Mr. Trump almost took the path of resetting relations between the United States and the Russian Federation. He probably changed his mind after realizing how much this idea looked like plagiarism from Hillary Clinton and Michael McFaul. And now analysts are discussing not a reset, but a possible war: will there be a “direct conflict” between NATO and Russia?

An article by Dimitar Bechev, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, was published on the channel's English-language website. The central question of the material: will Russia and NATO enter into conflict?

What should we call the current period of relations between Russia and the West? Cold War 2.0? Or some other way? Be that as it may, one thing is certain: relations between Russia and the West are at their lowest level since the collapse Soviet Union which happened in 1991.

A reset of relations between the United States and the Russian Federation, actually promised by President Donald Trump, was already looming on the political horizon, but its possible offensive was interrupted by a scandal due to “Russian interference in the American elections” and a US missile strike “on the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.”

Behind Trump loom the figures of Defense Secretary James Mattis and National Security Adviser Herbert McMaster. Skepticism towards Russia comes from them. But can this cold level of relationship lead to direct conflict between Russia and NATO? This is the question the expert asks.

As the war in eastern Ukraine continues to subside, Vladimir Putin demonstrates his oratory skills.

In a statement on April 12, he promised to fight back against “color revolutions” in any of the post-Soviet countries within the framework of the Russian-led Treaty Organization. collective security(which includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan). As before, Russia is ready to make deals with the West outside the “near abroad”, but insists that these foreign countries must remain outside Western interests.

From here it is clear to the expert: the line separating Russia from Western spheres of influence is an “annoying problem.” Why?

It turns out there are three Baltic states they fear becoming “victims of Russian aggression.” “Painful memories of their annexation in 1940 by the Soviets left a deep mark,” the author points out. Whether it is reasonable or not, the presence of Russian-speaking communities in these countries makes the Crimean precedent “painfully relevant” for Estonia and Latvia.

It is not surprising that these countries welcomed NATO's decision to increase the alliance's role. The organization moved from “reassurance” to “expanded frontline presence.” NATO has not only developed action plans for emergency situations to counter the alleged Russian invasion, but also decided to send battalion groups to each of the three Baltic countries, as well as to Poland. The deployment of a 4,000-strong contingent involving 16 member states is due to be completed by next month, with Germany in charge of forces in Lithuania, Canada in Latvia, Britain in Estonia and the United States in Poland.

In parallel, the Warsaw NATO summit, held in July 2016, gave the green light to the multinational brigade in Romania, which, in essence, is a platform for strengthening cooperation with Poland, Bulgaria, Turkey, Canada, the United States, the Netherlands and Germany.

At the same time, NATO does not necessarily correspond to Russia’s military capabilities over a huge territorial area from the Baltic to the Black Sea. The North Atlantic Alliance will need three times as many forces to repel a direct attack. Moreover, in Putin’s words, Russia has turned Crimea into a fortress. Build-up of naval and coastal defense forces along with deployment strategic bombers and advanced anti-aircraft missiles have strengthened Russia's superiority in the Black Sea, the analyst believes.

However, NATO is signaling to Putin in every possible way: they say that if he crosses the line, he will receive an answer.

Many security experts are concerned that the current cold standoff could spiral out of control. Russia responded to the military strengthening of the West with “incursions into NATO airspace” in order to “intimidate” American and allied ships and aircraft in both the Baltics and the Black Sea. The author lists “the kidnapping of an Estonian border guard, the start of sudden exercises, practicing an invasion, or even a nuclear strike in the Baltic Sea.” The picture is complemented by the deployment of Iskander nuclear missiles in the Kaliningrad region, located between Lithuania and Poland.

Russia “grossly threatens” Finland and Sweden, pointing out the inadmissibility of abandoning neutrality in favor of joining NATO. Russia is also “putting pressure” on Belarus, trying to create an air base on its territory.

The author also imagines a “nightmare scenario” where some “minor incident,” such as civil unrest caused by the Russians in an Estonian border town, escalates into an insurgency, as in Eastern Ukraine. And then (God forbid) NATO moves on to a direct military clash with Russia.

Russian aggression has its limits, Bechev further notes. Fears of the Russian threat are generally “too exaggerated.” As Mark Galeotti of the Institute of International Relations in Prague noted, “Putin’s calculation seems to be that the scarier he is, the more political influence he has.”

Confrontation with NATO is being discussed within Russia, where most citizens today view the alliance as a threat to the country. Meanwhile, Putin is unable to intimidate NATO into Eastern Europe or even bargain with the West, using the confrontation as a trump card.

In addition, Moscow is again conducting a dialogue with the North Atlantic Alliance after a pause (a freeze in relations in March 2014). Last month, General Pyotr Pavel, who heads the NATO Military Committee, spoke with General Valery Gerasimov on the phone. There is a mechanism to avoid unwanted crises getting out of control.

According to the expert, Russia will continue to “probe NATO” in order to identify weaknesses and cracks in its defense. However, we must not forget that Russia today faces many restrictions. The economic crisis engulfing Russia has already led to a reduction in defense spending. Ambitious modernization program armed forces“will inevitably slow down,” the analyst is convinced.

Last but not least, 2018 will be an election year for Putin. He will “certainly win,” but will “fight hard,” wanting to “demonstrate” that the people’s enthusiasm for his leadership “has not weakened.” Russia is the center of attention when it acts in the arena of international politics, but in truth, what is historically important is what happens within the country, in Russian society, the expert believes.

Let us remind you that tensions in relations between Russia and NATO are growing every day.

On April 18, the media reported that two American military aircraft and a NATO aircraft carried out reconnaissance flights near the borders of the Russian Federation in the Black and Barents Seas, as well as in the Baltic region. According to information from Western websites cited by , a US Navy P-8A Poseidon anti-submarine patrol aircraft took off from Sigonela airbase in Sicily and conducted reconnaissance southwest of Sevastopol.

The second was the US Air Force RC-135U strategic reconnaissance aircraft. It took off from Mildenhall airbase in the UK and flew near the maritime borders of the Murmansk region.

The third plane was NATO. The AWACS airborne early warning and guidance aircraft monitored the Kaliningrad region from the airspace of Lithuania and Poland.

In addition, the day before another reconnaissance flight near the southern coast of Crimea was carried out by a US Navy P-8A Poseidon anti-submarine patrol aircraft.

Plans to hold a seminar on the Spitsbergen archipelago through the NATO Parliamentary Assembly were called a provocation by the Russian Foreign Ministry. The corresponding statement appeared on the website of the Foreign Ministry.

According to Moscow, the states participating in the Spitsbergen Treaty of 1920 should be interested in preserving the principles of peace and good neighborliness in their territory. “In the context of NATO’s current policy of “containing” Russia, accompanied by unprecedented military preparations near the borders of our country, attempts to pull Spitsbergen “under the wing” of the military-political bloc and holding events there under its auspices do not correspond to the spirit of the treaty,” the commentary quotes.

The Foreign Ministry added that there are no problems in the Arctic region that would require the intervention of the North Atlantic Alliance to solve. Diplomats are confident that the escalation of tension runs counter to the long-term interests of the states of the European north.

Previously, the media also reported that NATO was conducting interspecies maneuvers in Europe with a “pronounced” anti-Russian orientation. This refers to the “Summer Shield 14” exercise, which this time was organized in Latvia, where the “ social contradictions"in the form of the Russian-speaking population. The maneuvers began just a week after the alliance's combat battalions were largely deployed in the Baltic republics and Poland.

The Baltic countries still believe that the Russians can play out the “Crimean scenario” among them. And for this far-fetched reason, you can arm yourself and strengthen your defenses endlessly.

Of course, in conditions cold war and the arms race, the risk of the cold confrontation going into a hot phase increases every day. God forbid, as Mr. Bechev writes, that because of some provocation or incident, NATO moves to a direct military clash with Russia.

Western experts assessed the possibility of a real conflict between Russia and the United States. The forecasts turned out to be disappointing. Most of them believe that war is more likely to happen than not. The only question is when to expect it.

What is happening now between Russia and the West is called a new Cold War, no matter how the parties deny it. Only now, according to the famous American political scientist and president of the Center for National Interests Dmitry Simes, Moscow does not have an attractive international ideology on its side, such as building socialism throughout the world.

In addition, Russia is now more dependent on the West than the USSR was in its time. When it collapsed" iron curtain", everything that Soviet citizens were deprived of became available to Russians. The Russian economy itself was involved in international system and became part of it. A step back would mean global restructuring, which could cause protests among the population.

Will there be a war? Dmitry Simes himself asked this question to leading experts at the Center for National Interests and asked them to estimate the probability using the system “from one chance to ten.”

Director of Intelligence and National Security George Beebe decided it was "6 out of 10." That is, there will most likely be a war. But it’s still impossible to talk about this with certainty. At the same time, the expert noted that this is a very risky indicator for two nuclear powers.

His colleague’s point of view was supported by the well-known specialist at the Center for Naval Analysis, Michael Kofman, who often acts as an analyst on the pages of The National Interest. According to him, the danger of a direct clash between Russia and the United States is quite real. The risk is 6 or even 7 chances out of 10. If the parties continue in the same spirit, sooner or later they will start a war. And the beginning of a conflict could provoke a crisis in which the United States and Russia will be involved. War does not usually arise out of the blue.

“First there is a crisis, people make their choice, and then they shoot at each other,” Kofman said, apparently alluding to Russia because the United States is far from political turmoil.

However, Paul Saunders, executive director of the Center for National Interest, is not so pessimistic. He believes that the war will start with a probability of 5 out of 10. In his opinion, Vladimir Putin enjoys quite a lot of support among the people, as shown by the recent elections, although the West predicted worse results for the current president.

The West, according to experts, acted ineptly, trying to discredit the power of Vladimir Putin. The British never provided evidence that Skripal was poisoned by the Russians, but immediately began expelling Russian diplomats and pulling the European Union with them. Russian people As a result, he rallied around the double-headed eagle. This is the opposite effect.

Moreover, the State Department made mistakes, according to Saunders, much earlier, in the 90s. last century, when he tried to “conquer” Russian youth and convince them of the attractiveness of the West. But what happened in Ukraine and Georgia failed in Russia. Local youth grew up in a period of relative prosperity and at a time when Vladimir Putin began to restore Russia's authority in the world, which had suffered greatly after the collapse of the USSR. These are the people who support Vladimir Putin more than others, the expert believes. And the election results fully reflect the real situation.

The President managed to convince the people that Russia must be strong. And if we behave like the democrats from the 1990s, the country will again be devastated. Russians appreciated that Vladimir Putin restored the country's authority as great power, and the annexation of Crimea, which most residents perceived as the return of the peninsula home, also played a role.

But this is also a double-edged sword. To a strong state a strong economy is needed, and for this the Kremlin will have to weaken its control over society, which, in turn, will weaken the power of the state. According to George Beebe, in the near future Moscow may fall into this vicious circle. What matters is whether it succeeds Russian authorities maintain balance, and this is very difficult.

All this allegedly pushes the Kremlin to engage in strong position based on military power. And this inevitably leads to confrontation with the West, which has long forgotten how to communicate with Russia. The US learned no lessons from the Cold War experience. Over the past 25 years, Washington has become too accustomed to a world in which there are no great powers and the only threat comes from terrorists. The Americans do not understand what strategic nuclear deterrence is and how the dialogue with Moscow was conducted under the USSR; they do not know history well. For a long time The United States fought first with Saddam Hussein, then with Muammar Gaddafi, and finally stumbled over Bashar al-Assad and Ukraine when Russia intervened.

According to Kofman, the American establishment may need a new version Cuban missile crisis to understand how dangerous it is to deal with a nuclear power. But it would be better if this did not happen, because Trump is far from Kennedy.

If President Putin decides to subjugate the Baltic states, he will pay dearly for it. It will take at least three days to conquer Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, a new report says. How will events unfold if war between NATO and Russia actually breaks out?

The Baltics would undoubtedly be the most likely target of a Russian invasion, but Moscow has other potential targets in the West, a report from the Swedish Total Defense Institute argues.

By penetrating deep into the waters around Northern Norway, Russia could disrupt maritime communications between Western countries and strengthen the defense of its own naval bases in the Murmansk area.

In their report, a group of Swedish experts tried to present worst-case scenarios for a Russian invasion of the Baltics.

First of all, Russia will try to achieve political and military collapse in Latvia, then in Estonia and Lithuania.

The Russians will launch missile attacks and use their fleet to paralyze the ports, airports and infrastructure of all three countries simultaneously, after which ground troops will march through southeastern Estonia and eastern Latvia.

Fall of the Baltics

After two days Russian troops will surround the capital of Latvia, Riga. And in another day, the entire Baltic region will be under Russian control.

A similar scenario was modeled at the American think tank RAND, and they came to the same conclusions. From the Western point of view, the ending is sad: in the short term, NATO countries will be powerless to oppose anything.

NATO is lagging behind

The report compares how many troops Russia and NATO will ultimately be able to deploy in a week, and the conclusions are truly disappointing: NATO countries will not scrape up even half of Russia's military power.

Previously it was always like this: Russian army I always preferred quantity to quality. However, the situation has changed.

“The numerical superiority of Western countries does not in any way affect the quality of the troops. On the contrary, as for the “elite” units, the advantage is precisely on the side of Russia,” the report says.

NATO

Ground forces: 27-41 battalions

Special forces: 12-17 battalions

Combat helicopters: 2-3 battalions

Warships: 25-32

Submarines: 7-11

Combat aircraft: 14-19 divisions

Russia

Ground forces: 49-59 battalions

Special forces: 2 brigades

Combat helicopters: 9 squadrons

Warships: 4-12

Submarines: 2

Combat aircraft: 15 divisions

Multimedia

Russians are going to the “West”

Reuters 09/19/2017 Mobilization in a week

One thing is clear: in the first week of the conflict, Russia will gather much more forces. In ground forces the advantage will be especially noticeable. The Baltic armed forces are highly dependent on the support of a number of countries, so it is not easy to calculate even approximate volumes of mobilization. According to Swedish experts, however, real numbers will not be so great.

Vulnerability to blitzkrieg

The main problem of NATO troops is their defenselessness against a lightning attack. It will take a lot of time to mobilize forces comparable to Russia’s. The Russians, on the other hand, have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to deploy significant troops on their western borders - and in last time this happened during the Zapad-2017 exercises.

Exercises "West"

The exercises took place in a number of places in Belarus and the Kaliningrad region from September 14 to 20, 2017.

During the Cold War, it was “West” that was considered the country’s largest military show. Then from 100 to 150 thousand military personnel took part in the exercises.

After the collapse of the USSR, exercises resumed only in 1999, the same year Putin came to power.

Moscow claims that in 2017, 12.7 thousand soldiers took part in the exercises. Norwegian intelligence, as well as its NATO colleagues, estimates that there were ten times more of them.

Russian ground troops

Putin has already stationed a lot of forces near the borders with the Baltic states. The mobile forces consist of tanks and infantry and number ten brigades. In addition, if necessary, they will be supported by artillery. According to the Total Defense Institute, in just one week Russia will be able to concentrate up to 150 thousand soldiers in the Baltic states.

NATO Ground Forces

The weakness of NATO troops is that they are dispersed throughout Europe, and are not stationed along the eastern border of the Baltic states.

Slowly but surely

Sooner or later, NATO will mobilize all its forces. Thanks to US support, the overall power of NATO forces will surpass Russia's in all respects.

NATO (including USA)

Total number: 3,405,660 people

Reserve: 2,412,910

Tanks: 9,421

Combat aircraft: 5,597

Warships: 263

Russia

Total population: 798,000 people

Reserve: 2,000,000

Tanks: 2,950

Combat aircraft: 1,276

Warships: 35

Frightening prospects

However, the mobilization process will last for several months, and by that time the Russians will have long been in charge in the Baltic states. According to Swedish military specialist Robert Dalsjö, the prospects are frightening.

Context

Kaliningrad is a nightmare for NATO

The National Interest 05.29.2018

General Breedlove: Russia is sending a clear signal to NATO

Onet.pl 05/21/2018

NATO fears the eye of Moscow

Der Spiegel 05/14/2018

What is NATO's combat readiness for a fight with Russia?

The Wall Street Journal 03/30/2018

How can NATO arm itself without angering Russia?

ABC.au 03/22/2018 “Russia is quite capable of seizing the Baltics and declaring: “Now this is mine, and if anything happens, I will use nuclear weapons.”

Further, he is a senior researcher at the Institute of Total Defense and one of the authors of the report.

Nuclear war and the collapse of NATO

First: NATO is paralyzed by internal divisions.

Second: NATO recognizes that it cannot do anything in the short term, systematically arm itself and embark on a long-term deterrence program similar to that of the Cold War.

Third: NATO is amassing enough forces to liberate the Baltic states and launch targeted strikes on Russia at the appropriate time. Here, however, guarantees are required that NATO will be able to neutralize the threat posed by Russian nuclear weapons - and this, admittedly, is unlikely. Unlike Russia, neither NATO nor the United States have modernized either nuclear warheads or their delivery systems for a long time.

Show of force

According to Robert Dalsche, the motivation for seizing the Baltic states may be Russia's desire to demonstrate strength and boast of its newfound power.

Operational goals

1) Thanks to deep penetration into the waters around Northern Norway, Russia can disrupt Western maritime communications and strengthen the defense of its own naval bases in the Murmansk area.

2) The seizure of the Baltic states will not only have a huge symbolic meaning, but will also significantly complicate an attack on the territory of Russia itself.

3) Lock Baltic Sea will limit NATO's ability to urgently transfer forces to the eastern flank.

Fear of the USA

If Putin attacked, the Baltic states would easily become his trophy - so what ultimately stops him?

“The Russians know that they will inevitably lose to NATO/USA in a long-term conventional war, so they are unlikely to do it. And yet we believe that the situation now is extremely dangerous, since the West is very weak in the Baltic states. In this regard, the Kremlin may be tempted to attack on the sly, and NATO will not be able to prevent this attack,” says Dalsjo.

“The temptation is especially great if Russia really believes that the Western alliance is so weak, divided or helpless that it does not dare come to the rescue of the Baltic countries. It is possible that Putin is wondering whether NATO will calm down the threat of nuclear war. This will be a complete disaster, and I believe that NATO forces in the Baltics must be strengthened to prevent it,” he added.

Military terms

To facilitate comparison of military forces different countries, here's a breakdown of some of the terms used in the report.

Brigade (ground forces) - 3000-5000 thousand soldiers

Battalion (ground forces) - 300-1000 soldiers

Company (ground forces) - 80-250 soldiers

Division (Air Force) - 12-24 aircraft

Battalion (Air Force) - 12-24 helicopters

Squadron (Air Force) - 6-10 helicopters

InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.

In the United States, the commander of the Marine Corps, Robert Niller, announced that large-scale NATO exercises will take place in the fall.

How the war between Russia and NATO will end

"This fall, in October, there will be big exercises"NATO may have the largest amphibious exercise, which took place at the height of the Cold War and was called Trident Juncture," Politonline quotes the US military.

Up to 45 thousand people will take part in the exercises; training will take place near the Russian borders. Niller does not hide the fact that the exercises are directed specifically against Russia. In his words, "from the outside Russian Federation there will be demarches. But I think it shows the seriousness of the strategy that (the US) is pursuing, that our NATO allies want us there to protect them."

Niller already said at the end of last year that a “huge fight” was possible in the region, and also actively hinted at expanding the American military presence in Europe. These actions are intended to continue NATO's program to expand its presence and influence in Europe, and the current strengthening is almost unprecedented.

As with the increase in the number of American warships in the Black Sea, the Americans will eventually say that “Russia has nothing to do with it” and that they are doing this for “calm and pacification,” the publication concludes.

The Russian side has its own opinion on this matter. Recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that “nuclear disarmament is also hampered by the persistence of American non-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe, accompanied by the destabilizing practice of certain joint nuclear missions.”

NATO countries that do not have nuclear capabilities also participate in planning the use of American non-strategic nuclear weapons. That is, the US military is preparing the armed forces of European countries to use tactical nuclear weapons against Russia." To put it simply, the US is preparing Europe as a "nuclear buffer" between itself and Russia, the publication concludes.

At the same time, when Russia organizes large-scale exercises on its territory, there is complete hysteria in Western countries. This was the case, for example, during the Zapad-2017 exercises last year. It was joint operation Russia and Belarus, in which 13 thousand people took part.

It is interesting that now NATO will hold a much larger event, and this is considered normal and is not considered a provocation from the point of view of the alliance. "Provocations" are expected from Russia. At the same time, there is an opinion that the Pentagon even expects such provocations with hope. Because a local military conflict in Europe is, in general, not a problem for the United States, the publication believes.

There is an opinion that within the framework of these exercises, the NATO command will try to make a number of “mistakes.” But in context latest statements Vladimir Putin and his demonstration of the new capabilities of Russian nuclear weapons, there is hope that common sense will prevail.

The head of Russia in the film “World Order 2018” made a completely unambiguous statement regarding Russia’s use of the “Doomsday weapon”: “Yes, for humanity it will be a global catastrophe, for the world there will be a global catastrophe. But I, as a citizen of Russia and the head Russian state I want to ask the question: why do we need such a world if Russia is not there?” And in the same film, the president emphasized, “This is called a retaliatory strike. If this is a decision to destroy Russia, then we have a legal right to respond."

Earlier, Pravda.Ru reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin made a statement that Russia was only acting as a retaliatory strike.

Putin, in an interview in the film “World Order 2018,” explained that it is necessary “for this to be known here and abroad. Our plans for application, I hope this will never happen, theoretical plans for application are the so-called retaliatory, counter-strike.”

Is the United States really preparing to die heroically in a nuclear conflict?

Press in Lately has repeatedly noted that a survey of US military personnel revealed that 40% of them are confident that in 2019 their country will get involved in a global war. Last year there were only 5% of these. The jump in the number of people agitated is explained by ideological pumping personnel, which is allegedly being prepared for war. Both the US President and the Pentagon talk about the need to be prepared for a military conflict with the main enemies - China and Russia. And therefore the generals tell their soldiers, especially those being transferred to Western Europe that they are sure that war is on the doorstep.

This rhetoric is accompanied by the announcement of the US withdrawal from the SALT III and INF treaties. The budgets of American military-industrial complex enterprises are growing. The rhetoric of the American leadership is becoming tougher; in response, Russia is saying in plain text that if anything happens, the “partners” won’t even have time to repent before they simply die. It seems that everything, the world has come to its end. Propaganda draws huge masses into a whirlpool of passions and people believe that if not today, then tomorrow the lights will be turned off in the world. It seems that the elites have gone mad and are ready to die themselves just to kill their opponents.

In reality, of course, this rhetoric remains rhetoric, a means of political pressure on rivals. In the decades since the Cold War, the world's power configuration has become outdated and holds no one back. Russia forges its own without looking back at treaties, since the balance of power requires it. The US was not particularly worried about this, but now it wants to restore its shaky lead and has decided to withdraw from the treaties. Naturally, we want to prevent them from doing this and detain them in a position that is unfavorable for them and advantageous for us, and therefore we are indignant at the whole world, realizing that in a military sense this will not give anything, but in a propaganda sense, some temporary gains are possible here glasses.

In fact, the sum of the forces of Russia and China upsets the balance of power between the United States and Europe, and therefore, without counting on Europe, the United States itself begins to increase its leverage. However, this is done solely for negotiation purposes. The US arms buildup makes it possible to negotiate with Russia, China, and Europe from a position of strength. New proportions must arise. When they arise, and there is a new balance of power in the world, negotiations will begin again to fix the situation for a certain period. Then new agreements will appear on the limitation of certain types of weapons. They will again talk about limiting and even destroying some classes of missiles. But before this, all degrees of freedom in the new forward movement must be chosen.

“Stay here and wait. I won’t tell you when I start.” Real war it starts suddenly."(Kill the Dragon, E. Schwartz). This is the US position and there is no need to think that it will be different. If war starts, they will not warn about it in advance. The principle of surprise of the blitzkrieg has not been canceled.

But China and Russia remember: " The best way to get rid of dragons is to have one of your own." The "dragons" of Russia and China will destroy the "dragon" of the USA if they strike together. If one fights the USA, then the one remaining will certainly finish off what is left of the USA. Give them the opportunity no one will take the wing again. No one from NATO will take revenge for the USA - Europe is incredibly cowardly in the face of a nuclear conflict. Dying for the USA is not the goal of Europe. The USA understands this prospect and will not really start a war. However, they will bargain for new peace conditions they can.

And in order for the bargaining to go more smoothly, prices will be increased three times and a strong advertising campaign. Part of which includes announcements to the whole world that American soldiers are mentally ready to start a fight. The task is to intimidate and put pressure. Maybe it will work! It turns out badly - Russia promised that there is no hope - when leaving planet Earth, we will certainly take “dear partners” with us. And it doesn’t matter where we end up - in heaven or hell. As the famous advertising formula said: “It’s more fun together anywhere.” So far, the Americans do not like this prospect. But there will never be another. Therefore, for world peace, as long as Russia and China have strategic nuclear forces, you can be calm.