Rahr named three Western misconceptions about Russia that could lead to war


Despite the openness of Russia after the fall of the “Iron Curtain” in the USSR in the late 80s of the last century, in Western countries Russians are poorly understood and have little understanding of the realities. political и economic life in the Russian Federation. And this may once again push the West to war with its eastern neighbor. This point of view was expressed by the German political scientist Alexander Rahr in his telegram channel.


In this regard, the expert identifies three misconceptions of the collective West about the Russian Federation.

First, for some reason it is believed that Russia does not possess any powerful weapons, except for nuclear ones. The reasons for this are the alleged rampant corruption and theft, as well as the underdevelopment of the economy. Many Western analysts believe that the defeat of the Russian Federation can be achieved only by cutting off the possibility of energy trade.

Another miscalculation of the "experts" in Russia is the belief that Vladimir Putin and the regime he created enjoy very little support from the general population. They say that in the event of an armed conflict, the Russians will massively go over to the side of the conquerors, and the country will be defeated. Napoleon and Hitler thought about the same in their time - did they succeed in conquering Russia?

Rahr also notes that the West is seriously overestimating its importance. The ruling elites of a number of Western countries are sure that their point of view on what is happening in the world is primary, and all countries are supposedly trying to conform to Western patterns for the development of politics, economy and culture.

Such misconceptions can play a bad joke on the leaders of the Western world who underestimate Russia, and in a certain perspective, this can lead to a new war.
4 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Aksel2 Offline Aksel2
    Aksel2 (Alexander Z.) 3 December 2021 17: 27
    0
    After all, American standards for democracy were previously very flexible. Here you can recall how the fascist dictatorship of Antonio de Salazar, who ruled Portugal at that time, turned out to be among the founding countries of NATO in 1949.
  2. akarfoxhound Offline akarfoxhound
    akarfoxhound 4 December 2021 16: 38
    +1
    The attitude of Russians to the authorities is their personal attitude! And this relation has no connection to the unification of the people for the distribution of weighty people to uninvited "guests". And the Western oligophrenics, hungry for a stranger, regularly forget this axiom, once every 100 years they snatch to us for a reminder.
    1. boriz Offline boriz
      boriz (boriz) 4 December 2021 18: 17
      +1
      ... once every 100 years, they push for a reminder to us.

      Yes, more often it turns out, the memory is short ...
  3. otvinta Offline otvinta
    otvinta (Otvinta) 5 December 2021 17: 11
    0
    It seems to me that in fact there are no idiots to start a war with a nuclear power on our planet.
    From the large mass of media information, several key points can be noted:

    1. Part of the ships of the Pacific Fleet of amerikosov comes to the Hawaiian Islands on weekends to take a walk (rest).
    And we staged a major exercise there, without entering the 12-mile zone, given that the sea horizon is 15 miles. Those. missile flights and target explosions can be observed from the shore without binoculars.
    Well, of course, they are swimming near us in the Black Sea.
    The difference is that they swim to provoke us to Hawaiian maneuvers and once again increase the military budget for the subsequent cut, and we behave like "humiliated and insulted."
    At the same time, our "maneuvers" in the Pacific Ocean or in Alaska only help them in the Senate to receive additional funding for the purchase of weapons.
    Example:
    How will they fight? Aircraft carriers? So you don't even need to heat them. It is enough to disable the catapult with one rocket and that's it - a floating pile of metal and the end of the "war".
    And if you consider that on all aircraft carriers the catapult must "rest" for a couple of hours in order to make the next 4-6 take-offs, then you yourself understand that for us this is a "threat" in the form of aircraft carriers.
    Only if you fight with Burundi. There is such a country in Africa: less than Luxembourg.

    2. If someone paid attention, after 1945 there was not a single "world war" on earth.
    As Margaret Thatcher put it: "Nuclear weapons are the main deterrent to the outbreak of global wars."
    What wars arose after dropping only one atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
    Between non-nuclear countries or nuclear attacked non-nuclear countries without the use of nuclear weapons. But a nuclear country has never fought a nuclear one! Even minor armed conflicts did not arise between them.
    Even the war of the USSR in Afghanistan showed that in addition to nuclear weapons, it is necessary to have non-nuclear weapons and an army for a non-nuclear war, more effective than those of the "partners."
    For example, how can Ukrov "force to peace" like Georgia, if anything?
    After all, we have almost the same field weapon with them.
    As they explained to us at the military department at the university before "perestroika", there will never be a war with America, because then there will be neither America nor the USSR, and the rest will remain.
    And this is irrational.
    Before perestroika, China was considered the real enemy.
    There were too many of them, although they lived only along the rivers. But because of Khrushchev's run over Stalin, the Chinese leadership had "strained relations" with us.
    Therefore, before perestroika after the events at Domanskoye, from Irkutsk to Vladik there were so many military units of the scale of armies and corps that in Irkutsk, sort of like a civilian airport, “military aviation” was parked in the visibility zone of passengers. I saw it myself.

    3. Electronic warfare.
    If these systems are really working, as they say in the media, then it was not necessary to frighten the natives with war not near the Hawaiian Islands, but to start maneuvers in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, far from trade routes, throwing such mischief on the Americos so that 5 of their ships "climbed" into the zone exercises and electronic warfare "knock out" them all the electronics.
    It turns out that we are all peaceful, we carry out maneuvers far away so as not to scare the fish away, and these stupid people "climb under the bucket of an excavator" despite official notifications.
    It will be much more difficult for them to prove in their Senate that we are threatening them with something.
    But at the same time, we will demonstrate that we have something to "extinguish them", and without any response from their side.
    In my opinion, in the case of really working electronic warfare systems, it is much better not to sit and think about what to do with Donetsk, but to “succumb to pressure” from Germany and France, demanding that Russia “fulfill the Minsk Agreements” (MC), namely:
    Considering that the MS intend to peacefully make Ukraine a federation, then it is necessary to turn on all electronic warfare and extinguish US satellites, stop firing ammunition with at least some electronics, neutralize the guidance of missiles and shells from UAVs and US satellites, eliminating all communications and GPS at a distance of 100 km outside the "zone of contact" so that even none of their helicopters could land or take off neither in Mariupol, nor in Kharkov, nor in Odessa and give the DPR and LPR an opportunity to "gouge" all military facilities and equipment of Ukrov and hold a vote, elections or a referendum for anything.

    4. Gas in the EU is also from the area of ​​personal interests of a group of officials and the arrogance of the Americans.
    It was clear to the "hedgehog" that the Americans would never kill Gazprom at a price, but they wanted to try.
    $ 2000 x 170billion cubic meters (EU consumption per year) /1000=340billion $ - not bad money so as not to compete for them.
    As a result, it turned out the other way around:
    In six months, Gazprom earned 2,5 times more than before SP-2, having already beaten off the cost of the pipe.
    And in the summer, the EU will still certify the "pipe", and we, if we want, can "score" on Ukrov.
    But we hardly want to.
    The fact is that the budget of Ukraine is 30 times more than the income from gas transit.
    Therefore, all this fuss from the area of ​​"spoil and squeeze out a couple more kopecks."
    But the new prices neutralized all this fuss.
    And we need SP-2 to be able to supply more than 70% of the gas consumed by Europe.
    "Clean business" and no politics, as VVP said.
    The best observer of "democratic principles" is the one who will be able to devour the rest for the sake of his profit.