Feb 21, 2021
0 0

Sergei Mikheev replied to NATO: "I saw all your statements in the coffin"

Western politicians continue to demonize Russia, portraying our country as an almost world aggressor, allegedly Moscow is using military force to achieve its goals. Why does the West continue to escalate the situation? Presenter Elena Afonina spoke about this in the studio of the “First Russian” with columnist Sergei Mikheev. The political scientist began his comment with a personal NATO response: “I saw all your statements in the grave.”

The new head of the Pentagon Lloyd Austin does not deviate from the “general line” pursued by his predecessors. Speaking at a meeting of NATO defense ministers, he said that one of the main threats to the alliance is Russia’s “destabilizing policy.” And literally on the eve of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg noted that the alliance should become a platform for unification to counter China and Russia.

Elena Afonina: – This is not the first time we touch on this topic. And this is not the first time the Pentagon is outraged by the cooperation between Moscow and Beijing. What’s new in the latest announcements?

Sergey Mikheev: – Nothing new. It’s surprising that we talk about this all the time. What do we expect from them? Some kind of love? It reminds me of some kind of paranoia. Why do we all the time, like a rejected mistress, ask: well, love us. Don’t love us!

Here is my personal message: I saw all your statements in the grave. The problem is not in us, not in Russia. The problem is they themselves, in their main goal – they want to rule the whole world. And countries like Russia are constantly hindering them from achieving this goal.

For centuries Russia has successfully rebuffed the collective West and formed alternative meanings. We also have enough weapons to defend ourselves. Therefore, we will always interfere with the West.

Another thing is that we have the problem inside. And it lies in the fact that some representatives of the government and the so-called elite are ready to break up, but to achieve the love of the West. I absolutely do not understand why they need it. After all, the West will never change its attitude towards Russia. And everyone needs to understand this, including non-systemic fighters against power.

What is the main slogan of the non-systemic opposition? “Down with Putin! If we take out Putin, happiness will come immediately.” The same nonsense was with the Soviet Union – “We will remove the CPSU and everyone will immediately be happy.” And even earlier, in 1917, it was the same “if we remove the tsar – there will be happiness.” So where is happiness?

The conditional supporters of some Navalny cannot understand the main thing: even if your Alexei becomes president tomorrow, the West will not change its attitude towards Russia, he will not develop our country, his goals are completely different. Look at the 90s and President Boris Yeltsin, who almost rolled like a carpet before the West. Did the West help us?

Or another example is Ukraine. Six years have passed since the coup in Kiev. Where are the promised investments in the economy, where are large-scale projects, where is all this? None of this is and never will be. But the West is successfully using Ukraine against Russia. That’s all the help.

Because they look down on us all, like people of the highest class at those whom they consider inferior. If you believe them, they will use you. And if you resist, then you must be conquered. So this is a serious problem for part of our political community – the belief that we will begin to be treated differently. They will not treat us differently.

I have no doubt that if suddenly in Russia, God forbid, people like Navalny come to power, who will again bend under the “Western partners”, no investment in Russia will have to wait. On the contrary, they will begin to exploit Russia, and also use it as a ram against China. And this would be the super success of the West of the XXI century – to crush China with the hands of the Russians, with someone else’s hands, as they say, to rake in the heat.

– A number of American high-ranking officials often hear the following thesis: if not we, then not Russia. That is, they hint: we have built our own universe, if it collapses, then the world must be destroyed. Do you think we are already on the verge of such events? Some American madman is already preparing to destroy all of humanity?

– They are not ready to destroy all of humanity, because “all of humanity” includes the United States. If we talk about us, they will choose a different tactic: they will try to destabilize the situation from within – this will be the main direction, they will continue to pressurize with economic sanctions, increasing tensions within Russia, and will also try to inflame local conflicts on our borders. As the most extreme option, they use the concept of a limited nuclear war.

In recent years, the United States has returned to this concept and is even developing it. Like, earlier we said that a nuclear war is impossible, but now American theorists have come to the conclusion that, in principle, nuclear weapons can be used in a limited theater of military operations. True, they do not say the main thing: if this theater of military operations is far from the United States. And for this, Ukraine is ideal. It is an ideal place to stir up some kind of military conflict, maybe even with limited use of nuclear weapons. Or, say, some kind of Central Asia. Why not?

I think that the Americans can go for it. And this is the most dangerous line that they can cross. For example, take and unleash some kind of conflict in which it will be possible to involve Russia or, perhaps, even China, and use nuclear weapons locally. This is an extremely dangerous thing, but it cannot be ruled out.

– What could become such a conflict? How can it be modeled? What can lead to this? As we can see, the topic of Ukraine is now slowly starting to leave the acute agenda. And if not Ukraine, then what?

– Honestly, there are no other reasons besides Ukraine. Ukraine is the most acute field for confrontation in the post-Soviet space. And also Belarus. If they continue to make attempts to put their own people there, a military conflict is also quite possible there. But the answer to this can be only one: it is strengthening its military power, improving the economic situation and strengthening trust between the population and the authorities.

In addition, I think Russia should push back its borders. In order to ensure our own security, we will still need to work both in the Ukrainian and Belarusian directions, and in many others.

– Do we have allies? This is an equally important question. Because America boasts that all of Europe is under them. And at their first whistle, NATO gets up and starts certain actions. Who are our allies?

– We don’t need them. Our allies should be our army and navy, aerospace forces, rocket forces, our economy, our people should be our allies. Then, frankly, no one can do anything to us. Because if you look in the past, we won terrible wars even without allies, and we coped without them.

But in general, all this endless talk about allies is not the smartest. Let’s be honest: “friendship” between the United States and its allies is provided exclusively by the financial component. Americans print money, that’s the whole basis of this union. And take away this money tomorrow and that’s it, this whole allied system will start to burst at the seams.

Therefore, I do not think that the issue of allies is of any key importance. Yes, situationally our ally is China. But I would say that I am not an ally, but let’s say, a partner. Because the Chinese understand very well what I said: if they are left alone with the West, then China will not be able to withstand. He will not be able to withstand this, so to speak, competition with the West. It will most likely collapse. They will simply destroy him, including physically. Therefore, yes, China is our situational ally. Well, you also need to understand that, depending on the development of the situation, these roles may change.

– During the time of President Donald Trump, during the so-called trade war, China was holding on quite confidently. Or don’t you think so?

– I do not think so. China held on confidently for one simple reason: their economy is growing, and is still growing, although the growth rate slowed down. At the same time, relations between China and Russia are still quite predictable. That is, as I said, if Russia ceases to be a partner of China or, suppose, goes over to the side of the United States, then China is over. Therefore, the spike between Russia and China is a guarantee of stability for several decades, that’s for sure.

Article Categories:

Leave a Reply