Political analyst Andrei manoylo — about whether the United States to enter the war on the side of the terrorists
Recently in an interview “the First channel” Sergey Lavrov said that relations between Russia and the USA passed the point of “radical change”: Moscow too long to show “strategic patience” regarding action of Washington. The reason for this reversal in Russian-American relations were the events in Syria and the strong commitment of the United States at any cost, even at the cost of the war with the Russian Federation, to prevent the liberation of Aleppo and the total destruction of the terrorists who have entrenched themselves there.
Russia has made it clear to the US and the outgoing administration headed by Obama, that this time patience is exhausted already at the Russian bear and he is ready to take decisive action, until the protection of its sovereign rights to an independent foreign policy by force of arms.
A sharp statement of Sergey Lavrov was preceded by a series of threats against Russia by the US officials at different levels and grade, ranging from statements of John Kirby, rear Admiral, and state Department spokesman, has threatened Russia with terrorist attacks on its territory, if it withdraws from Syria, and ending with a performance Mark Milly, the chief of staff of the U.S. Army, who declared full readiness of the Land forces of the United States to immediately engage in a military clash with Russian armed forces in Syria and is considered a war with Russia is not only inevitable, but necessary.
The last straw was a new draft resolution on Aleppo, which was developed by France and Russia blocked in the UN security Council meeting on October 8, in which the actions of the Syrian army and the Russian VKS against terrorists “al-Nusra” and the Islamic state (banned in Russia) is qualified as “war crimes”. It became clear that the United States and they control the Western governments wanted to preserve the combat potential terrorist groups such as ISIL and “an-Nusra”, to systematically destroy the Syrian and Russian armies.
The impossible has happened: the policies pursued by the White house since the beginning of 2000-ies, has transformed the United States and the great American people of the implacable enemies of international terrorism in his actual accomplices.
This is the main essence of “fundamental change” in relations between Russia and the United States: while the Russian side, in spite of everything, continued to hope that Washington will come to their senses and reason in US foreign policy will prevail, American politics is increasingly strengthened ties with the field commanders of the Taliban, the leaders of the “al-Nusra”, the military wing of the Syrian cell of “al-Qaeda” (both organizations are banned in Russia), military Shura “Islamic state”. Some time later, these relations have acquired a partnership and stopped hiding, and the Islamists-the”men with beards” have become to US almost “their”.
Talking about “strategic patience” of Russia, which is coming to an end, Sergei Lavrov rightly said that the aggravation of relations with the US began long before the Ukrainian crisis, which just successfully turned up to the West in order to start the flywheel of sanctions. Indeed, during the reign of Boris Yeltsin did not touch us: weak, obedient, humbly kneeling Russia staged in the West absolutely everyone. Foreign policy of the time was determined by one capacious phrase — “what would you like”. Russia, obediently carrying out all instructions of the White house and the IMF rushed to the abyss. This run was able to slow down and stop right on the edge already in the 2000s, when the country began “to rise from knees” and to defend their own national interests. Russia’s desire to become a sovereign state has caused sharp aversion of the West, and that is what lies at the basis of modern confrontation in which Syria and Ukraine — the only reason for the showdown.
The current phase of development of relations between Russia and the United States is, in fact, a turning point from which our relations at any moment can slide in the direction of the world, and in the direction of the conflict. We are with United States — at a crossroads: the way of salvation is, it is a way of joint fight against terrorism.
However, for some reason he fiercely rejected by Washington. In these circumstances, any wrong move could be disastrous not only for the two world powers, but also for the world as a whole.
The war is still not inevitable, but it risks today, thanks to the threats from the United States is clearly going through the roof.
USA through a “controlled leaks” and statements by various kinds of officials make it clear that they are for war with Russia. Is it really so? Unlikely. The fact that American elites on the nose presidential elections, and in this period the risk of the outbreak of the United States of armed conflict increase dramatically: the outgoing administration has nothing to lose, and she can try to adjust your image to the next “quick victorious war” (“victory over Russia” in any form need Obama and Kerry are like the air right now). Muddy “hawks” supporters of Hillary Clinton, advocating for a conflict with Russia, you can try to use armed conflict to victory over trump.
However, they can not understand that Russia is not the same as in the 90s, and you should not experience it “strategic patience”: thrown at Aleppo With-300 — not toys. In addition, Washington around the world prefers to fight only “proxy”: he is afraid of a frontal collision with the enemy, who in the Wake of the rapid decline of American power may be stronger. It is for this Washington “friendly” to iglovskiy and an-nurowski terrorists and the Ukrainian “pravosek”. That’s what “cannon fodder” of the US in the first place and sent into battle to die for the illusive ideals of American democracy.
But Russia after the attack by U.S. forces in Deir ez-Zor for such a turn of events ready. If US planes attempt to attack the positions of the Syrian army or the Iranian volunteer units — they will be destroyed on approach. In this case, the Pentagon likely will not protect her or take revenge, and would prefer to disown the crews of downed aircraft, write them on the “mistakes” and “inevitable” in such conflicts. Kirby is able to do. There will be no war.
Author — Professor of Moscow state University. M. V. Lomonosov, member of the scientific Council under the security Council of Russia
The opinion of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial Board