A new book by General Sir Richard Shirreff (Richard Shirreff), who served as deputy supreme commander of the combined armed forces of NATO in Europe from 2011 to 2014, describes a possible scenario, which leads to the beginning of the Third World War with Russia.
The book "2017: The war with Russia" (2017 War with Russia), undoubtedly belongs to the literature. However, it is quite clearly told about the incident, which is a fictional Russian president uses as an excuse to start World War III with NATO.Russia is rapidly expanding its range of military purposes, invading the Baltic countries, which are members of NATO, and then starts World War III. But the greatest concern is the fact that in his interview with a leading program Today radio station BBC Radio 4, the author stated that such a global conflict "quite possible."
Facts and Fiction
I do not want to talk about this book more (it is a good, if somewhat grim book).However, its underlying political message - clearly expressed in the preface of the book - is that clotting Western defense capabilities as well as its unwillingness and inability to resist Russia increase the likelihood of beginning of World War III. Is this an accurate assessment of the real state of affairs?
This novel is reminiscent of a book by Tom Clancy (Tom Clancy) «The Hunt for" Red October "» (The Hunt for Red October ) and the brilliant novel by General John Hackett (John Hackett) « Third World War : Aug 1985» (The Third World War : August 1985). Hackett novel, which was written at the height of the Cold War, called "future history" - the story of the beginning of NATO and further development of full-scale war against the Warsaw Pact countries.
Meanwhile, Shirreff novel is much more politicized work, in which he sharply criticizes the reduction in defense budgets in the West and his reluctance - and inability - confront the threat from the Russian side. At first glance, its arguments seem very convincing, however, if you think about, it's probably not the case.
According to the scenario proposed Shirreff, or the Russian president is no other way to achieve his political goals, except through military force, or he simply is the so-called irrational player like Kim Jong-un (Kim Jong-un) in North Korea. However, both versions do not seem to me convincing.
Undoubtedly, Russia was hit hard by a sharp drop in world energy prices and the economic sanctions imposed on it after the annexation of the Crimea, but the degree of dependence - primarily energy dependence - Western Europe from Russia is of great importance.
Security codependency
For example, through the pipeline "Nord Stream", laid in international waters of the Baltic and connecting Russia and Germany, delivered a significant proportion of gas - according to the European Union, 38.7% - necessary to meet the needs of Western Europe. In turn, Russia desperately needs foreign currency that it receives for its gas. Thus, the two sides of this hypothetical war are in a relationship of deep economic interdependence. In other words, Russia is able to exert political pressure - it will be much more efficient and it will require much less cost - simply by stopping the supply of gas. And why should she get involved in this case in the war?
Now let's move on to the extent of Putin's actions irrationality issue. An objective analysis of the Russian president's actions indicate that he behaves completely rationally and that all his steps - steps it arhipragmatika that puts the interests of his country in the first place. Apparently, Putin is preparing to lead a long game.
If you look at the situation from the point of view of Russia, in particular the European part of Russia, on all sides surrounded by denser opponents, and a growing number of its immediate neighbors, falls under the influence of the US, the West and NATO. Turkey, located at the southern borders of Russia, joined the NATO military alliance in 1952, and at the end of the Cold War, it joined many former Warsaw Pact countries, including Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria and the Baltic countries. Many Russians want their leader strongly opposed this.
Moreover, Russia has always respected strong leaders, and the current president can boast of such popularity ratings - at least 80% - of which Western politicians can only dream of. show of force - it is an integral part of the image of its leader, but why all these risks by engaging in the riskiest maneuver of international politics - in a Third World War?
There is no doubt that Putin is interested in the West to cut back on defense spending and refused to balancing policy on the brink of war. It is clear also that the general who recently retired, seeks to convince everyone of the need to reverse. But does all of this increases the probability of the beginning of World War III? Probably not, although the negligible probability is always present.
The third world war between Russia and NATO
But even if the Third World War with Russia would start, what it could be? The scenario of the Cold War, suggesting the presence of huge armies, the leading full-scale conventional war with tanks and aircraft, providing fire support on the battlefield is both outdated and remote.
Both parties have at their disposal considerable resources, although NATO is largely superior to Russia, judging by the numbers: 3.6 million in the NATO war, Russia - 800 thousand, in 7500 NATO tanks in Russia - 2750 , NATO warplanes 5.9, in Russia - 1.5 thousand. However, these figures should not be judged on the overall picture, as the NATO forces are scattered across the globe to a much greater extent than the Russian forces, but even if Russia can achieve a temporary military advantage, for example, in the Baltic States, how long it will be able to hold it and what price? However, modern armies have become less numerous than before, and they rely much more on the technology than for most of the 20th century, so large-scale battles involving heavy machinery, like the Battle of Kursk, very unlikely.
In view of all the above, the range of the missile and artillery systems, precision and power of modern precision-guided munitions, the widespread use of tracking systems (satellites, drones, listening to sophisticated electronic systems) make a modern theater of war is extremely dangerous.
Thus, while the army and some of the battle may be on a smaller scale compared to the scale of World War II, the number of deaths, the number of lost military equipment and the ability of both sides to turn everything on its way to the ruins to make the third world war far more destructive and - the sense of recovery - longer than any of those conflicts that mankind has experienced in the past.
As part of the ongoing conflict with NATO, the term "field of battle" would be very misleading: the Third World War, involving ships, submarines and aircraft, have a truly global reach, will be a truly global conflict , in which the difference between military and civilian targets it will have little meaning: it will be a war between whole nations.
And World War III will be fought not only on earth, space will also become a battleground, as well as cyberspace, in which both sides try to discredit all aspects of normal life, because the war will penetrate into the sphere of politics, infrastructure, information, and commerce.
Despite warnings Shirreff, the nightmare scenario of a nuclear war is very unlikely, as none of the parties will not be solved on the destruction of this magnitude. With regard to chemical and biological weapons , that - if at all resort to it - it is likely to be used at the local level and in a limited number.
But do not think that the scale of destruction would not be significant. This will be a full-fledged war that will go on all possible levels, from the internet and the stock market to the cosmos.
Therefore we can say that the general wrote a great, compelling novel about the war between Russia and NATO. But even if it is contained, and a few reasonable arguments in favor of a more aggressive foreign policy and increasing defense spending, calling the Russian leader openly irrational person at the same time naive and short-sighted. In the end, if it comes to a new world war, both sides are very much to lose.
No comments:
Post a Comment