. Destroy competitors in other countries? Yes. But don't fight each other.

Vladimir Putin has repeatedly warned particularly zealous “hawks” in the United States and Europe about Russia’s response to direct aggression. Note that he did not talk about the use of nuclear weapons. He spoke about completely new principles of the impact of weapons. About new weapons that can neutralize modern ones. Some American politicians and generals also say the same. Europeans are hinting at this. The presence of such weapons is often written about in the press. “From sources that are close to...”

And here lies the most disgusting conclusion of all my thoughts. Before the First World War, most people were confident in the impossibility of starting hostilities... We know what came of it. The stupidity of humanity is so great that even the word “logic” often disappears from the human lexicon. Once upon a time (by historical standards, yesterday) we managed to avoid the outbreak of World War III thanks to a timely detonated hydrogen bomb. Then because there were adequate people in power in the USSR and the USA who withdrew their missiles from the borders of a potential enemy. What will happen if one of the countries can find a truly revolutionary type of weapon? What will happen if, having these weapons, another powerful fool wants to change the world?

That is why we, I mean all of humanity, do not have a 100% guarantee of world peace.

That is why we are forced to spend huge amounts of money on defense. We are exactly like humanity. After all, there are still those who hope to return to the “good old days”, when it was possible, like William the Conqueror in 1066 at the Battle of Hastings, to lose several thousand people, but gain an entire country... Like Alexander Nevsky or Dmitry Donskoy, drive out hordes of invaders from your own country.