World War III map. Worst and best spots in the upcoming World War III. Who is more likely to survive World War III map

The future of Russia, or the future of many "Russia", many weakened and divided states, as seen by Washington and its NATO allies, is demographic decline, de-industrialization, poverty, lack of any defensive capabilities and exploitation of the natural resources of its interior regions.

Russia's place in the plans of the Empire of Chaos

The collapse of the Soviet Union was not enough for Washington and NATO. The ultimate goal of the United States is to prevent any alternatives to Euro-Atlantic integration from emerging in Europe and Eurasia. That is why the destruction of Russia is one of their strategic objectives.

Washington's goals were working and pursued during the fighting in Chechnya. They also saw the crisis that broke out with the Euromaidan in Ukraine. In fact, the first step to rupture Ukraine and Russia was a catalyst for the collapse of the entire USSR and the end of any attempts to reorganize it.

Polish-American intellectual Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser to US President Jim Carter, actually defended the idea of \u200b\u200bdestroying Russia through its gradual disintegration and decentralization. He formulated the condition that "a more decentralized Russia would not be so receptive to calls to unite in an empire." In other words, if the US divides Russia, Moscow will not be able to compete with Washington. In this context, he asserts the following: for Russia, organized on the principle of a free confederation, which would include the European part of Russia, the Siberian Republic and the Far Eastern Republic, it would be easier to develop closer economic ties with Europe, with the new states of Central Asia and with the East, which thereby accelerating the development of Russia itself.

These ideas are not limited only to the offices of some scientists divorced from life or to individual thought factories. They have government support and even trained supporters. Below is the reasoning of one of them.

US state media predict the balkanization of Russia

On September 8, 2014 Dmitry Sinchenko published an article about the partition of Russia “Waiting for the Third World War. How the world will change ”. Sinchenko took part in the Euromaidan, and his organization, the All-Ukrainian Initiative "Rukh of State Workers", among other foreign policy goals, supports ethnic nationalism, the territorial expansion of Ukraine at the expense of most neighboring countries, giving a new impetus to the pro-American Organization for Democracy and Economic Development - GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova), joining NATO and going on the offensive with the aim of defeating Russia. Note that the inclusion of the word "democracy" in the name of GUAM should not mislead anyone - GUAM, as the inclusion of the Republic of Azerbaijan in it proves, is not related to democracy, but to balancing Russia in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

Sinchenko's article begins with a story about the origin of the expression "axis of evil" used by the United States to denigrate its enemies. It talks about how George W. Bush Jr. coined this phrase in 2002, uniting Iraq, Iran and North Korea together, how John Bolton expanded the "axis of evil" to include Cuba, Libya and Syria, how Condoleezza Rice included Belarus, Zimbabwe and Myanmar (Burma), and then into At the end, Sinchenko suggests that Russia be added to the list as the world's leading rogue state. He even argues that the Kremlin is involved in all conflicts in the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Middle East, North Africa, Ukraine and Southeast Asia. He further accuses Russia of hatching plans to conquer the Baltic states, the Caucasus, Moldova, Finland, Poland and, even more absurd, two of its close military and political allies, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Judging by the title of the article, he even claims that Moscow is purposefully seeking a third world war.

This read does not circulate on US-allied corporate networks, but it does go out directly to US government-owned media outlets. This forecast was published by the Ukrainian service of Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, which is a tool of American propaganda in Europe and the Middle East to help overthrow governments.

What is terrifying is that the article is trying to give the probable scenario of a new world war a decent look. In a disgusting way, without taking into account the use of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, which will begin in Ukraine and in the world, the article paints a deliberately false, but cozy picture of a world corrected by a major global war. Radio Liberty and the author are essentially telling the Ukrainian people “the war will do you good,” and that after the war with Russia some kind of utopian paradise will come.

The article also fits very well into the contours of Brzezinski's forecast for Russia, Ukraine and the Eurasian continent. It predicts a partition of Russia, with Ukraine being part of an enlarged European Union, which includes Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Israel, Lebanon and Denmark's North American dependent territory of Greenland. In addition, under his control, a confederation of states in the Caucasus and the Mediterranean Sea - the latter could be the Mediterranean Union, which would include Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and the Sahara Arab Democratic Republic, or Western Sahara. Ukraine is represented as an integral part of the European Union. In this regard, Ukraine, apparently, is located in the US-allied Franco-German-Polish-Ukrainian corridor and on the Paris-Berlin-Warsaw-Kiev axis, for the creation of which Brzezinski advocated in 1997 and which Washington would use to challenge the Russian Federation and its allies in the CIS.

Reshaping Eurasia: Washington's Maps of the Partition of Russia

As stated in an article by Radio Liberty, any bipolar rivalry between Moscow and Washington will end after World War III with the partition of the Russian Federation. Obviously contradicting herself, she argues that a truly multipolar world will only exist when Russia is destroyed, but at the same time makes it clear that the United States will be the most important world power, even if Washington and the European Union are weakened as a result of the predicted major war with the Russians. ...

The article is accompanied by two maps, which in general form represent the redrawn Eurasian space and the outlines of the world after the destruction of Russia. At the same time, neither the author nor two of his maps recognize territorial changes on the Crimean peninsula and depict it as a part of Ukraine, not the Russian Federation. Here are the changes made to the geography of Russia, from west to east:

The Russian region of Kaliningrad will be annexed by Lithuania, Poland or Germany. In any case, it will become part of the enlarged European Union.

East Karelia (Russian Karelia) and the currently subject of the federation, the Republic of Karelia as part of the Northwestern Federal District, together with the federal city of St. Petersburg, the Leningrad Region, the Novgorod Region, two northern thirds of the Pskov Region and the Murmansk Region, is separated from Russia with the formation of the pro-Finnish country. This territory can be completely absorbed by Finland, which will entail the creation of Greater Finland. Although the Arkhangelsk region is indicated in this article as a part of this isolated territory, it is not included on the map (probably due to an error made in the map).

Southern districts of the Pskov region (Sebezhsky, Pustoshkinsky, Nevelsky and Usvyatsky) from the Northwestern Federal District and the westernmost districts of the Smolensk region (Demidovsky, Desnegorsky, Dukhovshchinsky, Kardymovsky, Khislavichsky, Krasninsky, Monastyrshchinsky, Pochinkovsky, Rumnyatsky, , Velizhsky, Yartsevsky and Ershichsky), as well as the cities of Smolensk and Roslavl, from the Central Federal District were annexed to Belarus. Dorogobuzhsky, Kholm-Zhirkovsky, Safonovsky, Ugransky and Yelninsky districts of the Smolensk region, apparently, will be further highlighted on the map as a new border between Belarus and Russia planned to be cut.

The North Caucasian Federal District of Russia, consisting of the Republic of Dagestan, the Republic of Ingushetia, the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic, the Karachay-Cherkess Republic, the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, the Stavropol Territory and Chechnya, is separated from Russia in the form of the Caucasian Confederation under the influence of the European Union.

The Southern Federal District of Russia, formed from the Republic of Adygea, the Astrakhan Region, the Volgograd Region, the Republic of Kalmykia, the Krasnodar Territory and the Rostov Region, has been completely annexed by Ukraine. This leads to the emergence of a common border between Ukraine and Kazakhstan and cuts off Russia from the energy-rich Caspian Sea, as well as a direct southern outlet to Iran.

Ukraine also annexes Belgorod, Bryansk, Kursk and Voronezh regions from the most populated federal district and region - the Central Federal District.

Siberia and the Russian Far East, namely the Siberian Federal District and the Far Eastern Federal District, have been cut off from Russia.

The text states that the entire territory of Siberia and most of the territory of the Russian Far East, consisting of the Republic of Altai, Altai Territory, Amur Region, Republic of Buryatia, Chukotka, Jewish Autonomous Region, Irkutsk Region, Kamchatka Territory, Kemerovo Region, Khabarovsk Territory, Republic of Khakassia, Krasnoyarsk Territory, Magadan Region, Novosibirsk Region, Omsk Region, Primorsky Territory, Sakha Republic, Tomsk Region, Tyva Republic and Trans-Baikal Territory, or it will turn into several independent states under Chinese domination, or, along with Mongolia, will become new territories of the People's Republic of China. On the map, Siberia, most of the Russian Far East, and Mongolia are clearly depicted as Chinese territory. The exception is the Sakhalin Region.

Russia loses Sakhalin Island (Sakharin and Karafuto in Japanese) and the Kuril Islands, which form the Sakhalin Region. These islands join Japan.

On his own website, Sinchenko posted his article from Radio Liberty a few days earlier, on September 2, 2014. There are also the same cards that are attributed to Radio Liberty. However, on Sinchenko's personal page, there is another picture worthy of mention - this is a picture in which all the countries bordering on Russia are cheerfully cutting off pieces from Russia as if from a large dish for eating.

Mapping the New World Order: A Post-WW3 World?

The second map is a map of the planet after the Third World War, divided into several supranational states. The only exception is Japan. The second map and its supranational states can be described as follows:

As already mentioned, the European Union has expanded and controls its outskirts in the Caucasus, Southwest Asia and North Africa. This is the implementation of NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue and the Partnership for Peace at the political and military levels, as well as the Eastern Partnership and the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (Union of the Mediterranean) at the political and economic levels.

The United States forms a North American supranational entity that includes Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Guiana (Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana) and all Caribbean countries. pool.

All countries not absorbed by the United States in South America will form their own organization in the form of a smaller South America, dominated by Brazil.

A kind of bloc of South-West Asian countries or a supranational structure will be formed from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman and Yemen.

On the Indian subcontinent of South Asia, a kind of supranational entity will be formed, consisting of India, Sri Lanka (Ceylon), Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar (Burma) and Thailand.

The supranational entity will be in Australia and Oceania, and will include the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Indonesia, East Timor, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands. It will include Australia and Canberra will play the lead role.

With the exception of North Africa, which will be controlled by the European Union, the rest of Africa will unite with South Africa in the lead.

The East Asian supranational entity will include the Russian Federation, Indochina, China, the Korean Peninsula, Mongolia, and post-Soviet Central Asia. In this formation, the Chinese will dominate, and it will be governed from Beijing.

While the Radio Free Europe article and the two post-war maps can be dismissed as far from reality, several important questions need to be asked. First, where did the author pick up these ideas? Were they broadcast through some seminars held with the indirect support of the US and the EU? Second, what feeds the author's imagery of the political landscape after World War III?

In fact, the author adapted himself to the Brzezinski partition of Russia. The text and maps even include areas of North Africa, the Middle East and the Caucasus, which the European Union regards as a secondary periphery or gasket. These areas are even shaded with a light blue as opposed to the blue used to represent the EU.

Even if we digress from Radio Free Europe, no one should lose sight of the fact that Japan still claims the Sakhalin region, and the US, EU, Turkey and Saudi Arabia support separatist movements in the South and North Caucasian federal districts of the Russian Federation ...

Ukrainians

The Radio Liberty article exudes signs of Ukrainianity, which is worth dwelling on for a while.

Nations are constructed because they are all dynamic communities that, in one way or another, are constructed and held together by the collective of individuals that make up societies. In this sense, they can be called imaginary communities.

In the post-Soviet space and the Middle East, machinations are being played out with the aim of deconstructing and reconstructing nations and groups. In sociological or anthropological jargon, this can be called manipulation tribalism, and in political terms, it can be called playing out until the end of the Great Game. In this context, for more than a hundred years, Ukrainians in Ukraine have been particularly supportive of anti-government elements and anti-Russian nationalist sentiments - for the first time under the Austrians and Germans, later through the Poles and the British, and now under the United States and NATO.

Ukraine is an ideology that seeks materialization among the Ukrainian people and the introduction into it of a new collective imagination or false historical memory, in which they have always been a nation and a people separated from the Russian people, both in the ethnic and civic sense. Ukraine is a political project that seeks to deny the historical unity of the Eastern Slavs, the geographical roots and the historical background that lies behind the differences between Ukrainians and Russians. In other words, the Ukrainians are trying to get rid of the context and forget the process that led to the differences between Ukrainians and Russians.

Russia has always risen from the ashes. History is evidence of this. Russia will stand, no matter what happens. Whenever the many-sided people of Russia stand together under one banner for their homeland, they break empires. He has survived catastrophic wars, invasions and his enemies. Maps and borders may change, but Russia will remain.

The increasing number of military conflicts taking place in different countries, more and more often makes us think about how fragile peace on Earth is. Tensions are growing in relations between the West and the East, which could lead to a cold war, and it will be followed by another round of the arms race, including nuclear weapons. Is it really so unrealistic to have a new global conflict that could escalate into the Third World War?

Want to see what the world will look like after World War III? Watch a visualization of the catastrophic destruction of the world's largest cities after a fictional war.

19 PHOTOS

1. Ruined Berlin. (Photo: Michal Zak).

Frightening photographs, or rather, a well-done photomontage of large cities after the destruction, were included in a project called Eternity's End.

2. Amsterdam. (Photo: Michal Zak).

3. Brussels. (Photo: Michal Zak).

Look what can happen if world leaders do not sit at the same table and do not settle all the sharp and smoldering conflicts over the years. It will affect all of us.

4. Budapest. (Photo: Michal Zak).

Albert Einstein once said: "I do not know what kind of weapon will be used by humanity in the Third World War, but in the fourth one will use sticks and stones."

5. Buenos Aires. (Photo: Michal Zak).

Debris, devastation, smoke and fire we see in these pictures. But there are no people on them. Even corpses. As if everyone had disappeared, as if evaporated in an instant.

6. Kiev. (Photo: Michal Zak).

In the fourth world war, stones and sticks will not be used. There will be no one to use them. The weapons available on the planet are enough to raze everything to the ground and turn the world into landscapes, as in the photographs of Michal Zak - without people.

7.Moscow. (Photo: Michal Zak).

8. Tallinn. (Photo: Michal Zak).

9. Rome. (Photo: Michal Zak).

10. Riga. (Photo: Michal Zak).

11. London. (Photo: Michal Zak).

12. Madrid. (Photo: Michal Zak).

13. Tokyo. (Photo: Michal Zak).

14. Paris. (Photo: Michal Zak).

15. Prague. (Photo: Michal Zak).

Russia's place in the plans of the Empire of Chaos

Washington's goals were working and pursued during the fighting in Chechnya. They also saw the crisis that broke out with the Euromaidan in Ukraine. In fact, the first step to rupture Ukraine and Russia was a catalyst for the disintegration of the entire USSR and the end of any attempts to reorganize it.

Polish-American intellectual Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviser to US President Jim Carter, actually defended the idea of \u200b\u200bdestroying Russia through its gradual disintegration and decentralization. He formulated the condition that "a more decentralized Russia would not be so receptive to calls to unite in an empire." In other words, if the US divides Russia, Moscow will not be able to compete with Washington. In this context, he states the following: “For Russia, organized on the principle of a free confederation, which would include the European part of Russia, the Siberian Republic and the Far Eastern Republic, it would be easier to develop closer economic ties with Europe, with the new states of Central Asia and with the East, which would thereby accelerate the development of Russia ".

US state media predict the balkanization of Russia

It is terrifying that the article attempts to give the probable scenario of a new world war a decent look. In a disgusting way, without taking into account the use of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, which will begin in Ukraine and in the world, the article paints a deliberately false, but cozy picture of a world corrected by a great global war. Radio Liberty and the author are essentially telling the Ukrainian people “the war will do you good,” and that after the war with Russia some kind of utopian paradise will come.

The article also fits very well into the contours of Brzezinski's forecast for Russia, Ukraine and the Eurasian continent. She predicts a partition of Russia, with Ukraine being part of an enlarged European Union that includes Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Israel, Lebanon and Denmark's North American dependent territory of Greenland. In addition, under his control, a confederation of states in the Caucasus and the Mediterranean Sea - the latter could be the Mediterranean Union, which would include Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and the Sahara Arab Democratic Republic, or Western Sahara. Ukraine is represented as an integral part of the European Union. In this regard, Ukraine, apparently, is located in the US-allied Franco-German-Polish-Ukrainian corridor and on the Paris-Berlin-Warsaw-Kiev axis, for the creation of which Brzezinski advocated in 1997 and which Washington would use to challenge the Russian Federation and its allies in the CIS.

Reshaping Eurasia: Washington's Maps of the Partition of Russia

As stated in an article by Radio Liberty, any bipolar rivalry between Moscow and Washington will end after World War III with the partition of the Russian Federation. Obviously contradicting herself, she argues that a truly multipolar world will exist only when Russia is destroyed, but at the same time makes it clear that the United States will be the most important world power, even if Washington and the European Union are weakened as a result of the predicted major war with the Russians. ...

The article is accompanied by two maps, which in general form represent the redrawn Eurasian space and the outlines of the world after the destruction of Russia. At the same time, neither the author nor two of his maps recognize territorial changes on the Crimean peninsula and depict it as a part of Ukraine, not the Russian Federation. Here are the changes that were made to the geography of Russia, from west to east:

The Russian region of Kaliningrad will be annexed by Lithuania, Poland or Germany. In any case, it will become part of the enlarged European Union.

Eastern Karelia (Russian Karelia) and currently a constituent entity of the Federation, the Republic of Karelia as part of the Northwestern Federal District, together with the federal city of St. Petersburg, the Leningrad Region, the Novgorod Region, two northern thirds of the Pskov Region and the Murmansk Region, is separated from Russia with the formation of a pro-Ukrainian country. This territory can be completely absorbed by Finland, which will entail the creation of Greater Finland. Although the Arkhangelsk Region is indicated in this article as a part of this isolated territory, it is not included on the map (probably due to a mistake made in the map).

Southern districts of the Pskov region (Sebezhsky, Pustoshkinsky, Nevelsky and Usvyatsky) from the Northwestern Federal District and the westernmost districts of the Smolensk region (Demidovsky, Desnegorsky, Dukhovshchinsky, Kardymovsky, Khislavichsky, Krasninsky, Smolensky, Pochinkovsky, Rumnyatsky, , Velizhsky, Yartsevsky and Ershichsky), as well as the cities of Smolensk and Roslavl, from the Central Federal District were annexed to Belarus. Dorogobuzhsky, Kholm-Zhirkovsky, Safonovsky, Ugransky and Yelninsky districts of the Smolensk region, apparently, will be further highlighted on the map as a new border between Belarus and Russia planned for cutting.

Ukraine is also annexing Belgorod, Bryansk, Kursk and Voronezh regions from the most populated federal district and region - the Central Federal District.

Siberia and the Russian Far East, namely the Siberian Federal District and the Far Eastern Federal District, have been cut off from Russia.

Russia loses Sakhalin Island (Sakharin and Karafuto in Japanese) and the Kuril Islands, which form the Sakhalin Region. These islands join Japan.

Mapping the New World Order: A Post-WW3 World?

All countries not absorbed by the United States in South America will form their own organization in the form of a smaller South America, in which Brazil will dominate.

A kind of bloc of South-West Asian countries or a supranational structure will be formed from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman and Yemen.

On the Indian subcontinent of South Asia, a kind of supranational entity will be formed, consisting of India, Sri Lanka (Ceylon), Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar (Burma) and Thailand.

With the exception of North Africa, which will be controlled by the European Union, the rest of Africa will unite with South Africa in the lead.

While the Radio Free Europe article and the two post-war maps can be dismissed as far from reality, several important questions need to be asked. First, where did the author pick up these ideas? Were they broadcast through some seminars held with the indirect support of the US and EU? Second, what feeds the author's images of the political landscape after World War III?

In fact, the author adapted himself to the Brzezinski partition of Russia. The text and maps even include areas of North Africa, the Middle East and the Caucasus, which the European Union regards as a secondary periphery or gasket. These areas are even shaded with light blue as opposed to the blue used to represent the EU.

Ukrainians

The Radio Liberty article exudes signs of Ukrainianity, which is worth dwelling on for a while.

Translation for MixedNews - josser

In all this current situation with Qatar, I am primarily interested not in the topic of the "war with Iran", Trump's agreements in Saudi Arabia, "strike on China", etc. - this is all clear and obvious to more or less varying degrees.

And it’s not even that - will there be now the FIFA World Cup in Qatar in 2022.

And the fact that I see this as another confirmation (I have already written about this ten times, but even smart people sometimes argue) that it is obvious to any genius or at least just a literate aristocrat of the spirit of the thesis that it is inevitable in the looming one (but still it will be at least ten years later, but rather twenty years later) Third World War - Russia again, for the third time, - will fight as part of approximately the same coalition of "Entente bottling": Russia + England + USA - against the united continental Western Europe + China ...

In World War II, it was Japan, not China, but the essence is the same: someone strong in the East and in the Pacific; Japan is not an interesting player now, so China is instead.

The logic here is simple and obvious for the World War: in general, such a war itself can only be between more or less equals, otherwise the tasks set for the war will not be solved - the discharge of all debts, economic tension, the destruction of billions of unnecessary inhabitants of the planet, etc.

"Peripheral wars" do not solve these problems in any way. The poles of power can pretend to compete in wars in the Middle East or in some kind of Vietnam - but this does not solve global issues.

War is valuable in itself, so it cannot be a toy, an imitation and a make-believe. The war can only be real, otherwise it is not a war.

With absolutely equal rivals. It cannot be otherwise just a real war. And the real one is only to death, and not "to the first blood," as, for example, between the United States and China. They are not equal rivals. If exactly what is "Real", then the US wins the war with China in a week. On all fronts: 2,000 (and not 10!) Real atomic bombs arrive in China, all their satellites are shot down along the way, an economic oil blockade, a diplomatic blockade is arranged, all American spies and agents of influence in China are immediately activated, etc. (I deliberately coarse and narrow everything "to one week"; it's just that these details are not the topic of this text, I'm just illustrating the difference in weight categories).

Yes, China can answer - and it hurts. But this is a fight to the death, with him the winner is also usually covered in blood and with broken bones. But this is not death, but a fight to the death, this is exactly what the Third World wants to see, those who want to see it (other options do not solve anything).

And this is the whole present-day China - and even talking about the mythical war of the "Christian world against the Islamic world" is generally not serious: there, if in a serious way, then in general in half an hour. Precisely if in a serious way - when, so as not to die and save all our own - they beat everyone that is to use.

It is this kind of war that is now needed by those who need it. Not only now, specifically, but also the last two World Wars were like that - a war for the sake of war, and not to reclaim some piece of land like Belgium, stinking nests in the Balkans, etc. Everyone knows this even without me - imperialist contradictions, unresolvable economic tension, overpopulation of the Earth, etc.

And there are objectively only two equal rivals in the world now - the USA and the EU. On the economic, scientific, cultural and "ideological" aspects (the fact that the EU has slightly fewer atomic bombs is a theoretically resolvable issue; but that is why the war will not be now, but in 10-20 years, and not by single bombs).

So only they can be opponents in the coming war. The rest of the world, subject to the same logic, will only join the poles of power in a logical proportion - so that it is approximately 50/50.

Russia today is not a pole in itself, as it was under the USSR with its half of Europe and the other socialist world, including China at one time. Not a pole.

But strength, and great strength, of course. Economically not the same as China. And the economy is decisive here (as in all wars of the last 200 years).

An approximately equal rival to the United States is the EU + China, but even stronger. Therefore, here the conclusion about the USA + Russia suggests itself to the fool.

And England, of course. Still, it is still impossible for the British to fight against the British (and this is not only a question of nationality, but also many aspects of interweaving). I see this as the main "Masonic-conspiracy" reason for Britain's exit from the EU.

Just tell someone to whom about the possibility of "Brexit" three years ago - they would twist a finger at the temple. The same thing - if we would say two years ago about "The US President would be in favor of an alliance with Russia and for a war with Europe, for example, on the issue of" environmental "(purely economic, of course -" ecology "here is a purely false panel) agreements."

And now it is already clearly and in full swing. Easy and perceived as normal.

Yes, but what does Qatar have to do with it, you ask? Very simple. After all, they continue to argue on the aspect "Let the United States not fight with Europe, it is impossible, these are the closest friends." Like it was not the same in the two World Wars. They don't believe. (Yes, tired of giving historical examples - as was the case in previous times with "closest friends").

Well, here's a mega-fresh example for you. Even this morning, those who did not read the news believed that the backbone of the Sunni Arab rich Middle East and its politics (well, not the backbone, we are not discussing Egypt here, I am talking about the most wicked-ruled in political direction, all these financiers of all Arab terrorists, Al Jazeera, etc.) - there was a bunch of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. These are different countries, of course, but when they talked "about this" - they mentioned these two countries - without any Bahrain and the UAE with Kuwait.

Absolutely there was a well-established "union" in their heads, they were even mentioned without a comma (but simply with "and"). Seemingly.

And here you are. Not a day has passed - and Qatar is already an enemy of the backbone of the Arab world, and no one here experiences cognitive dissonance. As if it were.

And so in modern society in everything. And it will be with Europe and the United States. As it was in the first two Worlds.

We present to you several maps reflecting the geopolitical dynamics in the context of the global crisis. And as a lead, we publish a report on geopolitics read by Yuri Romanenko in Belarus on November 14, 2012.

Report read at the conference "Belarus at the crossroads of integrations" in Minsk on November 14.

Dear colleagues, I am honored to participate in this event. Before proceeding with the consideration of the stated topic, I want to decide on the definitions.

By the countries of Eastern Europe in this context, I mean Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova.

I set myself three objectives in my presentation.

The first isshow the key trends in the global system that will complicate the existence of the countries of Eastern Europe, or make it impossible in the current models that were formed in the 90s and 2000s. This will be an analysis of the competitive environment in which our countries are moving.

Second -what motivations have been or are being formed by key actors in relation to Ukraine, Belarus and other countries. Why will they be radicalized, in what logic.

Third -how the logic, which I will show below, already works for Ukraine.

I outlined a number of trends in my big report in December 2011. Therefore, I will not return to the causes of the global crisis, you can look at them on Khvile.

I will outline a number of key reasons and consequences following from this.

First, mismatch between the economic basis and the political superstructure. The economy has become global and governance is predominantly local. The consequence is the emergence and deepening of a wide variety of disproportions that cannot be resolved due to the inability of international institutions to coordinate the conflicting interests of two hundred states.

Second, a management crisis,connected with the fact that the main tool for managing large masses - the nation state was formed 200 years ago, and for this humanity passed through several technological structures. Therefore, the phenomenon of what I call the struggle of the online party against the offline party arose.

Third, the crisis of the capitalist system due to the lack of space for expansion. The limited space for the expansion of capital led us to the financial crisis of 2008, which grew into an economic crisis, today transforming into a geopolitical one.

Fourth, the associated depletion of a wide variety of resources.

Fifth, the resulting sharp deterioration of the ecological situation.

Sixth, threatening indicators of demography, which a) call into question the ability of the biosphere to support such a large population b) create imbalances in the balance between different peoples, generating a lot of conflicts.

Seven, ideological crisis, it is directly related to the crisis of world religions. We see how, on the one hand, Islam is again beginning to spread rapidly across the planet, and, on the other hand, we are witnessing a crisis of Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

These factors have shaped a large-scale crisis agenda for humanity. It cannot be solved within the framework of old institutions, both global and local.

Rebuilding required.

What is overhaul? Restructuring is a conflict of interest that creates imbalances. They need to be resolved.

Hence, the key questions arise: At whose expense will it be held? Whose interests will you have to sacrifice? What are the goals to be achieved? What format should it take? Etc.

To answer these questions correctly, you need to understand what subjects have these interests, what tools they have and what conflicts exist between these subjects.

This is where the fun begins. If the world, as a unified system, were controlled entirely from one center, then everything would be much simpler. It would be about optimizing relations within the system. However, the world weather is formed by subjects of different levels whose interests come into conflict with each other.

There are international institutions (financial, security, humanitarian) behind which are the interests of large transnational corporations. They operate globally. Their goal-setting lies in the establishment of uniform norms and standards throughout the planet.

There are states... Some of them operate globally, some regionally, some locally, some generally exist only on paper.

There are network organizations (humanitarian, environmental, criminal, military, etc.)that operate globally, regionally and locally.

There are ethnic groupswho also build their organizations that extend beyond their home territory. For example, Kurds, Albanians, Nigerians and others.

All these subjects of the big game have their own motivations and conflicts arising from them. We are interested in subjects that are capable of influencing Eastern Europe, and therefore, the life of everyone present.

Who are they?

This is, first of all, western conglomerate, which includes transnational organizations, corporations and their instruments in the form of states such as the United States and the empire of states - Europe, along with their Asian and other allies.

This is China as an empire state, whose influence has been steadily expanding over the past 30 years. China is forming around itself asian conglomerate, which can include a pool of allies and strategic partners in Asia, Africa and Latin America. For simplicity, we will refer to this conglomerate as China.

It's Russia, as a state that behaves like an empire, but is not. Russia depends on Western financial institutions, the European market and gravitates towards it civilizationally, but is geographically involved in the Asian agenda, which makes it extremely dependent on China. The failure of modernization has weakened Russia's position in the confrontation between the West and China, whose interests are in direct conflict.

What is the difference between their positions?

West- forms standards and is able to impose them on everyone else through various tools, thus turning them into universal ones. The ideological power of the West rests on the economic, and the economic forms the military. The West is currently the only force capable of acting globally in all aspects.

China- how a global workshop shapes a global offering in the form of a huge range of products, which in turn determines its expanding interest in resources. Objectively, China has been moving for several decades in the corridor that was opened to it after the agreements between Mao and Nixon. Economic growth has increased China's subjectivity, while at the same time turning it into a serious threat to the West. This threat is of an existential nature, since by switching over exhaustible resources, the PRC restricts access to them for the West. China pays for modernization and high growth rates with terrible ecology, social imbalances

Russia does not form anything. It takes the position of a resource pool with nuclear missiles. Resources and missiles are its main asset.

China's motivation - to increase its influence on decision-making at the global level, which will consolidate the PRC's claims for more resources, since further modernization is impossible without them.

The relationship between these actors will shape the way out of the crisis.

What is the way out of the crisis? This establishment of a new world order is better than the previous one.

What does the best mean? This means that the contradictions that led to the disorganization of the global system will be eliminated due to the harmonization of relations between its members, or due to some of its members by weakening or destroying them. A classic example is the Yalta Peace Treaty of 1945, the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, and so on. Such treaties fix new constructions of the world order for the next decades.

What will we get at the exit in case of successful resolution of the crisis (by successful resolution I mean avoiding a nuclear war that could destroy humanity in principle):

World government or quasi-world government in the form of an international organization with political functions more defined than today's UN. Such an organization will have real leverage in shaping the global agenda and enforcing its implementation.
Accordingly, global resource management and transition to a new technological order.
New mass management tool. Either through the reformatting of states, or through the formation of continental or subcontinental blocs. Either by combining one or another format
The emergence of a new space for capitalist expansion, or the emergence of an alternative and more efficient economic model
Environmental risk management on a system platform
Reducing demographic risks. Either by destroying part of the planet's population during the upcoming cataclysms, or by bringing the birth rate to zero and tightly controlling it.
The formation of a new worldview, possibly the beginnings of the formation of a new global religion.

Hence the options for overcoming the crisis:

Conservative. Trying to change without fundamentally changing anything. Now Europe is following this path. Previously, the USSR followed this path.
Active-moderate - try to change the situation globally through removing imbalances in the economy, bringing political institutions into shape adequate to the era, through regional conflicts that will change the balance of power at the global level, through the launch of technologies that will remove or reduce tension at break points.
Radical- through a global war with the use of all types of weapons, which will radically change the balance of power and impose a model that is beneficial to one of the subjects of the Great Game.

The conservative option is beneficial to China... If there are no abrupt shifts in the world, then time plays on it.

This option is also beneficial to Russia, which may try to strengthen its defensive power and create a more effective political system, which will reduce the threat of internal destabilization that emerged in the winter of 2011-2012.

Second option - beneficial to the Western conglomerate.

The third option isbeneficial to the Western conglomerate.

Hence the motivation of the parties:

West - offensive, more precisely, preventive defense.

China - defensive, more precisely, the accumulation of potential in conditions of the superiority of the forces of the main competitors.

Russia- defensive

By the way, this accurately reflects the ratio of their military potentials.

Here we will draw the following intermediate conclusions.

The crisis creates fundamentally different motivations than in ordinary times, precisely because problems cannot be solved with the usual tools.
These motivations are aimed at protecting their interests at the expense of others.
This causes opposition from Others, which dramatically raises the bar in the Game.
This dramatically increases the importance of safety, because ultimately the life (of people, communities) is the main stake in such a Grand Game.
If the protection of their interests at the expense of others requires their destruction, they will be destroyed
This means that a world war is inevitable in one format or another. In fact, it is already proceeding in the format of destabilizing regions such as the Middle East.

For Eastern Europe, this fundamentally changes the environment in which it has existed for 20 years. Since on the part of subjects with an interest in the countries of the region, security becomes, or will be, key requirements.

This gives rise to the agenda for our countries. It can be identified in order of priority as follows:

A) A sharp increase in the importance of security, which is especially evident in the example of the destabilization of the Middle East and Maghreb.

B) The resulting limitation of the space for foreign policy maneuver, since the world centers of power will increase demands on states like Ukraine or Belarus.

C) A sharp deterioration in the situation on world markets in 2013 due to the exhaustion of the previous tools to resolve systemic imbalances in the economies of the core of the world system - the USA, Europe, China. This will shake the national economies of the East. Europe is getting stronger and stronger.

D) The resulting drastic complication of the political situation, since they will undergo erosion, and then destroyed the established models and balances in the Eastern European countries. In the case of Ukraine, this has practically happened.

E) The destruction of the status quo, chaos, the formation of new state institutions or the loss of subjectivity and the transition to the protectorate of world centers of power.

Destabilization threatens Ukraine the mostbecause, remaining outside the large regional blocs, it is experiencing the pressure of the crisis more acutely, while having limited resource opportunities.

The consequence will be monstrous tension in 2013, which will transform into destabilization of the Yanukovych regime and its collapse.

USA - they openly ignore requests for help without fulfilling the political conditions of Washington, and they create a situation that ends with the destruction of the existing regime, which is unable to exist in a competitive environment.

Europe - We need it ourselves, plus he loves democracy very much, but what about us with it? Well, you know.

China - if it gives money, then only for the purchase of its workers and equipment, and you cannot feed state employees with kickbacks.

World markets? Comrades, there is still no bottom to be seen. An epic picture was drawn by the director of Azovstal a week ago: “I can state that this market (the world market for rolled metal products) has collapsed completely. Orders disappeared. " At the same time, he predicted that the situation could radically change for the better not earlier than the end of spring 2013. Let me tell you a secret - it will not change, because the factors that shaped this situation on world markets will not disappear. Let me remind you that 60% of Ukraine's white GDP is formed through exports, where metal accounts for 40% of receipts.

Business? Successfully destroyed by the reforms of Yanukovych-Azarov.

Oligarchs? Yes, perhaps they are the only ones who remain as donors of the Yanukovych regime. What does it mean? This means a conflict of interest that will inevitably develop into an inter-clan war.

This forms a new political agenda for 2013-2014.

Its essence.

Firstly, Yanukovych must be dismissed as a variable that hinders everyone - the oligarchs, the middle class, state employees.

Secondly, the threat of civil war arising from the inability of the authorities to smooth out conflicts in society must be removed from the agenda.

Thirdly, it is necessary to remove the imbalances in relations with the world centers of power - the USA, Russia, the EU.

Fourth, it is necessary to remove the imbalances that upset the Ukrainian economy and social policy.

Fifth, to form a more stable political system arising from the needs of the new social contract.

Below are three cards.

The first two, developed by colleagues from Rostend.su. In our opinion, they do not quite accurately reflect the essence of the processes, as well as the speed of propagation of the influence of a number of blocks, underestimation of others and overestimation of others are exaggerated.

The third card is specially designed for Khvilya Sergei Gromenko

2010-2015

2015-2020

map of Sergey Gromenko

World War III map. Worst and best spots in the upcoming World War III. Who is more likely to survive World War III map

Recent

You need to know