How Russia broke off the plans of the United States in the Crimea. Why Crimea will remain in Russia, or why the United States should overthrow Putin Crimea will be American

To begin with, let's firmly, firmly learn, remember and consolidate the following facts. In order not to cast a shadow on the wattle fence, so as not to stray ourselves and not confuse others. To clearly understand that using the term "annexation" in relation to the Crimea is unacceptable, illiterate and stupid. So.

Crimea is an integral part of Russia

The Crimean region was transferred from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR on February 19, 1954 on the personal initiative of the head of the CPSU N.S. Khrushchev to the 300th anniversary of the Pereyaslav Rada as a sign of eternal friendship between the Russian and Ukrainian peoples. This was decided on January 25, 1954 at a meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU and then formalized first by a decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR of February 5, 1954, then by a decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR of February 13, and, finally, by a decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of February 19 of the same year.

This whole chain of decrees was illegal, because: a) the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU did not have the right to transfer the territories of one republic to another, b) the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1937 does not name the right to resolve issues of the territorial integrity of the RSFSR among the powers of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, c) none at all the state authorities of the RSFSR were not entitled to change the territory of the RSFSR or give consent to its change.

The only way to obtain the consent of the RSFSR to change its territory would be a referendum. And paragraph "g" of Article 33 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation endowed the Presidium of the Supreme Council with the right to conduct a nationwide poll (referendum). In 1954, this was not done: a referendum taking into account the opinion of the inhabitants of Crimea was not held during the transfer. Thus, the acts of 1954 on the transfer of the Crimean region from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR have no legal force from the moment of their adoption.

That is, absolutely all Ukraine's claims to the Crimea, absolutely all the grounds laid by Ukraine for the demand to return the Crimea are VOID!

Recently, US Vice President Joe Biden explained to the American media why the US does not recognize Crimea as Russian and insists on returning the peninsula to Ukraine:

“The US is interested in further development of cooperation with Ukraine, just as Ukrainians want to cooperate with the US. A key interest for us is Crimea, which was controlled by Kyiv until 2014. This region could serve as an excellent military base for NATO and US troops directly. It's no secret that Ukrainians want to join NATO and we are ready to meet Ukraine halfway in this matter. But now this process has been frozen due to the conflict with Russia. After the conflict is resolved and Kyiv resumes control over all regions, we will begin a dialogue on the further Western integration of Ukraine.”

In fact, Biden says to the Ukrainian authorities: “Return Crimea and then we will talk about your further European integration.”

That is, the United States does not need Ukraine without Crimea.

A LITTLE ABOUT MODERN MILITARY TACTICS

Looking at the characteristics of the Russian S-500, S-400 missile systems and their American Patriot competitors, some conclusions can be drawn.

If you take a compass and a map of Eurasia, and outline the range of the S-500 system - 750 km. from Crimea and from any point on the border between Russia and Ukraine, you can easily make sure that the entire territory of Ukraine, Transnistria and Moldova is under the so-called Russian "umbrella" S-500. Regions of Western Ukraine - from the north-west in the coverage area of ​​systems located in the Kaliningrad region.

Not only that - almost the entire territory of Turkey, including the entrance to the Black Sea - the Bosporus and Dardanelles.

That is, everything that flies into the coverage area of ​​\u200b\u200bthis "umbrella" will be quickly detected and destroyed. Be it a rocket, a fighter or a bomber. Of course, the military is well aware of this.

It’s just as good as the fact that if some Ukrainian city like Kherson, Dnepropetrovsk or even Donetsk suddenly, God forbid, someone strikes with a nuclear warhead, the world media will unanimously shout that it was arranged namely Russia. Who else?

So if something blows under the Russian “umbrella”, and God forbid a second Hiroshima happens, the Russian army will definitely not be washed off. In whose hands the umbrella is wrong - Either the umbrella is full of holes, or you don’t know how to hold it.

So today we can say with confidence that there is only one “umbrella” and only one side holds it, and therefore Ukrainians can look into their sky today with some calmness.

POSSIBLE SCENARIO OF EVENTS ON THE TERRITORY OF UKRAINE

And now let's try to imagine how events could have developed if Crimea had not been protected by Russia, and if the people of Crimea had not voted almost unanimously in favor of returning to Russia.

As we remember, right before Yanukovych's flight from the country, an agreement was concluded with the leaders of the pro-European opposition. Representatives of the European Union and Russia were present at its conclusion. Yanukovych then backtracked. According to this agreement, early presidential elections were announced in Ukraine, and opposition leaders were given good positions.

It is not difficult to guess what could happen if the opposition observed these agreements: the agreement on the presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Crimea would be terminated in a matter of months. And quite possibly Yanukovych himself. And if not by him, then by his follower - a representative of the opposition with 100% probability. By the way, as many people remember, the representative of Russia at these negotiations between Yanukovych and the opposition refused to sign anything. Obviously, he understood that Yanukovych had surrendered, and foresaw the negative consequences of this surrender for Russia.

There is no doubt that after all the events in Ukraine, a pro-American opposition leader would have won the early elections in Ukraine, with all the ensuing consequences for Sevastopol. In any case, the Russian fleet and army in Crimea would have only a few months left. And this should be clear to everyone.

The Russian fleet and military contingent of more than 20,000 soldiers and officers would be forced to leave the peninsula, and the US Navy would soon take its place, and Crimea would turn into an unsinkable aircraft carrier - a US military base with its "umbrella". Of course, its coverage area is 4 times smaller than the Russian one, judging by the characteristics, but this is quite enough. After all, the Patriot can carry a nuclear warhead.

By the way, as you know, even before the Maidan, the Americans in Crimea had already begun to create infrastructure for their Navy. The photo shows the page of the Federal Business Opportunity public procurement resource, depicting a tender for the reconstruction of Sevastopol School No. 5. The school was supposed to be reconstructed, of course, not for students, but for use as an engineering base for the US Navy. Information about this tender is still hanging.

By the way, as many remember, during the Maidan, the US fleet was stationed in the Black Sea. Of course, to ensure the safety of American athletes at the Sochi Olympics)) Why else?))

But the agreement was thwarted by the radicals in the evening on the Maidan. When the representative of the "Right Sector" centurion Parasyuk from the scene of the Maidan accused the opposition leaders Yatsenyuk, Klitschko and Tyagnibok of criminal agreements with Yanukovych and promised to lead people with weapons to the Verkhovna Rada in the morning if Yanukovych did not immediately resign.

If Russia left Crimea, it is quite possible that the events in the South-East of Ukraine could develop in a completely different, much more bloody way. Already with the direct intervention of the ground forces and the Russian Aerospace Forces in the conflict. It is unlikely that Russia would allow a foreign missile defense system to appear near Belgorod or Rostov in a year or two, or even earlier.

It is quite possible that Ukraine would turn to NATO for help, which would lead to the start of a world war. Moreover, the war would develop precisely on the territory of Ukraine. There is no doubt that the Russian troops in this case would not have been defensive but offensive.

As Karaganov, a personal adviser to the President of Russia, one of those who shape the Kremlin’s policy, recently stated: “Russia will never again fight on its own territory…”

WHAT IS MODERN WAR

Nuclear weapons are undoubtedly the last resort that can be used in a world war. And it will be important who will apply it first. In the meantime, local wars are being waged without its use. As we see today in the example of Libya, Syria, Iraq, the modern war waged by the major powers of Russia, the United States or the Alliance is primarily aviation, missile strikes and bombing of the infrastructure of large cities.

In the event of a global war on the territory of Ukraine, where the so-called "vanishing point" of ground forces would be - either in the Kirovograd region, or would pass along the Dnieper, who exactly and from where would bomb Ukrainian cities - it would not be clear to the population. Either this would be done from the territory of Ukraine, the US Crimean Air Base, or from the territory controlled by Russia. And it doesn't matter. The main thing is that the cities of Ukraine would be bombed.

Of course, the flows of refugees would have rushed to neighboring countries. Someone to the EU countries, but the bulk to Russia and the CIS countries.

It is quite possible that in the struggle between Ukraine and NATO against the Russian army, the United States could at first take a wait-and-see attitude, watching what is happening from Crimea and possibly helping both sides, waiting until both weaken. By the way, during the Second World War, they did just that - many American companies, in addition to the USSR, also helped Germany: General Motors, Ford and many others are examples of this.

And you must admit that there are more than enough opportunities to deliver a provocative nuclear strike, without fear that your missile will be shot down, from Crimea. At the same time, it does not matter on whose territory this victim city would have been by this time. Either on NATO-controlled or Russian troops. In this regard, the world media are working clearly and in one direction - we already know this. And Hollywood specialists would first take care of a beautiful picture. (Or do you think that the filming of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was done by local operators?))

In the event of a nuclear strike, having guessed the necessary "wind rose", a radioactive cloud could be launched on Europe - then it will certainly be clear to everyone who is to blame! Yes, and the Europeans will become angrier, it will be better to fight for the Alliance.

The main thing is that European capitals, which, as you know, “love silence” and good ecology, would rush across the ocean to a “safe harbor” where there have been no wars for 250 years, thereby strengthening the staggering US economy and strengthening the dollar.

Here is a possible scenario.

Could the Russian Federation, an adversary of the US and NATO, allow this under its nose?

The answer is obvious. No. Allowing foreign missiles into the region, even weaker ones, is a retreat. That is why all of them are not numerous, and as we have seen, the unsuccessful efforts of Russia in recent years in Ukraine were aimed only at working with the population of Crimea. And so it is clear that the Crimeans have always been more pro-Russian than, for example, the population of the same Donbass. If Russia “tried” with the same success on the territory of other regions of Ukraine, the scenario on both sides could be completely different. And not the fact that with less complex consequences ...

So today the Baltics have to get nervous and deal with the "Russian threat" in the form of exercises near their borders, putting up missile defense and increasing the NATO contingent. After all, they, unlike Ukraine, are under two “umbrellas” of competing missile defense systems and a global war in Europe can begin sooner there.

But how the Balts wanted to avoid such a development of events 2.5 years ago. When Yanukovych was visiting Dalia Grybauskaite, he suddenly “changed his mind” about being associated.

1. By remaining in Crimea and not launching foreign missiles there, the army of the Russian Federation then removed the possibility of starting a global war on the territory of Ukraine.

2. It seems that Russia has not let its gas superprofits of recent years go to the left since the signing of new gas contracts, but has used them to modernize weapons and accelerate the rearmament of the army. That allowed her today to achieve a significant advantage in the rocket and space sphere. States, on the contrary, preferred to invest in other funds. They have been waging ideological wars for a long time - processing the consciousness of the local population, causing them an irresistible desire to live according to the canons of the "American dream", spending more than they earn, and arranging color coups. After which they either put their puppets, or force the local population to fight each other in civil conflicts. It is no coincidence that Mrs. Nuland said that the United States has invested $5 billion in the "development of democracy" in Ukraine.

The cold war between the US and Russia continues, and God forbid it develop into a hot phase.

Why did US missile cruisers frequent the Black Sea, why do the Americans worry about the presence of the Russian fleet in Sevastopol, and what danger is their interest in our peninsula, said international relations expert Alexander Timchenko.

- Recently, Sevastopol was visited by a modern missile cruiser of the sixth attack fleet of the US Navy "Vella Gulf". This caused particular concern among Russian military experts. Why do you think? After all, since 90sOver 200 American warships have already entered the Black Sea...

“There are several factors at once here, and the approach of the cruiser Vella Gulf is just the visible tip of the iceberg. Now US foreign policy is aimed at maintaining the so-called "Arab Spring" - a wave of protests and revolutions in the countries of the Maghreb and the Middle East. And also to strengthen its influence in Asia, including the preparation of a possible war in Iran. America needs military outposts and transshipment bases closer to the zone of influence and the theater of operations. In this sense, the Black Sea is the best suited for the implementation of such plans. The presence of the navy in Sevastopol allows Russia to control the Black Sea region and exert some pressure on the Black Sea countries, protecting their interests. But if US Navy warships are constantly present in the Black Sea, this will mean that the southwestern part of Russia is under the control of the Americans. And missile defense systems deployed on cruisers, such as, for example, the Vella Gulf, will directly threaten Russia's security. So their concern is understandable. Moreover, the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Federation, Nikolai Makarov, in response to the frequent visits of American ships to the Black Sea, made a statement that they have provided appropriate measures. Whether Russia will decide on an open confrontation is unknown, but these words sounded quite menacing.

- There is an opinion that the United States is interested not so much in the Black Sea as in Crimea itself. Is it really?

- If we open a history textbook, we will notice that for thousands of years many countries fought for Crimea, for the possession of its territory. Starting from the ancient Greeks, who founded their first colonies in Tauris, then the Ottoman Empire and ending with the coalition countries during the Crimean War and Hitler, who had the most ambitious plans for our peninsula. And now Crimea remains an important strategic territory from which it is possible to control the Black and Azov Seas, the Balkans, Asia Minor, the Caucasus and the southern borders of Russia. For the United States, Crimea could become the key that unlocks all Eurasian doors. Therefore, when representatives of the “orange” authorities carried out all sorts of “pro-NATO” campaigns and almost made their biggest mistake, this is exactly what I feared. Now, despite the fact that our relations with NATO are quite friendly, Ukraine has renounced Euro-Atlantic integration at the legislative level and secured a non-bloc status.

Crimea has become of particular interest to the United States in recent times. At the same time, notice how consistently and imperceptibly the Americans launch their tentacles into the Black Sea. First, scientific ships began to appear in our water area with the aim of supposedly exploring the Black Sea from the point of view of geology and archeology. I will not say that the discoveries made by the same famous oceanologist and archaeologist Robert Ballard five or six years ago were insignificant for world science. Still, they confirmed the version of the flood, found hundreds of well-preserved ships of the ancient era. But I am sure that the sponsors of all these expeditions were interested in finding natural resources and studying the water area for the subsequent military presence. And the active development of the region by the Pentagon was not long in coming. The United States actually began to implement plans to deploy missile defense components in the Black Sea zone. Is this just a coincidence? I doubt. It was not for nothing that Western scientists were not allowed to study the Black Sea through the Bosphorus under Soviet rule. Such rigor was fully justified.

- If the conflict between the United States and Russia continues to grow, what can Ukraine do in this regard?

“The best thing to do is to do nothing. Non-bloc status plus a neutral position in relation to both countries will allow us to maintain peace and tranquility. Although it will not be easy to be between two fires. On the other hand, the US military presence in the maritime zone of Ukraine will force Russia to hold its positions in Sevastopol and make concessions in order to preserve the base of the Black Sea Fleet, including agreeing to more loyal terms in gas issues. Although it seems to me that Russia will not allow the permanent presence of American warships in the Black Sea. After all, this will mean the loss of its influence in this region. Two bears can't get along in the same den. Especially since recently Russia has ceased to be afraid to show character. For the first time in the last 20 years, the Russian Federation intervened in the situation in the far abroad, when, together with the League of Arab States, it decided to resolve the situation in Syria and called for an end to any violent interference from outside. Already after a series of Arab revolutions, Russia realized that it was time to stop this process before it swept the CIS countries.

Alexey PRAVDIN

I'll add more from myself. At one time I also did such an analysis, it’s just that my hands didn’t reach all this so beautifully. But this map is not complete because. that looks only 180 degrees. And if you look at 360, you will find that cruise missiles are targeting all of Syria, half of Iraq and a significant part of the Persian Gulf, with the Su-35 and T-50 reaching the Strait of Hormuz and the Suez Canal. Yes, and Saudi Arabia is within reach of the latest tactical fighter-bombers and fighters gaining air supremacy. In general, a very complete northern animal.

Originally posted by info_infanterie at Simple and clear

Originally posted by sokura at Simple and clear

Original taken from wod_1958 in simple and clear

Original taken from alindomik V

Original taken from all moment V

In the network now and then voices are heard that the Crimea was not worth the costs that we bear. The colleague convincingly proves that the peninsula, and above all the base of the Black Sea Fleet, which is located on it, is the key to the security of the European part of Russia.

You can convince each other to the point of hoarseness, but military people are used to looking at cards. And it is useful for us to look at the world through their eyes. And at the same time answer a few questions of concern to the blogosphere.

Is it possible to lock up our fleet in the Black Sea?

From the moment Crimea finally came under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation, no one has had such an opportunity.

“The Iskander complexes completely control the coast of the entire Black Sea, including the Bosphorus,” explains the respected art201045. They automatically turned Russia into the master of the Black Sea. If the complexes were even nearby, in the Krasnodar Territory, the missiles would not have been able to reach the Bosphorus.

It is not so important to control the Dardanelles - the strait is too wide to be an obstacle for our warships. But laying mines on the bottom of the narrow Bosphorus and thereby blocking the passage through it is quite realistic. But the Turks, of course, would never take that risk. Because Iskander missiles are capable of not only clearing the strait, destroying bridges along the way, but also turning half of Istanbul into ruins.

That is, it will not be possible to lock our fleet in the Black Sea in the event of war. In addition, the geographical location of the Sevastopol base allows you to keep an eye on the entire coast - Turkish, Romanian and Bulgarian. Georgian and Ukrainian are not taken into account, okay?

Do the Americans need Crimea?

The fact that the goal of the Maidan was Crimea is clearly seen on this map.

The fact is that the restrictions on the range of the Tomahawks do not allow the Americans today to keep Moscow and a fairly large part of the European part of Russia at gunpoint. Placing a base in Crimea would solve the problem that has been haunting our strategic adversary for many decades now.

In addition, if the peninsula came under the protectorate of the United States, we would lose all the advantages that we have today. What is very important not only in the military sense, but also in the economic one, one of our most important trade routes would be under the control of the Americans.

The Black Sea Fleet as a combat unit would have to be forgotten. The entire south-west of the country would not be protected, Russia would automatically turn into a third world country. The Americans would rightfully begin to dictate their terms to us

“The first disarming strike against the Russian Federation should be delivered precisely by cruise missiles,” art201045 writes competently. - The main areas from which strikes should be launched are shown on the map. But the entire European part is not affected from these areas, and it is covertly impossible to concentrate a strike force in the Black Sea, and the effect of surprise, which would predetermine success, would be in question. Having permanent bases in the Crimea (Sevastopol, Feodosia, Donuzlav, Kerch), such a task would be solved. From the Black Sea, the entire European part of Russia would have been subjected to Tomahawk strikes, capturing the Southern Urals, and even the western part of Kazakhstan.

We could not come to terms with this.

Will American bases appear near Kharkov?

This is also a common question that is being discussed on social networks. Basically, of course, Ukrainian patriots are convinced of this, who cannot get used to the loss of Crimea.

After the Crimean peninsula became Russian, the appearance of American bases in Ukraine lost all meaning. “A strike from the rear will have to be parried with something, which means that it is necessary to keep a solid grouping in the south and southeast of Ukraine that can withstand the blow and not let the troops into the interior of the country in order to protect the bases,” art201045 explains the basics of military affairs. NATO will not agree to such an adventure, no matter how much Kyiv persuades it.

The base is not only soldiers and weapons. It would be necessary to build a complete infrastructure for many tens of billions of dollars - roads, barracks, parks for equipment, workshops, warehouses, fuel storage facilities and much more. In a word, something that will be instantly destroyed at the first attempt to start a war. It is only with Zadornov that the Americans are stupid - the military does not think in such categories. They are accustomed to respect the enemy and even slightly overestimate. Just in case.
_______________________________

Undoubtedly, the entry of Crimea into Russia created serious international problems for us. But they are nothing compared to the problems we would have if he were American.

On September 5, 2013, an announcement was posted on the US government procurement website seeking a contractor for the reconstruction of School No. 5 in Sevastopol.

The picture is clickable

On 124 pages of the specification, it is detailed, with diagrams and photographs, what exactly needs to be done. For example, re-roofing. Replace windows. Hang toilet doors. And so on. With the scrupulousness inherent in all customers.

The declared value is from 250 to 500 thousand dollars.

The first thought that comes to mind is that good American friends of Ukrainians, walking around Sevastopol last summer, accidentally stumbled upon School No. 5 and looked inside. They were horrified by the desolation and decided to renew it. After all, they often walk around foreign cities and look closely: how else to help the natives. A school will be repaired there, a hospital will be refurbished here, somewhere a museum or a church will be restored. Of course, at the expense of our own budget - that is, for the money of American taxpayers. As in this case. There are many countries, there are even more cities in them. So because of their altruism, the United States got to the economic crisis.

But the second thought, to be honest, was more mundane. I don't think I stumbled across it by accident. Most likely, they were specifically looking for. For some secret purpose. Because you can spend half a lemon on a Ukrainian school only if your American children study there. Accustomed to American standards. To keep the roof from leaking, for example. Or to close the windows tighter. And there should not be any natives in the renovated beautiful school at all. Otherwise, taxpayers will not understand.

And this thought involuntarily led me into the jungle of conspiracy theories.

Why did the Americans suddenly begin to settle down in the Crimea last year, as at home - did they really want to place their own in Sevastopol instead of the base of the Black Sea Fleet? I took a closer look at the announcement - and for sure: the tender was hung up by the Naval Engineering Command of the US Naval Forces. Which is located, I note, in the American city of Naples (Contracting Office Address: Naples, United States). So, really, they wanted to. And they even started preparing a good school for the children of officers.

Is it any wonder that Barack Obama took offense at Vladimir Putin and his polite people? So it's not fair. I didn’t spend a single cookie, but simply took and took away Crimea from the USA. Well, in a sense, in Ukraine. Although everyone knows that only one superpower can violate the territorial integrity of countries. Exclusively with advanced democratic goals.

The last change in the message about the state order was made a week ago: due to the changed situation, the tender is cancelled. In other words, the Americans finally resigned themselves to the loss of the peninsula and its transition to Russian jurisdiction.

Well, at least the money is intact. I could have taken it away with the new school - my hand would not have trembled. Such a person.

UPD

Another find: a colleague suggests that the Americans also wanted to repair the Republican Children's Hospital in Simferopol at their own expense - the tender was announced on December 12. Nice people, right?

On the other hand, do not carry the children of naval officers every time to their homeland. In fairness, let's say that the Crimean guys could also get something from such innovations.

The picture is clickable

More about world order

Snowden made all politicians play their part
The Indians took revenge on the Americans for their diplomat
Quote from the movie "Casino Heist"
After the war and aid to the Europeans, the United States became the richest country in the world

The dominance of the West is coming to an end
The theory of corporate power
History of one genocide
Empire turns into a monarchy

Honest Zionist Warns Orthodox
Israeli rabbi returns to Russia

Legal analysis.
Four directions of attack on Russia

The truth about British politics
First color revolution
In the Anglo-Saxon Red Book there was a place for people
After the war and aid to Europeans, the United States became the richest

Against the backdrop of the fact that the head of American diplomacy, Rex Tillerson, claims that the United States "will never recognize the occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea by Russia", and sanctions from Moscow will be lifted only when the peninsula comes "under the complete control of Ukraine", the question is pertinent, what the US is ready to do in practice, writes Patrick J. Buchanan in an article for The American Conservative.

Tillerson demonstrated his principled opposition to the seizure of territories with the help of military force just one day after US President Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and promised to move the country's embassy there.

Is the US ready to fight Russia over Crimea?

And how did Israel get the right to East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Golan Heights?

Through invasion, occupation, colonization and annexation. All these lands are trophies of Israel in the Six Day War of 1967.

Are the same sanctions being imposed against Israel as against Russia?

Not really. On the contrary, the country receives almost $4 billion annually, building one settlement after another in the occupied territories, despite the weak protests of Washington.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has just demonstrated that when dealing with the US and protecting Israel's vital interests, persistence pays off.

Therefore, with due patience, Netanyahu will be able to convince Washington to agree to anything.

Like the head of the Israeli government, Russian President Vladimir Putin is also a "nationalist", so the return of Crimea is his achievement as president.

For two centuries, the peninsula has been the base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet and plays a crucial role for Russia's security.

Putin will never return Crimea to Ukraine, and the United States will eventually have to come to terms with this, because the Russian tricolor flying over the peninsula has never been critical to Washington, which cannot be said about Moscow.

Both of these conflicts shed light on the reality that makes it possible to explain the US retreat that has continued throughout the 21st century. Washington faces allies and adversaries who, more than the United States, are willing to take risks, endure suffering, persevere, and fight to the bitter end.

Recently, days after North Korea launched yet another ICBM, White House National Security Adviser Herbert McMaster said Trump was "committed to the complete nuclear disarmament of the Korean Peninsula."

For Kim Jong-un, nuclear weapons are no small matter. He is well aware that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who renounced weapons of mass destruction, was hanged after the US invasion.

The unenviable fate of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who personally invited the West to dismantle his nuclear program and eliminate his weapons of mass destruction, is not a secret for him.

The North Korean regime understands that if it gives up nuclear weapons, it will have nothing to deter the US if they want to use their arsenal on its armed forces, its regime, or itself. North Korea may negotiate, but Pyongyang will never give up either the missiles or the nuclear weapons that guarantee its survival.

You can also refer to the example of China, which declared the islands in the South China Sea its own, and also began to build artificial islands there, which house the bases of the Air Force, Navy, and missile forces.

In response to this, militant voices are heard in the United States that this is unacceptable for Washington. There are calls to use US air and naval power if necessary to force China to abandon its annexation and militarization of the South China Sea.

This is not to be expected for a number of reasons. So, if these territories are vital for Beijing, they are not so for the United States. Moreover, if the PRC - the coastal state that controls the island of Hainan - is a legitimate claimant to many of these small islands. The US does not claim any.

Other applicants are Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Philippines and Taiwan.

However, although they may be equally interested in fisheries and minerals, none of these countries is able to challenge the hegemony of the PRC.

So why would Washington risk a war with China in order to support the claims of communist Vietnam or the brutal regime of Philippine President Rodrido Duterte?

Why should their fight become a US fight, the author asks.

China's interests in the region are as important to the country as US interests in the Caribbean were when the future great power of the United States announced the Monroe Doctrine in 1823. Over time, other international powers have recognized and respected Washington's special interests in the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico.

Considering China's ever-increasing military power, the proximity of the islands to the Chinese mainland, and the relative weakness of other contenders, China is likely to emerge as the dominant power in the South China Sea, much as the US has become the hegemon in the Western Hemisphere.

In Crimea, the Middle East, the Korean Peninsula, and the South China Sea, you can see countries that are more willing to take risks and sacrifices because their interests far exceed those of America.

Thus, the US needs a new national consensus about what is important to them and what is not, what Washington is ready to defend by force and what is not.

Because the current generation of US citizens will not endlessly risk starting a war just to support the Washington elites' idea of ​​a "new world order based on rules."

The world has changed since the Cold War, so new redlines are needed to replace the old ones.

Subscribe to us