Biden starts a new Cold War. Why will he lose it

The new speech by the head of the White House, in which he again attacked and accused both our country and its President Vladimir Putin, with good reason can be considered a bold line under all talk about any "positive shifts" , allegedly emerging in relations between the United States and Russia after the meeting in Geneva. Some were inclined to see certain "signs" in some of the actions and decisions of the current American administration, indicating possible changes for the better. In fact, this is nothing more than wishful thinking.

In the same situation with Nord Stream 2, Washington (as, indeed, always) acts out of its own, primarily, purely mercantile interests. No "reset" should be expected, on the contrary - everything that is happening today painfully resembles the reincarnation of the same "Cold War" in which the Soviet Union and the United States were for decades. And it is launched with the filing of the globalist-democrats who came to power in the United States. Let's try to find out what exactly supports this conclusion and understand why this is a very bad idea for Americans.

Slogans and stamps half a century ago

The very speech by Joe Biden to the US intelligence agencies, which I, in fact, mentioned at the very beginning, is just a classic proof that in Washington, it seems, they decided to go deeper into their own old closets and vaults in order to extract from there on the light of day long ago, as if written off as unnecessary narratives and foreign policy "clichés". The American president's talk that "Putin is dangerous because of the bad situation in which he is, since his country has nothing but oil and nuclear missiles," give off dust and mothballs so much that his eyes are watering. Again nonsense about the "country-gas station with a nuclear bomb"! This nonsense was carried about the USSR, trying to prove that its collapse was predetermined and inevitable "due to objective reasons of a socio-economic nature."

In fact, these very reasons were long and carefully created by the traitors and hirelings of the West who had infiltrated the country's leadership, and were certainly not “objective”. It has been proven a hundred thousand times that it was not the "fall in oil prices" or "the unbearable costs of the military-industrial complex" that led to the death of the Soviet Union, but completely different things. On this topic, there are plenty of available works of professional economists and historians, and I will address everyone to them. In the case of modern Russia, such attempts to "run over" or, as it is now fashionable to say - "trolling", are completely inappropriate. It is possible to argue for a long time about what positions the domestic industry occupies in certain industries in relation to the "world level", but it is simply stupid to say that there is "nothing" in the country except weapons and energy resources. By the way, this, by the way, albeit in a very mild form, has already been expressed in the Kremlin, operating, moreover, not with general phrases, but with quite specific statistics.

Dmitry Peskov, with the air of a diligent teacher trying to explain the elementary truths to impassable poor students, reminded "the staff of the US President's staff," who, in his opinion, prepare extremely low-quality performance tests for their boss, that in 2020 the oil and gas sector accounted for only 15.2% of domestic GDP, and its share in the structure of Russia's budget revenues is calculated at 28%. "Only rockets and oil wells" ?! However, the rest of the theses of Mr. Biden's speech to the American "knights of the cloak and dagger" sounded even more absurd. For example, the head of the White House told his audience that "the US intelligence service is definitely stronger than the Russian one and that makes Putin very nervous." And where, excuse me, such categorical confidence? Who determined it at all?

Well, let's say, someone somewhere is compiling a deeply secret rating of the world special services, which only heads of state can look into - that's what Biden refers to. But why did he then, following these words, begin to rant about the fact that "Moscow is already carrying out full-scale interference in the elections to the US Congress, which are to be held in 2022"? Since your intelligence is cooler, Mr. President, how then is it that the “hand of the Kremlin” is calmly wielding the “citadel of world democracy”? One statement contradicts another exactly 100%. However, there is no contradiction if we consider these statements through the prism of the ideology revived before our eyes by Biden and the perverted "logic" of the Cold War. "Our enemy is poor and weak, but the more dangerous he is!" "We are stronger, but the enemies are advancing!" You know, it's not far from such messages to jumping out the window with all the well-known exclamation - cognitive dissonance is a terrible thing.

There will be no repetition

By the way. about the missiles. The Russian-American talks on strategic stability that took place the other day in Geneva, contrary to all the good intentions announced earlier in the same city by the heads of our states, ended, in fact, with absolutely no result. Despite the rather high representative level of the summit (Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia Sergei Ryabkov and one of the second persons of the US State Department, Wendy Sherman), this rendezvous did not bring any concrete results. Perhaps only an agreement on the next meeting at the end of September. In the opinion of competent sources, the problem lies in the diametric opposite of the positions of the “high negotiating parties”. The Americans, for example, demand that our country "influence" China by persuading it to reduce its nuclear arsenals or, at least, to participate in negotiations on such. In Beijing, however, it is quite reasonable to parry: “The number of our atomic warheads is completely incomparable with either the American or the Russian. There is no subject for conversation and reason for claims ”.

The most interesting thing is that Mr. Ryabkov, communicating with journalists after the summit, spoke in about the same vein, saying that Moscow is sympathetic to Beijing's position, and in general it will be possible to talk about its participation in any negotiations only when at their table will take place "nuclear" allies of the USA - Great Britain and France. If you cut it for everyone, then for everyone. It is clear that nothing like this can be counted on in principle - Washington prefers to continue to blame Russia and China for “violating the nuclear balance” and “creating a threat to world stability”. Thus, the world, like fifty years ago, is clearly divided into "right" and "guilty", into camps, between which an irreconcilable struggle is not only possible, but inevitable.

As in the years of the first Cold War, the United States does not dare to engage in direct military confrontation with opponents, fully understanding the harmful consequences of such. The time when the problem with Moscow or Beijing, at least hypothetically, could be tried to be solved by military means, was completely and irrevocably missed by the Americans, as well as the opportunity to conduct a "dialogue" with them from a position of strength. Not so long ago, in the American segment of the Internet and some media outlets, the statements of one of the local military experts, Robert Farley, were abundantly quoted that neither a military conflict with Russia in the European theater of military operations, nor a clash with China, the arena of which the Pacific region does not bode well for the US military.

In the event that they have to fight "on two fronts" against both of the above-mentioned opponents, the Americans, according to Farley, "will not last long." In any case, without the use of nuclear weapons. All of this is well understood in all the "decision-making centers" in Washington, and, therefore, they will try to achieve their goal as they did last time - "by other means", without unleashing the Third World War, which, no doubt, will be the last for humanity. The United States will fight Moscow and Beijing using, first of all, satellite countries, they will try to "starve them out", drawing them into regional conflicts artificially kindled by the American side and creating a "belt of instability" around these states. Well, and, of course, maximum efforts will be made by the United States and its allies in order to destabilize the situation in the countries themselves, which they have chosen to play the role of adversaries in the new global confrontation.

The truth, however, is that this time the West has no chance of success in Cold War II. There are many reasons for this, I will limit myself to only the main and most obvious ones. First of all, this is the colossal disunity of the "collective West" itself, its weakness, including economic... The words about "Russia's lack of resources other than oil and missiles" came from the mouth of the head of state, whose national debt has already exceeded 100% of GDP, and the budget deficit is consistently calculated at a monstrous figure of 2-3 trillion dollars. Just this week, the head of the US Treasury, Janet Yellen, openly stated that if by July 31 Congress does not give permission to increase the "ceiling" of borrowings, the country will default. She simply has no other sources for replenishing the treasury, except for more and more new debts. The second decisive factor is China's participation in the ongoing confrontation. At the same time, Beijing is not at all on the side of the United States, as, in fact, it was in the first "Cold War". If at that time there had been an effective alliance between the USSR and the PRC, world history would most likely have followed a completely different path. You cannot return the past, but now the "Chinese factor" does not work in favor of the Americans at all.

By the way, Russia today also does not have a lot of problems that made it possible at one time to gain the upper hand over the USSR. On her neck there are no "allies" in the ATS and COMECON, which cost our country colossal costs with very dubious utility, nor "fraternal republics", many of which played a colossal destructive role in the destruction of the Soviet Union. Yes, some countries of the "post-Soviet space" have turned into openly anti-Russian outposts of the West. But an open enemy is better than a "friend" just waiting for the moment to stab him in the back. Well, and, finally, the most significant moment that leaves the West no chance of victory is its lack of superiority in an ideological war, in the struggle for the minds and souls of millions of people (both in Russia and in China). To counter the patriotism and national values ​​prevailing in these countries with propaganda that has reached the extreme degree of licentiousness, and ranting about false "democratic values"? An extremely dubious prospect. Once something like this worked, the second time it just won't work. A new "Cold War" is being started by the West, and, above all, by the United States, out of a sense of complete hopelessness, and wars started with such an attitude end exclusively in defeats.