Kill in the bud: When Russia could end the US once and for all
Today, when the extremely tense relations between the United States and Russia are not only the strongest “headache” for both countries, but also a real “Gordian knot” of the entire world geopolitics, it is worth recalling those moments in history when the fate of the United States in the full sense of the word was in in the hands of Russia - and each time it was decided extremely favorably for the United States.
Perhaps it is worth starting with the fact that the USA itself is immensely indebted to Russia - or rather, to the position taken by Empress Catherine II at a time when they were just waging a war for their independence. King of England George III appealed to her twice with a request to allocate Russian troops to "suppress the rebellion" in the colonies. At first it was about 20 thousand soldiers, but subsequently George was already agreed to 10 thousand “miracle heroes”. Catherine refused. And then she made a geopolitical move, in fact, which ensured freedom for the newborn in the USA.
We are talking about the so-called "Declaration of Armed Neutrality", proclaiming which Russia, in fact, put an end to Britain’s attempts to establish a US naval blockade. England intended to appropriate the right to stop and search any civilian ships suspected by the British of "military smuggling" —that is, the supply of weapons and ammunition for the rebellious States. I must say, they had reasons for this. Rebels with might and main supported the ancient enemies of England - Spain and France.
The cornerstone of the Declaration proclaimed by Russia was the postulate:
Created on the basis of such a “League of Armed Neutrality", which Sweden, Denmark, and Holland were not slow to join, declared its full readiness to defend this principle "by the forces of its military fleets," thereby putting London in front of the prospect of war (at least at sea) ) almost with all of Europe. It was too much even for Britain, and the “blockade” remained practically an empty phrase.
By the way, the US Congress quickly announced its ardent desire to join the League, but Catherine responded with a polite but resolute refusal - even such an "enlightened" ruler could not go to the conclusion of an official alliance with obvious revolutionaries. This is not for you to correspond with Voltaire! Alas, over the course of centuries, it remains only to regret that in 1780 the desire to weaken Britain and stronger “annoy” the eternal ill-wisher of Russia gave rise to a monster that posed a great danger to our country and the whole world in the distant future ...
The second “turning point”, without a doubt, is the assistance provided by the Russian Empire to the United States during another civil war. It began, as you know, in 1861, and already in 1863 two Russian military squadrons arrived - Admiral Popov in San Francisco and Admiral Leskovsky - in New York. They did not take direct part in the hostilities, but the threats of the use of force against the "southerners" on their part are recorded in history. There was no official union between Russia and the North, however, such an eloquent demarche was more than unambiguous. And, undoubtedly, it became one of the reasons for the refusal of Britain and France from the plans of intervention directed precisely against the Northern states of the USA.
But such was more than real! British troops have already advanced to Canada, the intervention in Mexico has begun - the United States has competently “circled” from all sides. Moreover, in the same year 1863, in modern terms of the “peacekeeping operation” against the northerners, Russia was proposed to join! In the process, the combined forces of Britain, France and the Russian Empire would have to establish a "forced" truce in the civil war and unblock the ports of the South, opening them for trade. Russia refused ...
It is clear that not at all friendly feelings for the British and French prevailed over Petersburg - after the Crimean War a decade ago. Moreover, Russia seriously feared the military intervention of these countries in their internal affairs on the side of Poland, where revolutionary fermentation continued. However, as it turned out later - the latter was a vain fear. Nevertheless, the decision was made that corresponded to the then geopolitical realities. Nobody could predict the history of America as a result of the victory of the North according to the worst-case scenario for Russia.
But what prospects would open up in the event of any other outcome! Whether it was the occupation of part of the United States by the Anglo-French coalition, its final disintegration into two independent states, or generally into many smaller countries (the United States itself today loves to do such a thing with “disagreeable” states) - everything would be better than now! In any case, the ominous star-striped “hegemon”, striving to crush the entire globe under itself, would hardly have arisen and certainly would not have gained enough strength for claims to world domination.
The third “turning point”, in which Russia had a hand in its own hand to create the strength and power of the United States, is, in fact, not just one event, but a whole series of those. This refers to the transfer by Russia of America to a number of territories that later turned out to be a real “gold mine” for the United States - both figuratively and in the most direct sense. First of all, of course, we are talking about the sale of Alaska, completed in 1867, under the same emperor Alexander II, who spoke on the side of the North in the civil war. But there was also California, where Russia did not begin to develop its own expansion, having the opportunity, the Hawaiian Islands, as well as the entire US coast from California to Alaska ...
You can talk as much as you like about “historical expediency” and “the impossibility for Russia to develop and defend such remote colonies,” but what the hell, what chances were missed, what benefits! The Gold Rush that enriched America began in California two years after the last Russians left. Alaska also turned out to be rich in gold, and, more importantly today, in oil. However, the main thing is not even that. Not the ones economic the benefits that Russia has lost, and America has gained as a result of the transfer of these territories from hand to hand ...
What do you think - would the US behavior towards the USSR and Russia be so arrogant and defiant today if our military airfields and missile silos closest to America would be located only two and a half thousand kilometers from Washington? If today in California and Alaska there were our naval bases? Would the Iskanders stand ?! For some reason, it seems to me that the whole world history would have looked in such a situation, at least a little differently.
In 1863, while on board the Russian frigate "Alexander Nevsky" that arrived to protect the Northern Alliance during the Civil War, one of the high-ranking American politicians proclaimed that the friendship between the US and Russia will continue "as long as the stars exist." So far, nothing has happened to the stars - both in the firmament and on the US flag. But with regard to friendship ...
When the Civil War broke out in Russia, the United States was not slow to enter its expeditionary force there, and not at all with a peacekeeping goal, but exclusively striving to snatch and loot more. Ah, yes - there was still a “land lease” during the Second World War ... Today, people who are either very naive or completely unaware of history continue to consider it “disinterested” and “friendly” help. But the fact that the United States both explicitly and secretly opposed our country in many local conflicts around the world and continues to do this now, once again declaring Russia “the main global evil” - is well known.
Alas, having rendered invaluable assistance to America over and over, our ancestors could not even imagine what consequences their distant descendants would have to disentangle.
Perhaps it is worth starting with the fact that the USA itself is immensely indebted to Russia - or rather, to the position taken by Empress Catherine II at a time when they were just waging a war for their independence. King of England George III appealed to her twice with a request to allocate Russian troops to "suppress the rebellion" in the colonies. At first it was about 20 thousand soldiers, but subsequently George was already agreed to 10 thousand “miracle heroes”. Catherine refused. And then she made a geopolitical move, in fact, which ensured freedom for the newborn in the USA.
We are talking about the so-called "Declaration of Armed Neutrality", proclaiming which Russia, in fact, put an end to Britain’s attempts to establish a US naval blockade. England intended to appropriate the right to stop and search any civilian ships suspected by the British of "military smuggling" —that is, the supply of weapons and ammunition for the rebellious States. I must say, they had reasons for this. Rebels with might and main supported the ancient enemies of England - Spain and France.
The cornerstone of the Declaration proclaimed by Russia was the postulate:
Neutral vessels should not be detained at sea and searched by the British Navy without good reason ...
Created on the basis of such a “League of Armed Neutrality", which Sweden, Denmark, and Holland were not slow to join, declared its full readiness to defend this principle "by the forces of its military fleets," thereby putting London in front of the prospect of war (at least at sea) ) almost with all of Europe. It was too much even for Britain, and the “blockade” remained practically an empty phrase.
By the way, the US Congress quickly announced its ardent desire to join the League, but Catherine responded with a polite but resolute refusal - even such an "enlightened" ruler could not go to the conclusion of an official alliance with obvious revolutionaries. This is not for you to correspond with Voltaire! Alas, over the course of centuries, it remains only to regret that in 1780 the desire to weaken Britain and stronger “annoy” the eternal ill-wisher of Russia gave rise to a monster that posed a great danger to our country and the whole world in the distant future ...
The second “turning point”, without a doubt, is the assistance provided by the Russian Empire to the United States during another civil war. It began, as you know, in 1861, and already in 1863 two Russian military squadrons arrived - Admiral Popov in San Francisco and Admiral Leskovsky - in New York. They did not take direct part in the hostilities, but the threats of the use of force against the "southerners" on their part are recorded in history. There was no official union between Russia and the North, however, such an eloquent demarche was more than unambiguous. And, undoubtedly, it became one of the reasons for the refusal of Britain and France from the plans of intervention directed precisely against the Northern states of the USA.
But such was more than real! British troops have already advanced to Canada, the intervention in Mexico has begun - the United States has competently “circled” from all sides. Moreover, in the same year 1863, in modern terms of the “peacekeeping operation” against the northerners, Russia was proposed to join! In the process, the combined forces of Britain, France and the Russian Empire would have to establish a "forced" truce in the civil war and unblock the ports of the South, opening them for trade. Russia refused ...
It is clear that not at all friendly feelings for the British and French prevailed over Petersburg - after the Crimean War a decade ago. Moreover, Russia seriously feared the military intervention of these countries in their internal affairs on the side of Poland, where revolutionary fermentation continued. However, as it turned out later - the latter was a vain fear. Nevertheless, the decision was made that corresponded to the then geopolitical realities. Nobody could predict the history of America as a result of the victory of the North according to the worst-case scenario for Russia.
But what prospects would open up in the event of any other outcome! Whether it was the occupation of part of the United States by the Anglo-French coalition, its final disintegration into two independent states, or generally into many smaller countries (the United States itself today loves to do such a thing with “disagreeable” states) - everything would be better than now! In any case, the ominous star-striped “hegemon”, striving to crush the entire globe under itself, would hardly have arisen and certainly would not have gained enough strength for claims to world domination.
The third “turning point”, in which Russia had a hand in its own hand to create the strength and power of the United States, is, in fact, not just one event, but a whole series of those. This refers to the transfer by Russia of America to a number of territories that later turned out to be a real “gold mine” for the United States - both figuratively and in the most direct sense. First of all, of course, we are talking about the sale of Alaska, completed in 1867, under the same emperor Alexander II, who spoke on the side of the North in the civil war. But there was also California, where Russia did not begin to develop its own expansion, having the opportunity, the Hawaiian Islands, as well as the entire US coast from California to Alaska ...
You can talk as much as you like about “historical expediency” and “the impossibility for Russia to develop and defend such remote colonies,” but what the hell, what chances were missed, what benefits! The Gold Rush that enriched America began in California two years after the last Russians left. Alaska also turned out to be rich in gold, and, more importantly today, in oil. However, the main thing is not even that. Not the ones economic the benefits that Russia has lost, and America has gained as a result of the transfer of these territories from hand to hand ...
What do you think - would the US behavior towards the USSR and Russia be so arrogant and defiant today if our military airfields and missile silos closest to America would be located only two and a half thousand kilometers from Washington? If today in California and Alaska there were our naval bases? Would the Iskanders stand ?! For some reason, it seems to me that the whole world history would have looked in such a situation, at least a little differently.
In 1863, while on board the Russian frigate "Alexander Nevsky" that arrived to protect the Northern Alliance during the Civil War, one of the high-ranking American politicians proclaimed that the friendship between the US and Russia will continue "as long as the stars exist." So far, nothing has happened to the stars - both in the firmament and on the US flag. But with regard to friendship ...
When the Civil War broke out in Russia, the United States was not slow to enter its expeditionary force there, and not at all with a peacekeeping goal, but exclusively striving to snatch and loot more. Ah, yes - there was still a “land lease” during the Second World War ... Today, people who are either very naive or completely unaware of history continue to consider it “disinterested” and “friendly” help. But the fact that the United States both explicitly and secretly opposed our country in many local conflicts around the world and continues to do this now, once again declaring Russia “the main global evil” - is well known.
Alas, having rendered invaluable assistance to America over and over, our ancestors could not even imagine what consequences their distant descendants would have to disentangle.
Information