banner
Feb 18, 2021
1 Views
0 0

“Mother Russia has a great goal: to defeat the United States without firing a single shot.”

Photo: UIG / TASS

It seems that practicing “theoretical Russophobia” is becoming a fashionable pastime for the Western expert community. Moreover, the more references to themselves from similar anti-Russian authors, the higher the demand for articles and books about the nature of the Russian bear’s treachery. Yes, undoubtedly, behind all this you can see the ears of the local arms lords, converting the “aggressiveness” of Moscow into hard currency. But one should not underestimate the fact that we are sincerely disliked and feared in many countries.

This problem cannot be ignored also because in “Europe and America” there is no consensus on a clear definition of what is our “fault” and why we should be feared like a mad animal. At the same time, in the liberal circles of Russian society, a consensus has formed on the reasons for the global confrontation between the Axis of Washington and lonely Moscow. They say everything went awry after the Russians offended Ukrainians in 2014.

In fact, Russophobia has a completely different nature: Crimea, Putin, and even the Soviet past have nothing to do with it. Two ordinary Norwegian officers Nyal Hoam and Marius Christiansen in the magazine Small Wars, unwittingly, explained that the entire Western model of the world order is historically based on the classical vassalage. And there should be one overlord – now it is the USA. They are so accustomed to it, because it streamlines relations with neighbors and simplifies a pleasant bourgeois life.

Hatred of our country began even before the Crimea, as soon as Russia began to get out of the technological deadlock of the 90s, Hoem and Christiansen actually admit. Moreover, this is not so much about the usual missiles, fighters and tanks, but about a new weapon – cybernetic, the complexity of which is simply not understood by many. It is understandable why: in new wars, old weapons are ineffective, although people continue to think in terms of the Vietnamese and Iraqi campaigns.

“Russia has implemented cyberspace as an integral part of its strategic structure and has repeatedly demonstrated its effectiveness in achieving political goals,” Hoehm and Christiansen write. “The West seems to be on the defensive.”

In general, the EU and the United States in relation to peripheral countries act in accordance with the French so-called “cult of the offensive”, formed back in 1913. For this, both the chaos strategy and the order strategy are used depending on the situation. A classic example is the war of Germany against the USSR in 1941-1945.

Yes, at first the Germans managed to cause a loss of control in the Soviet troops and in the front-line zone, after which they began to pursue the bloody Neuordnung policy in the occupied territories. Actually, nothing new: the British did exactly the same with the Indians during the colonization of America. And no one condemned the “founding fathers” for crimes against humanity.

But the Germans did not succeed with the Russians in World War II, although the Barbarossa plan cannot be called a complete failure.

In other words, Russia is already familiar with the Western cognitive “offensive cult”. In this regard, Hoehm and Christiansen make it clear that now the strategy of “chaos-order” must be moved to cyberspace – more precisely, to the Internet of Things (IoT), while social networks, in fact, are a continuation of the old practice of using agents of influence. The Kremlin will at least cope with them, because it has an understanding of the danger.

On the other hand, according to Norwegian officers, the Yankees are blunt when they take offense at the Russians for alleged cyberattacks. They write: “In the digital age, we can confidently say that cybernetics is like electricity. And there is no clear line between the future war and the current operational environment. “

In short, everything that happened to Crimea in 2014 is not a defeat for some Kiev, it is a defeat for Washington itself. They say, let the tales that the United States did not plan and did not carry out the Maidan are told to children before bedtime, but not to adults. The CIA, NSA and Army Intelligence (military intelligence) failed to cope with the Russian special services, primarily in cyberspace, since the Yankees were betting on a cognitive model of confrontation. In short, the Americans ran as if stung in the ass, trying to quickly restore order to the “square” after the chaos they themselves created.

It is clear that “adults” in the US and the EU are shedding crocodile tears over Taurida. The return of Crimea to Russia in the course of a popular referendum is, first of all, a time bomb for pro-American Ukraine. Not only has Washington not coped with the role of defender and proved to be a weakling, but also Kiev is forced to sever economic ties with Moscow by shooting itself in the foot. But how good it was for the population until 2014, when the Ukrainians used all the advantages of friendship with the Russians.

This happened despite Russia’s economic weakness relative to the “golden billion,” Hoehm and Christiansen argue. Worse, Russian “modernists” have come to dominate the government and “react asymmetrically to technological challenges.” They have to be smart where the resources and economies of the West make it possible to “roughly exploit” a technological advantage.

Cyber ​​weapons are precisely Moscow’s asymmetric decision on the economic and military advantage of Washington and its vassalage. An explanation is important here. If you look closely, the American army is, first of all, an area of ​​IoT, which people, whether they are three times professionals, cannot be hacked. Only amateurs can talk about the so-called unique Russian hackers who, with the help of all sorts of “Trojans”, penetrate the Pentagon’s holy of holies. Yes, it is possible to break through to the lower level of the US Department of Defense control system because of the notorious human factor, but it is impossible to redirect missiles or prohibit aircraft departures.

This, however, is only possible for artificial intelligence, which, having penetrated the databases and command and control system of the American army, will deceive any cyber defense. History compels Hoeme and Christiansen to suggest such a development. Say, if you think that in the past the West did not have a technological advantage and did not use it in wars against Russia, you are wrong. Perhaps in some cases it was even more than now, but the empire has always coped with these challenges. It is naive to think that it will be different now. Russians have always found asymmetric solutions, and they will find them today – the mentality is that. As they say, the need for invention is cunning.

The Norwegians give an example of drones. A few years ago, it was widely recognized that “the technological gap between Russian and Western UAV manufacturers, especially in advanced systems, will continue to grow, but now no one has such confidence.” Moreover, “while Russia may still lack a Predator-equivalent strike drone, overall the capabilities of (Russian drones) outstrip their Western counterparts.”

“Mother Russia really does have a great Russian strategy,” write Hoehm and Christiansen. In the classical sense, it is “ensuring the security of the empire.” Normal and understandable desire, especially after the defeat in Cold War 1.0. This means that Moscow should not have a stronger rival, which means a return to multipolarity. “The most obvious threat to this vision is the constant adversaries of the United States and its NATO allies, as well as competition for influence on regional actors,” the Norwegians state.

As they say, their words to God in the ears. In fact, this is a recognition that the Russian Federation is not going to attack anyone. But the United States does not need a multipolar world at all. What the Norwegians offer to the Americans is again to learn to fight without communications and GPS. No, you don’t have to give up the IoT, but making Internet things a key advantage is also dangerous. In short, according to Hoehm and Christiansen, “Russia understands, appreciates and embraces this changing context and character of war. But if confrontation with the West

escalates, it is quite possible that the Russian government will not feel any remorse over the conduct of destructive cyber attacks against the West. “

What this may lead to, Western experts do not even want to think. The hacked cyberspace of the United States will halt the economy, de-energize cities, disrupt logistics, and paralyze the army and police. Then the United States, which is beginning to burst at the seams due to the squabbling of statesmen and globalists, will indeed split into separate states.

Article Categories:
Politics
banner

Leave a Reply