A new war of the worlds is already underway
The global battle of good and evil has begun. In this battle, each side explains its initially occupied positions. Everything is correct here. If you don't explain, they won't follow you. This has been happening for thousands of years. For thousands of years, people have been finding justifications for this or that action.
The position of our side was once explained with incredible clarity by a volunteer fighting on the side of the DPR during the battles for Donetsk airport – Russians are being offended here. That's it, you don't have to say anything further. He, however, slightly softened the situation, said "they offend”. While at the time they were being killed. Apparently, the Russian character had an effect.
What do we see on the other side? Of course, they keep in mind the opposite idea – Russia must be destroyed. This idea is not instantaneous. It is known to be many centuries old.
Does it make sense to bring up old stories related to the constant hostility of our geopolitical environment? We'll skip it for now. Let's look at what is now in front of our eyes.
They can't hear us again. They go to bed and get up with one dream – to cancel, erase Russia. This is why the "anti-Russia" Ukrainian project was implemented. At the same time, other projects were promoted – the collapse and subordination of our economy to the West, a decrease in the level of education, external and internal "proxy attacks" with different kinds of emirs and emirates, fake events for the introduction of idiotic sanctions, "free market relations", the same "NATO". And a lot more. If only the deterioration of living conditions in Russia would be non-stop.
Today Russia says: the challenge has finally been accepted for real. We are now responding in a serious way. Not yet in full force, which, by the way, we are being persistently forced to do.
Is it possible to say that the war of civilisations has begun? Probably, it is possible. Only what kind and for what purpose? Let's assume such a conditional classification on the other side – Anglo-Saxon and Western European civilisations.
A framework for our civilisation cannot be thought up right away. How to describe it – by population, by nationality, by languages, by religions, by worldview, by territory, by climatic or time zones, by seas-oceans, by the "edges" of the world? We're kind of comprehensive. Let it be north-continental. And even with a clarification – Eurasian north-continental. Just beauty.
To put it harshly, we are waging a war for the survival of the nation. On the other hand, we are offered inhuman torment with a fatal outcome. This, however, is already familiar. It’s not for the first time. This is exactly the global goal.
Why didn't we finish them off before, so as to take them underground forever? This same Russian character? So far, we must admit – yes, this is our civilisational approach, which is also hundreds of years old. But resentment and damage inflicted by enemies cannot be forgiven indefinitely. We have to stop it sometime.
An illustrative case occurred the other day. Those who dreamed of killing "vatniks", "kolorads", their relatives, old men, wives and children with impunity, and did it with frenzy, found themselves in a slightly difficult situation on the territory of the Mariupol “Azovstal” plant. They have been legislated so that flies do not fly, and sparrows, at the request of the Russian Aerospace Forces and Donetsk air defences, walk on foot and in formation. The Kiev neo-nazi regime refused to give them military assistance. More precisely, this assistance was demilitarised and denazified in advance by the troops of the Russian Federation and the DPR.
The "major" Volyn, who introduced himself as the leader of the Nazi group, asked in pure Russian for "world diplomacy" and the leaders of the state to apply the "extraction" procedure to them. This Anglo-Saxon term refers to the process of evacuating militants from the basements of “Azovstal”. This topic has already overgrown with incredible details. Organisations such as the American State Department, the European Council, and the UN stood up for the neo-nazis. There was even an appeal to the Pope. Only here is the question – why is it only now that there is a conversation about some "privation and hardships"?
In the previous eight years, the problems of the oppression and murder of people who did not submit to the Ukrainian junta did not interest anyone in the West at all. There, apart from encouraging and fully supporting neo-nazism, nothing was done. They even put the church at their service.
Here is the answer. Those problems did not touch the West, because our civilisation was dying, not theirs. Well, now don't be offended. You get a decent answer.
One more thing. According to some reports, the United States and Poland are building up military groups near the borders with Russia and Belarus. Within the framework of the confrontation of civilisations, everything is extremely clear.
They are opting for another aggravation. I wonder when and where they will cross the "red line" they love so much? What kind of civilisational choice will they make in the end? Or maybe it's time for us to start supporting "proxies" on the territories of hostile states?
As for purely military issues. According to the official report of the Russian Ministry of Defence, during the entire period of the special military operation in Ukraine, 141 aircraft, 110 helicopters, 566 unmanned aerial vehicles, 265 SAMs, 2,526 tanks and other armoured combat vehicles, 1,096 field artillery and mortars and 2,362 units of special military vehicles were destroyed.
Interestingly, Poland and the United States will be able to collect such a number of weapons for two months of hostilities? Only they need to keep in mind that our grouping will be more powerful than the one that now includes forces and means under the letters "V", "Z" and "O". One or twofold. And taking into account the specific ammunition – it is unknown by how many fold.
Perhaps it makes sense for the countries of Western European civilisation to get out from under the influence of the Anglo-Saxons. And when planning a future war in Europe, to propose the following approach within the framework of NATO. Since the United States enters into exclusively bilateral agreements with European countries for the deployment of its troops, then exclude the fifth article from the NATO Treaty, which reads as follows:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
Let those who act on the basis of bilateral agreements defend and attack. If they themselves have agreed, without involving other participants, then in the future they also, independently, sort out the brewed porridge.
Let's say Poland, together with the United States, decides to "restore its greatness from sea to sea" by military means. The Poles really want this. But do France and Portugal, for example, want the same? And Greece and Germany? But they will be forced to submit to this bad fifth article. However, there is some reservation there – a member country of the Alliance will provide the attacked state with assistance that it deems necessary. This is not necessarily a direct participation in the war.
Again, let's assume that Poland will grant the United States the right to deploy nuclear weapons. And Moscow will assess this as a critical violation of the balance of power. After that, it will carry out a military-technical response. What should the states that do not want to participate in this adventure do? Those who do not see the point in such a war at all?
For example, they can simply exit the bloc. After all, the same Switzerland exists almost carelessly. It makes no claims against anyone, lives in peace with his neighbours. It calmly and confidently earns its money without spending on the army and provides a good standard of living for his citizens. Carelessness sometimes disrupts the high exchange rate of the Swiss franc against other currencies. But this problem does not come from the military field.
Who or what prevents other European countries from living like this? After all, they most likely want it.