Those who know how to play chess, and there are, unfortunately, less and less of them nowadays, do not need to explain that in order to play a successful game it is necessary to constantly analyze the state of affairs on the entire board, and not to concentrate their attention on individual moves of the opponent. Firstly, without analyzing the full situation, it is impossible to understand the true purpose of each maneuver, and secondly, this maneuver can also be a distraction from something more important. This, in turn, is good training for the brain and the ability of complex analysis.
But the place of books and chess in the leisure of people, especially young people, is today actively occupied by various computer "shooters", "adventure games", motion simulators, etc., the main distinguishing feature of which is that players should simply spontaneously react in time to unexpected and out of nowhere emerging obstacles. And even games called "strategies" provide the participant with a very limited set of actions and tools, plus, again, the complete unpredictability of a certain opponent. The lack of the possibility of a complete analysis and foresight of the situation puts the player in a permanent passive position of responding to blows, indirectly teaching him to similar behavior in life.
To what extent this position is vulnerable and losing in advance, I think, it is unnecessary to explain. But the computer can simply be turned off, or, having lost at one stage, get a “new life”, etc., but in reality nothing of the kind happens, although the principles of this “game” are still the same. In chess, there are no "spare" lives - the game can only be postponed, but you still have to finish the game. And this means winning, losing, or finding yourself in a stalemate in which the opponents' opportunities to put pressure on each other either dry up or even out so that the continuation of the game becomes meaningless. I think that the West and the USSR existed in approximately this position until about the 90s of the last century. Now the game starts again. Therefore, I propose to return to the classics, look now at political "Board" as a whole, to really assess the situation in which we are, and not try to spontaneously, as in a stupid "shooter", to react to individual moves that are slipped to us by someone. Although this "someone" would like to play with us just like that.
As if looking at the map, I will take everything in order from top to bottom and from left to right, that is, from north to south and from west to east along the borders of the Russian Federation.
Arctic and Subpolar Zone
On the northern borders, the situation is very similar to the situation throughout the entire last world war - the situation is tense, but stable for a long time. There are occasional clashes, but the general "front line" here remains practically unchanged. This is explained by the fact that thanks to the efforts of both the modern Russian Federation and the Soviet Union, in the development of the Arctic, both militarily and economically, we are ahead of all our opponents by at least a couple of decades. And this is gratifying. Our strongest and most efficient military fleet is based here, as well as a powerful grouping of its ground and air cover, including reinforced garrisons on the islands remote from the coast, equipped with the most modern techniquespecially designed for extreme cold conditions. Only we have a truly developed civilian ice class fleet, including a nuclear one. The necessary infrastructure is already in place along the entire length of the transcontinental Northern Sea Route, although there is still something to strive for ...
In the Arctic, Russia is actively developing various economic projects. There is equipment adapted to near-polar conditions, and most importantly, qualified people who are able to use and maintain it. No one else, including the USA and Canada, located on the opposite coast of the Arctic Ocean, is close to anything like this. The Scandinavian states adjacent to us in the Arctic region, namely Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Finland and Sweden (the first three are NATO members), although historically do not have particularly warm feelings towards Russia, at the regional level, they adhere rather to a reasonable-pragmatic position in relation to its huge eastern neighbor. None of these states, nor all of them together, without the explicit and direct physical intervention of a third force, are capable of open anti-Russian actions. And in principle, due to their existing rather neutral position in international affairs, this is not really what they want.
In the Baltic and in the areas adjacent to it, everything is somewhat more complicated. The Russian fleet here is rather weak for such an important water area, and even "locked" inside a shallow sea by straits fully under the control of the forces of the North Atlantic Alliance. From a naval point of view, all hope in the event of a possible confrontation rests with the Northern Fleet, which is capable of sailing into the Atlantic. This is somewhat compensated for by a strong ground grouping of troops, especially those that are jointly with the main naval base in the Kaliningrad exclave. From this place, all the coastal states are actually directly "shot" by the RF Armed Forces, which, naturally, is extremely worrisome to our unfriendly neighbors. And here the situation is worse than with the Scandinavians - the rest of our opponents here are all “ideological”: 3 former Soviet Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, Poland, Germany. All NATO members. Two really strong ones are Poland and Germany. Three are extremely weak, but overly active.
In the regions adjacent to the Baltic Sea, the Russian Federation has important logistics and industrial infrastructure, as well as the "northern capital" - St. Petersburg. The subject of the first serious conflict between the Russian Federation and the "consolidated West" is also located here - the Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline, which runs along the Baltic seabed from Russia to Germany. Officially, the project is considered purely commercial, but what in our time, especially of this scale, does not affect political interests? So SP-2 has become a kind of bargaining chip in the global chess game for resources, money and spheres of influence. Those who think that all this will somehow "dissolve" by itself, citing the energy cooperation between the USSR and Western Europe during the Cold War, I will upset: it will not dissolve - the situation is not the same. Our main geopolitical adversary, the United States, currently has neither the strength, nor the means, nor time for such tolerance. Unlike the times of the USSR, now, paradoxically, the threat to the very existence of the "hegemon" is so high that it forces the Americans to act as hard as possible, albeit within the framework of their ever-diminishing capabilities. And they certainly will not make any concessions to us, at least voluntarily ... Yes, transnational capitalism is an interesting thing, and during the Second World War, factories belonging to American firms operated in Nazi Germany and even continued to bring them profit. And after the end of the war, German insurance companies also paid compensation to the owners of these same factories for the fact that these same enterprises were bombed by American aviation ... Interesting, right?
But do not flatter yourself, nothing like this will happen to us. It is among themselves that the "Westerners" have always fought like that, "for fun", for money and territory. With us, the war was always waged for destruction and in no other way. And now there will be no exception. It is we ourselves who regularly say that we are, they say, part of Western civilization. THEY, there, in the West, do not think so at all. For them we were and are strangers, others, ideologically dangerous. Yes, yes, precisely ideologically. And this is not even about politics, but about the historical worldview of peoples. They are even less afraid of millions of culturally alien Muslim refugees on their territory than they are of us - they believe that they can be pacified with money and handouts. A mistake, of course, but that's their problem. And with us, as long as the Western world is ruled by the Anglo-Saxons, no one will really come to an agreement. And we must admit that until one worldview destroys another, the war will not end. The only possibility for a stalemate draw is to be at least as strong as they are, while not being dependent on them for anything. The first one seemed to work out for us again, but with the second problem. And until we ourselves are ready at any moment these "umbilical cords" in the form of gas pipelines, oil pipelines, power lines, etc. break, they will dominate us.
Yes, we need money to build our own defense, from them, this is an eternal justification. This also justified the fact that the last echelon with coal from the USSR entered Germany just a couple of hours before Hitler's attack on our country. But this is a "double-edged sword", and it is necessary to take such things into account. Yes, it is possible that we used these funds to build several tanks, but the Germans also forged weapons directed in our direction on our coal, in their workshops. And if it were not for this echelon, it is possible that the equipment on both sides would have taken part in the war a little less. And therefore, perhaps, the number of victims would have decreased, or the war would have been at least a day shorter ... One should not forget about this either.
In addition, in the case of SP-2 specifically, if such huge funds were spent on the not yet completed gasification within the country, then money could also be earned. Perhaps not so much, but without any risk, international scandals and sanctions. Would we have died, perhaps, without this pipe? You wouldn't have died! Look, the South Stream was canceled, and they did not die either ... Some people just stuffed their pockets less ... And let the whole EU itself "hang" on ecologically and politically more acceptable for them, but wildly expensive energy resources, they want to breathe - they themselves will ask. And this will be a completely different alignment. Strategists have something to think about in this direction ...
Not far from the Baltic Sea and the gas pipeline that has already set a median soreness on edge, in the very last days, another strategic conflict has been unfolding - the "battle for Belarus", which, in addition to being strategically important for us in military terms, the "buffer zone" in the western direction, is also one of the small former Soviet republics, which managed to preserve and in some ways even increase its economic potential. This was done mainly by the merit of the long-term permanent leader of this country, Alexander Lukashenko, and the notorious "multi-vector policy" he adopted. The essence of all this, in short, was that, while maintaining all possible social achievements of the Soviet era, including even symbols that are close and familiar to many, ensure the progressive development of their own state, while maintaining friendly relations with the former "fraternal" republics of the USSR, and at the same time building economic and political "bridges" with the West. The goal, of course, is good, but utopian, with a glance at the aforementioned fundamental ideological contradictions of the Russian and Anglo-Saxon communities. So Lukashenka didn’t manage to “sit on two chairs” for a long time. The state began to experience internal and external problems. In order not to simply fall off both of them, I had to choose a “chair”. I chose the one that is closer and more familiar, but at the same time I had already shattered both so that now I would hold onto happiness on one ...
It helps, firstly, the proximity and interpenetration of Russia and Belarus in almost all spheres of life, and secondly, and this is also the merit of the Lukashenka regime, the fact that in the country, again, unlike other republics of the collapsed Soviet Union, they did not give a wild color to flourish national and religious strife and Russophobia. And it is these "strings" that Western opponents often play against us on the post-Soviet territory.
Apparently, having learned from the bad example of neighboring Ukraine, both in the Russian Federation and in Belarus itself, the situation was not initially released from control, despite all the already completely open Western attempts to swing the situation in an anti-Russian spirit. The response to this was the open cooperation of Russian and Belarusian law enforcement agencies, as well as, in response to the already voiced and familiar threat of economic sanctions, a sharp development and business cooperation within the framework of the already somehow forgotten format of the Union State. God forbid, the result of all this will be positive, and most importantly, fast - the time is not at all on Lukashenka's side, and there is no new leader on the horizon who can keep the country on the right course. The activity of recent days still inspires some hope - the leader of Belarus constantly meets with Russian leaders of the regional (!) Level, establishing new and strengthening existing business ties, and this already looks like working within one common state.
Ukraine and the Black Sea region
I have already casually mentioned one more existing and very painful problem right on our borders - and these, of course, are the events in Ukraine. It has been said about this so many times and so many things lately that it makes no sense to "chew" here again. So far, the only plus Russia has drawn from the whole situation is the return of Crimea, which has powerfully rewrote the regional balance of power in our favor. Henceforth I will dwell only on the current state of affairs. In light of the most recent events taking place in Belarus, and the direct participation of Ukraine and NATO countries in them, plus the Navalny incident, plus the behavior of Western “partners” in Independence itself, etc., I hope it is already clear to everyone that even the semblance of some kind of "friendship" with the consolidated West has completely vanished for us. For obvious reasons, the "Normandy format" of negotiations, like the "Minsk agreements", as they say, were ordered to live long ... Thus, we, in fact, have not preserved any official negotiating channels with the West on the issue of Ukraine. At the same time, the existing Ukrainian government is absolutely neither independent nor, as a result, negotiable. Meanwhile, people continue to die in the long-suffering Donbass. And those that live have existed for six whole years in a kind of legal vacuum, while for a long time, rightly and openly looking towards Russia and turning to her for help. How long will all this mockery of Donbass from OUR side continue?
What are we waiting for? SP-2 needs to be completed? I have already mentioned this above - it will be necessary, they will stop it anyway. Are we afraid of sanctions? They will enter it anyway. Is it really unclear? And today no one will dare to openly forceful actions against the Russian Federation - the guts are thin. So how long are we going to let this cheap Kiev big top and their American trainers spit in themselves and destroy people, many of whom are already our citizens? As a solution to the situation, it is necessary, at least, to recognize the LPNR, and to impose a complete economic blockade on the rest of Ukraine, from which we are already facing a direct threat from NATO forces, so that there is no gasoline, no coal, or food. Nothing at all. We can do this. The West will not feed them anyway, and they have already been told this openly. And enough of this chatter about the fraternal people. If he is there, then let him finally show himself. Power they have to throw off for one or two is usually good, so let this one get thrown off, or they live like that, if everything suits them. Anyone who wants to emigrate to Russia will be admitted with the granting of citizenship. And when they themselves ask for help, we must urgently come and help everyone, up to Transnistria ... Create, so to speak, a humanitarian corridor. If anyone resists, then by force - following the example of the civilized West, "humanitarian bombing" ...
If you go further along the Russian maritime borders, then there is a country with the strongest and most combat-ready NATO army, after the United States, the still republic of Turkey, and the former Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic, which, by its own stupidity, has already remained without some of its territories - Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Apparently, for about the same reason, this small country, actively waving foreign flags (EU and NATO), is moving in a slightly different direction - right under the red flag of its powerful southern neighbor with a white crescent and one star. At the border areas, but the further, the deeper into the country, there is an active "turkishnu" of both the land itself and the population - tourists come en masse, Turkish business is actively involved, the Turks are buying up real estate, which they often move to, offices of Turkish companies are opening , local people receive Turkish passports, mosques are being built, and the Turkish language is gradually being introduced into everyday life. Thus, a certain Turkish ethnic enclave appears on the territory of a neighboring state, which the Turkish Republic, if anything, can defend ... This is the key concept here, and it will probably be interpreted exclusively by the Turks themselves. We've already seen this somewhere, no? On the territory of another of its neighbors - the Syrian Arab Republic, something similar by the Turks is already being used with might and main, where, under the pretext of protecting local Turkoman peoples, Ankara actually annexed part of a foreign territory. Nobody in Europe expects Georgians in particular, they themselves seem to be deliberately “denying themselves” from Russia. Let's compare the "power" of Georgia with the Turkish capabilities, and ... The result, I think, is clear.
Turkey itself, which is one of the main NATO members, has complicated relations with its allies, including the United States, to put it mildly. Roughly the same can be said about all the neighbors of this country without exception. At the same time, Turkey is a strong and self-confident state that is not afraid to use military force to achieve its goals, a tough, cunning, insidious and independent player in the international arena, who does not really defend anyone's interests other than its own, as well as has historical imperial ambitions and claiming leadership in the entire Middle East region. Here's a cocktail. What and when to expect from the Turks, practically no one can really foresee. And this makes the situation around this country even more unstable. The Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan that has flared up in recent days with renewed vigor, as well as the absolutely unambiguous and in no way pacifying Turkish statements on this topic, the above only confirms the above. This conflict involves, which is extremely painful for Russia, two former Soviet republics of the USSR, with each of which we individually have friendly and good-neighborly relations.
Azerbaijan, directly bordering the Russian Federation, having also passed through the times of nationalism and other post-apocalyptic turbulences of the collapse of a huge country, has become today economically one of the most successful post-Soviet states. Separated from Russia by Georgian territory, Armenia is officially our ally, a member of the CSTO. A large base of the RF Armed Forces is located on the territory of this state. And in this situation it is not even particularly clear if this fact improves the situation for us, or quite the opposite ... To the south of both conflicting post-Soviet states are two large and poorly predictable regional "predators" - Iran and Turkey. The first still maintains external neutrality on the Karabakh issue, the second has already openly sided with Azerbaijan, clearly deliberately "adding oil" to the conflict flaring up with renewed vigor, again focusing on achieving its own goals there. Namely, at least, dragging Azerbaijan, rich in hydrocarbons, into the orbit of its own influence, which is hardly in Russia's interests. At the same time, the Russian Federation is closely cooperating with Iran and Turkey on Syria, and this interaction, even without Karabakh, cannot be called smooth.
For the Russian leadership, therefore, the support of any of the parties to the Karabakh conflict is unacceptable. And over the past decades, it has not been possible to find any reasonable solution that suits both peoples. The problem of Nagorno-Karabakh, which is officially part of Muslim Azerbaijan, but 90% populated by Armenians professing Christianity, is one of the typical examples of how, after the collapse of large multinational state formations and the creation of new countries in their place according to the principle of the old internal administrative division, cites often to bloody feuds on interethnic and / or interreligious grounds. Being within a single state, people often did not pay attention to the purely nominal, as it seemed to everyone, internal administrative boundaries, moved, settled in new territories. But as soon as these borders suddenly turned into state borders, this turned into a division of peoples, ethnic groups and even families, often in an extremely uncomfortable configuration for them, in which one people seemed to suddenly find itself in the position of the main state-forming, and the other, without leaving the territories of its of the original residence, turned into a national minority, often curtailed in some rights to which they were accustomed.
A striking example of such conflicts is what we see today in Ukraine, in the early 90s in Moldova, in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. And to the beginning of the last and most bloody World War in the history of mankind, in many respects led to the national contradictions that arose in Europe after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires. Therefore, no matter how wild it may sound to someone, but the only solution to such issues peacefully and without the need for genocide or mass resettlement of entire ethnic groups, is their reverse unification within the framework of a new joint single state or at least some kind of union without internal borders. like the Schengen area.
Whether someone likes it or not, the recent example of Belarus clearly shows how another short era of neutral or “multi-vector” politics, for small states that have still tried to do this, is steadily coming to an end. You have to choose. Moreover, many still have the opportunity to do this voluntarily and deliberately, based on their own national interests. Then, and soon enough, a new era of conquest will begin.
Although the Azerbaijanis and the Turkic people, what such an adventure with falling into the claws of Ankara may ultimately turn out to be for them is rather difficult to predict. Turkey is clearly moving towards attempts at hard regional domination and Islamization. I'm not sure that absolutely secular Azerbaijan, with a sufficiently developed civil society, including during the years of the USSR, accustomed to freedom, will find such a new regime comfortable. And we all know how Ankara treats the independent minorities located in the territories of its dominance. For the Armenians, both on the territory of Azerbaijan and in their own country, the entry of neighboring states into Turkey's orbit may turn into a national tragedy in general. And not for the first time. For now, thank God, Iran is behaving reasonably in this matter, without interfering. So the last and time-tested solution for both states may be some new form of merger with Russia. And our policy in this matter, without any undue hesitation, should be directed precisely in this direction. Otherwise, it will be bad for everyone ... well, maybe, except for the Turks ...
East - a delicate matter
Further, across the Caspian Sea, our neighbor is the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is also a rather strong, industrially developed, complex and peculiar state, with a rich imperial past and claims to a leading role in its region in the present. The relations of the Russian Federation with this country can be characterized as fairly even and mutually pragmatic. As I have already mentioned, Iran is actively cooperating with us in solving the Syrian problems, although, like Turkey, it does not forget its own selfish interests. But this is normal and completely natural. In a number of other states, 2 warships of the Iranian Navy took part in the last large-scale maneuvers of the Russian army "Caucasus 2020", and this small fact speaks volumes.
In addition, with Iran, in the presence of all sorts of discrepancies on various issues of the international agenda, we have at least one powerful common enemy - the United States. That is, at the global level, we are, if not allies, then at least situational partners for the near foreseeable future. It is quite possible that this is precisely why, seeing in the case a strong interest of Russia, Iran took a neutral position in the Transcaucasian conflict. Iran is also developing active relations, including in the military sphere, with another of our neighbors, China, which also, by coincidence of recent circumstances, is entering into ever greater confrontation with the United States.
Between us and the PRC there are several other former Central Asian union republics of the USSR: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, as well as the Mongolian People's Republic. Again, after a period of post-Soviet turbulence and euphoria from the acquired independence, the Russian Federation has established normal relations with all these countries. With someone they can be called allied, with someone good-neighborly. Along with Armenia, Russia and Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are members of the CSTO; there is a Russian military presence on the territory of these states. Being literally between two such giants as Russia and China, the Central Asian states, in principle, of course, have no choice but to follow in their orbit. Someone more than one, someone else. It is good that our "orbits" with China in the international arena are now close and at the same time not particularly intersecting.
Therefore, in our common Central Asian “underbelly”, relative peace and order reigns. The external adversary, mainly, of course, in the person of the United States, is trying to periodically shake the situation. But, fortunately for the whole region, so far we have this common enemy with China. Although, sooner or later, the Central Asians will also have to decide, and Russian politicians should not lose sight of this in the long term.
The PRC is our largest and most powerful neighbor. It is the largest, richest and most populous country in the world and, without a doubt, the world's first economy. The only area in which China has not yet overtaken us and the Americans combined is military and space technology. And this is, in my opinion, one of the cornerstones of our fairly good relationship. For all its enormous and rapidly growing power in recent years, China has been pursuing a fairly peaceful foreign policy for a long time. The peacefulness of the PRC, however, does not in any way lie in the Chinese lack of a well-deserved desire to become the dominant world superpower and enjoy all the relevant benefits, but rather in the way to achieve this goal. They just do it not by military or some other violent means, such as "color revolutions", etc., but by quiet but active economic and population infiltration into other countries and continents. Fortunately, they have enough industrial potential, money, and people for this. Relations between the Russian Federation and the PRC at this historical stage can be characterized as mutually beneficial and even friendly. China, of course, like any sober-minded state, protects exclusively its own interests. But at the same time, he is definitely a reliable, negotiable and independent player of the world level.
Moreover, no matter what anyone says, even on the basis of a close common socialist history, which, by the way, is not at all over for the Chinese, we are ideologically close to China. We have no serious mutual claims, but we have a serious and common enemy in the person of the United States. Recently, the interaction of the Russian Federation with China can be characterized as close and mutually beneficial, including in the military sphere. And many in the West do not like this, which means that we are going in the right direction. For now, at least ... If someone in the world, among all these sanctions and the economic war against our country, can now really support Russia economically and politically, then it is China. If anyone can balance China's military weakness vis-à-vis the United States and its allies in the region, it is Russia. At the moment we corny need each other, and there is no getting away from this. In addition, we cannot get away from the fact that China is our immediate neighbor - we need to be friends, we can, but be careful ...
Our last land-adjacent country is North Korea - DPRK. A strange, but proud and quite independent, at first glance, state that is not afraid to come into conflict even with the almighty "hegemon". It seems like it has nuclear weapons and means of their delivery, which regularly scares its (and ours too) closest neighbors - South Korea and Japan. For all its independence, the actual guarantor of the existence of the DPRK is China. For Russia, this country is a modest trading partner, and hardly poses any danger. Well, if only they have something that will fly somewhere in the wrong place on the next tests of superweapons of their own designs ... Politically, with a glance at the same close joint history and traditionally bad relations with the consolidated West, this is rather our friend than enemy, if that.
Here, as briefly as possible, about Japan and South Korea - two highly developed economies, world-class players in practically all new technologies, electronics and mechanical engineering; our and not only our trade partners in these areas. At the same time, they are huge stationary aircraft carriers within the US Armed Forces, and that says it all. I deliberately do not use the expression "unsinkable aircraft carrier", with the advent of "Poseidon" became irrelevant, as well as the territorial claims of the descendants of the samurai against the Russian Federation after the adoption of new amendments to the Constitution.
It hardly makes sense to describe the maritime neighborhood with the United States through the Bering Strait. In addition, perhaps, the recent sharp increase in the military infrastructure in Alaska by the Americans, to which we will definitely have to adequately respond in our Far Eastern territories. Including an increase in the forces of the Navy, which at the moment are absolutely insufficient for the world's largest Pacific Ocean, and so a geopolitically important region.
... And what follows from all this
Well, that's, in principle, everything related to the general overview along the borders. While I was writing all of the above, I myself thought - is this some extremely difficult stage in Russian history, or has something like this already happened? And when I finished, I came to the conclusion that, in general, nothing really new. Looking back, it's not the worst scenario yet, as it turns out. Our enemies are strong, but they were never weak and were never. Friends are not very reliable - and there is nothing unexpected. In short, no need to hang your nose - we will somehow get out again, not for the first time ...
I will also add something about the situation on a more global scale. If we return to the list of participants in the Caucasus 2020, then in addition to the already familiar former Soviet republics, Iran and China, we will see there two new interesting countries - Myanmar and Pakistan. Myanmar (formerly Burma) is a small, by Asian standards, country with a population of 53 million people, located between India (east of it), China and Thailand. At the same time, the army of this country has 406 thousand people, and this is almost half of the Russian. Pakistan, an official nuclear power, with a population of about 215 million. and an army of 654 thousand people, located west of India and south of Afghanistan. It is a key Muslim foreign policy player in the region, and, as mentioned above, it officially possesses nuclear weapons. Interestingly, both China and Pakistan have some territorial disputes with India, another regional nuclear power. At the same time, India, Pakistan and China, together with Russia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. And India, Russia and China are also members of the BRICS, which also includes Brazil and South Africa. And if the SCO, not being directly a military bloc, is still a military-political organization, then BRICS is a purely economic entity. If we look at all this, again, on a geographical map, we will understand that, in addition to the Russian Federation itself, almost all of Central and Southeast Asia, the fastest growing region of the modern world, falls into the sphere of influence of the SCO states.
The United States and its allies are trying to actively influence the major regional players, especially the rapidly growing India in all respects, openly trying to draw them into their zone of influence. Until recently, one of America's main allies in South Asia was Pakistan, with which relations have rapidly deteriorated since 2012. And seeing the US attempts to rapprochement with India, Pakistan also started looking for powerful allies - we see the result in the Caucasus 2020 maneuvers. At the same time, India itself, trying to maintain mutually beneficial relations with the Americans, is not particularly torn into their strong "friendly" embrace, clearly realizing that it will definitely have to be friends with the United States against one of the powerful world-class players, such as the Russian Federation or China. rather, both together, which the Hindus do not like. And their country's membership in the SCO and BRICS is another confirmation of this.
In short, we have many enemies, they are quite strong, but there are also enough of those on whom you can, at least at the moment, rely. I understand that many will say, they say, all these "allies" are very unreliable. There is such a thing. But let's look at the enemy's camp from the same point of view - the overwhelming majority of the United States' major allies around the world are under the "hegemon" either in direct military or economic occupation, and, as has been seen recently, not everyone is happy with this. This is especially beginning to manifest itself among the non-Anglo-Saxon nations at a time when internal problems in America itself are sharply increasing, and she is trying to solve them at the expense of her vassals. A good half of European NATO members are generally so-called weather vane states, which quickly change their orientation depending on the surrounding situation. All this was clearly seen during the last world war: while the German Reich was strong and winning, under its banner, voluntarily or not, practically all of Europe entered. As soon as the period of success of the Germans began to end, all his allies, at least, withdrew or tried to get out of the war, as a maximum, they turned their weapons, given to them by the Germans, against their recent patron. We know the result, as well as the fact that nothing prevents its repetition.
So, of course, it's a difficult question with friends-allies, although not with us alone. But those that are now taking shape are already collectively stronger than what the enemy has. At the same time, both we and our "allies" are now objectively in a period of recovery and growth. And our enemy now, no matter how you look at it, is sinking more and more into a very serious economic, political and moral crisis.
In one of the conversations, I remember, Putin, based on the experience of his Petersburg childhood, said: "... If a fight is inevitable, you must hit first!" Now I would like to ask: Vladimir Vladimirovich, do you still think that a fight can be avoided? In my opinion, so it is already in full swing! All these unpunished spitting, kicks and cuffs to us, and not even from our main enemy, but from his mongrel henchmen, are these manifestations of good-neighborly coexistence? Maybe it's time, finally, to give some of them decently in the mouth, so that the rest would be discouraged? Why wait for better times for this when they are already quite suitable? The Americans are not fools, neither with us, nor with China, and even more so with both of them, they will not go to open confrontation - this is suicide for them. And we need, without hesitation and without looking back at anyone, to deal with our own national interests - for a start, at least to bring back the country that we have lost. Which, as it turns out, as a result, will benefit the majority of all people who lived together in it before. And for the sake of the good of your people, or even your peoples, you can, if necessary, use force. Otherwise, why do we need this power at all?