so, the first response of the United States and the "collective West" to the combined, the Russian-Chinese "NO" to the plans for the forced implementation of the "digital" world order through the "great reset", took. And without waiting for the security conference in Munich. This decision took place 17 February of the Council of Defense Ministers of NATO on the adoption at the upcoming summit of the bloc this year, eighth in a row in the overall "standings" and the fourth post-Soviet Strategic Concept of the North Atlantic Alliance. Making a presentation, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg made a reservation in advance that, that the new edition of the bloc strategy for the first time since the Cold War will record NATO's opposition to specific countries, who are considered likely opponents, - Russia and China. earlier, referring to the Strategic Concepts 1991, 1999 and 2010 years, it was not about the containment of countries or blocs, and threats, which from time to time included the proliferation of nuclear and missile technologies and weapons, international terrorism, cyberthreats, as well as "fundamental environmental problems".
A brief excursion is needed here, to remind, with what kind of "milestones" of world development was the change in the North Atlantic strategic concepts in the post-Soviet times. Goals and objectives of the concept 1991 of the year, which was adopted against the backdrop of the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR, were in close correlation with the Charter of Paris for a New Europe (1990 city). This document called on all countries of the continent to maintain interaction with the USA and Canada.. This explains the scale of the "swing" of the authors of the Strath Concept-1991, complementing the traditional task of collective defense of NATO member states "Expanding security for Europe as a whole through partnership and cooperation with former adversaries". anticipated, that ex-Soviet republics and former members of the Soviet bloc will gradually be drawn into cooperation, and then join NATO by integrating military doctrines and combining military organization, the foundation of which was proclaimed "common", that is, western values. They were to be accepted, and follow them, of course, under American leadership and control. the, in particular, was dedicated to the program "Partnership for Peace", which was originally attended by Russia. The next 1999 Strathconception at the "peaceful" level was highlighted by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2000 city), in which the principle of the future "democratic globalism" was proclaimed. NATO's document focused the bloc on "broad" approaches not only to collective defense, but also to peace and stability, which extended to the entire "Euro-Atlantic region". Security was also "broadly" interpreted, understanding and provision of which included "Political, economic, social and environmental factors, beyond the defense dimension ".
Confidence that, that Russia will not be reborn, and in Eurasia with or without it there is no, who to challenge American leadership, as Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in The Great Chessboard, made adjustments to NATO's military strategy. The Role of Nuclear Weapons in Strategic Concepts 1991 and 1999 years was reduced to the minimum level of "sufficiency" to maintain peace and stability, that is, to "safety against accident" or "protection from the fool". In practical terms, this led to the gradual stagnation of the triad of strategic nuclear forces (POLICE) The United States and its subsequent lagging behind Russia due to the, that the main efforts by Washington were shifted to the non-nuclear sphere, on the implementation of the BGU concept - a rapid global strike. It was built with an emphasis on the hypertrophied development of high-precision weapons and global coverage, that in the context of the bilateral reduction of strategic nuclear forces by Moscow and Washington would increase the latter's chances of delivering a disarming non-nuclear strike from a constant combat readiness mode. It was these ideas that formed the basis of Barack Obama's "Nobel" initiatives on the universal and complete ban on nuclear weapons, which have since been repeatedly rejected by Moscow.
The first crisis of the Strathconception 1999 years happened two months after its adoption, when Russian units from the peacekeeping contingent in the former Yugoslavia made the famous march on Pristina, capturing an airfield in the Kosovar capital. After Vladimir Putin's Munich speech in February 2007 of the year, preceded by a number of unsuccessful, but the landmark attempts of Western elites to achieve disconnection of the North Caucasus from Russia, and, the main thing, after a five-day Caucasian war 08.08.08 in the bloc began to lean towards specifying the objects of "containment". The immediate response to the defeat of the Georgian regime was the full return of France in the spring 2009 years in the military organization NATO. At the same time, China appeared on the world stage for the first time., which, together with Russia, blocked the development of the financial and economic crisis according to the scenario, under the Texas Agreement 2005 of the year. It assumed the formation on the basis of US integration, Canada and Mexico North American Union, and then, through its union with the EU - the Transatlantic Alliance with the alleged center in Britain. The most interesting: "Texas architects" viewed China as their "strategic asset", hoping to move the global financial center to Singapore, covering it with an alliance with Hong Kong and a number of provinces in the south of the PRC, primarily Guangdong, and also Australia. December eventful 2009 year was marked by a major scandal at the Copenhagen Climate Conference (XV Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). Attempts by the West to push through solutions in their interests, taken behind the scenes, stumbled upon a powerful Chinese response, supported by developing countries and Russia; as a result, the "climatic scam" of the West slowed down to 2015 years and did not reach the original "Danish" decisions. That is, joint actions of the PRC with Russia, who stopped the crisis and forced its organizers to "turn the shafts" from the collapse of the dollar and the introduction of amero to flooding the fire with QE programs, came as a shock to Western conceptual elites. On the basis of these facts, the chairman of the North American group of the Trilateral Commission, Joseph Nye Jr., then erupted in the address of Beijing in a major article in the Project Syndicate, accusing the Chinese authorities of "betraying" Deng Xiaoping's policy of an alliance with the United States. In November 2010 the third post-Soviet NATO Strategic Concept appeared, wherein, first of all, emphasized the "value" community of the participants, their adherence to certain human rights principles. In other words, the alliance is opposed to, who does not share these values in the American reading; it is here that hints of Russia are contained, as well as China, although it is officially said, what "None of the states is considered an enemy". The document is significantly expanded as a list of threats, and NATO's key objectives. There are three proclaimed: along with "collective defense", also "crisis management" and "cooperative security". Outlines plans for managed conflict prevention and resolution in alliance areas of interest, which are extremely expanding, covering the whole world, and proclaims "broad" cooperation based on partnerships with countries, non-NATO, and international organizations. In this way, camouflage the desire to turn NATO into the official military organization of the UN, supported by calls for further expansion of the alliance, possible, as we understand, eastbound only.
If we look through the prism of this history, what was discussed in relation to the future Strategic Concept as amended 2021 of the year, then the general trends are quite clear. it, At first, proclamation of Russia and China, in fact, opponents of the alliance, which equates the upcoming adoption of this document with the official declaration of a new cold war. For, again, in none of the previous stratum concepts, beginning with 1991 of the year, specific countries - objects of "containment" were not indicated, and if specific sources of threats were named, then associated purely with the activities of non-state actors. Secondly, according to Stoltenberg, the new edition will proclaim the centralization of control over the NATO advance to the East and the strengthening of positions in the potential front-line zone. It is necessary to highlight two points here - the bloc assumes obligations for the deployment of national military contingents on the "eastern flank" of the alliance, that is, near the borders of Russia and Belarus; before that, such troop movements were financed from national budgets. It is also necessary to highlight the "message", sent by the leaders of the alliance to the authorities of Kiev: "The date of Ukraine's joining NATO has not been determined, but the necessary reforms must be continued ". In the totality of these theses, not only preparations for a possible "hot" phase of the conflict with Russia are clearly encrypted. (what do not marginal experts point to?), but also the transfer of the front line closer to the vital centers of our country through the expansion of NATO. How? for example, "Croatian scenario" in Donbass in case of a quick success of the Armed Forces of Ukraine removes internal territorial problems, who "do not let" Ukraine into the alliance, and when the aggressor "slips" it creates the possibility of escalation and internationalization of the conflict with the involvement of neighbors. AND, of course, with the untied hands of NATO's Brussels headquarters, whose strategists will have a whole range of further opportunities.
This turn of the West towards frontal confrontation did not begin today. Tensions have been whipping up all the previous years, but since the Ukrainian crisis 2014 year she switched to a regime of pressure in the form of unilateral sanctions. December 2017 of the year, the US National Security Strategy was released, in which Russia and China were called "revisionist" powers, "Threatening the existing world order" Pax Americana. In November 2020 year, the report "NATO-2030: unity in a new era ", which is part of the initiative of the Stoltenberg Secretary General of the same name. Since the task is to develop recommendations to the heads of NATO countries for the upcoming summit 2021 of the year, the presentation of a draft of a new stratum concept can be considered an important step in its implementation. That is why, third, the alliance is going to expand and extremely internationalize the military presence in Iraq, at the borders of Iran and Syria. That is, to consolidate the trend outlined back in Afghanistan to expand the boundaries of its interests and spread it far beyond the bloc's zone of responsibility, as formulated in the Washington Treaty (on the creation of NATO) 1949 of the year. In fact, new strath concept, if it is accepted as it is, which Stoltenberg is talking about, finally shapes the global ambitions of the alliance. And as soon as we are talking about NATO's withdrawal into the Persian Gulf basin, then this means the actual closure of the southeastern flank with the so-called "Indo-Pacific" concept of the United States. With deep coverage of Eurasia from the south and with the ability to block both marine, and coastal communications of inland countries among themselves. The question is, how in this situation will the "eastern NATO" be formed in the face of the four Quad (USA, Japan, Australia, India) - through the expansion of NATO itself or the constitution of a new, NATO-related, military-political alliance - not the point. Much more essential, what's the connection in the Strath Concept 2010 years of military factors with political, implemented by Obama's concept of "return to the APR", developed into a single NATO strategy in Europe and the Far East. Meanwhile forming alliances, linking different theaters of war (TVD), remains an important pre-war sign. This is the main thing, what should be understood, while the specific details of this plan tend to be revealed as it is implemented.
There can be no two opinions: presented configuration in any form - and with global NATO, and with its alliance with the military version of the Quad - reflects the basic concepts of Anglo-Saxon geostrategy, reflected in the views of the classics of geopolitics. First of all, Halford Mackinder, with his fundamental opposition of Sea and Land civilizations, which Karl Haushofer and Karl Schmitt echoed from their positions. And also Alfred Mahan with his marine "anaconda ring", subsequently brought ashore by Nicholas Spykman in the concept of "Rimland" - border limitrophes, moved by the Sea deep into the Land with the help of externally controlled creation and resolution of various internal conflicts in them. And in vain we have someone pretending, as if he doesn't understand, where the wind of the so-called "preventive diplomacy" blows, first unveiled at the UN as a concept back in 1992 year. And in 2005 year fixed in the form of management institutions, Peacebuilding Commission and Fund («peace-building») at the UN General Assembly. “Peacebuilding” is the same instrument of control through controlled internal conflicts and the same component of the notorious “great reset” in the political sphere, as "sustainable development" - a way of imposing economic and social models through an "expanded" interpretation of ecology. In, what's the formula ["Reset" = "peacebuilding + "sustainable development"] constitutes the ideological foundation of "Western-style globalization", the latest NATO strategic concepts convince, where these guiding concepts are separated by commas, only, as we see, "In your own words".
A little touch: great merit of the Chinese leadership is the impressive interception of the initiative in the UN in terms of the aforementioned "preventive diplomacy". The PRC has long been an unconditional leader in terms of active participation in peacekeeping actions., what, without a doubt, blocks many destructive urges of Western leaders to use the institution of peacekeeping missions for their own purposes and interests.
In conclusion, three generalizing considerations. first. In a crisis, accelerated by covid experiments of those interested countries, governments and the transnational “deep” structures behind them, as well as their ubiquitous agents of influence, there is a rapid growth of uncertainty in the world, but confrontational tendencies, expressed by the formation of opposing alliances. Through the efforts of the elites of the West, unable and unwilling to abandon the plans of global digital totalitarianism, multiplied by genocide, not even downsizing, and the destruction of billions of people, humanity is being pushed along the same suicidal route, which was the preparation of both world wars of the last century. Through bloc politics, within the framework of which NATO is brought to the global level the military-power component of this project, which in the political sphere relies on an extensive system of institutions, UN agencies and programs. Key postulates of the new NATO Strategic Concept in the future edition 2021 of the year, from the adoption of which block, if he does not want to act as an instigator of a global military conflict, should be abandoned, aim in this direction. "Big West" with countries, sharing Western values are, if these trends are not reversed, future aggressor alliance, historical successor of the "millennial" Nazi Third Reich, the entire "Anti-Comintern Pact".
The second consideration. Accelerating rapprochement between Russia and China, increasingly acquiring features of not only economic, but also a military-political alliance - a response to these threats from the West, non-disruptive to the global balance, inhibiting the development of threatening trends. By rejecting the ultimatum demand of Western elites to accept their misanthropic concept of the future, known as "digital concentration camp", Moscow and Beijing are officially declared the main opponents of its conceptual inspirers, customers, executors and beneficiaries. AND, respectively, enemies of the United States and other Western countries, whose authorities are under their control. Dilemma, facing our countries: or forcing geostrategic opponents to peace, compromise and building equal, multipolar world order, or the choice between surrender and nuclear self-destruction of humanity.
And the third. Positive trends in Russian-Chinese relations, including the formation of a full-fledged union, - necessary, but an insufficient condition for successfully confronting this global challenge, the answer to which is directly related to the fate of the planet and humanity. Maintaining the status quo in the UN Security Council and a number of global institutions does not diminish the relevance of the global alternative, as models of the future, and a parallel system of institutions, able to limit and move the global influence of Western elites. This consideration is of particular importance against the background of the new US administration's promise to convene within a year its "alternative" to the UN in the face of the world "forum of democracies", what is one of Joe Biden's key campaign promises in foreign policy. Without anticipating the specific forms of a possible Russian-Chinese response, note, that this issue requires urgent consideration. And as on a bilateral, and at the multilateral level, including international organizations, associations and projects with high influence of Russia and China - SCO, BRICS, "Belt and Road", YeAES, CSTO, ВРЭП, "Great Eurasian Partnership" and others.
Should be understood, that with the promulgation of plans for the adoption of a new NATO Strategic Concept, the global situation receives a new impetus towards destabilization, and the confrontation enters into a clinch, fraught with serious global consequences.
