by General Leonid Ivashov

Global Research, January 24, 2007 Strategic Cultural Foundation (Russia) Email this article to a friend Print this article 0digg Shar e

In the overall flow of information coming from the Middle East, there are increasingly frequent reports indicating that within several months from now the US will deliver nuclear strikes on Iran. For example, citing well-informed but undisclosed sources, the Kuwaiti Arab Times wrote that the US plans to launch a missile and bomb attack on the territory of Iran before the end of April, 2007. The campaign will start from the sea and will be supported by the Patriot missile defense systems in order to let the US forces avoid a ground operation and to reduce the efficiency of the return strike by any Persian Gulf country. Any country mostly refers to Iran. The source which supplied the information to the Kuwaiti paper

believes that the US forces in Iraq and other countries of the region will be defended from any Iranian missile strikes by the frontier Patriots. So, the preparations for a new US aggression entered the completion phase. The executions of S. Hussein and his closest associates were a part of these preparations. Their purpose was to serve as a disguise operation for the efforts of the US strategists to deliberately escalate the situation both around Iran and in the entire Middle East. Analyzing the consequences of the move, the US did order to hang the former Iraqi leader and his associates. This shows that the US has adopted irreversibly the plan of partitioning Iraq into three warring pseudo-states the Shiite, the Sunnite, and the Kurdish ones. Washington reckons that the situation of a controlled chaos will help it to dominate the Persian Gulf oil supplies and other strategically important oil transportation routes. The most important aspect of the matter is that a zone of an endless bloody conflict will be created at the core of the Middle East, and that the countries neighboring Iraq Iran, Syria, Turkey (Kurdistan) will inevitably be getting drawn into it. This will solve the problem of completely destabilizing the region, a task of major importance for the US and especially for Israel. The war in Iraq was just one element in a series of steps in the process of regional destabilization. It was only a phase in the process of getting closer to dealing with Iran and other

countries, which the US declared or will declare rouge. However it is not easy for the US to get involved in yet another military campaign while Iraq and Afghanistan are not pacified (the US lacks the resources necessary for the operation). Besides, protests against the politics of the Washington neocons intensify all over the world. Due to all of the above, the US will use nuclear weapon against Iran. This will be the second case of the use of nuclear weapons in combat after the 1945 US attack on Japan. The Israeli military and political circles had been making statements on the possibility of nuclear and missile strikes on Iran openly since October, 2006, when the idea was immediately supported by G. Bush. Currently it is touted in the form of a necessity of nuclear strikes. The public is taught to believe that there is nothing monstrous about such a possibility and that, on the contrary, a nuclear strike is quite feasible. Allegedly, there is no other way to stop Iran. How will other nuclear powers react? As for Russia, at best it will limit itself to condemning the strikes, and at worst as in the case of the aggression against Yugoslavia its response will be something like though by this the US makes a mistake, the victim itself provoked the attack. Europe will react in essentially the same way.

Possibly, the negative reaction of China and several other countries to the nuclear aggression will be stronger. In any case, there will be no retaliation nuclear strike on the US forces (the US is absolutely sure of this). The UN means nothing in this context. Having failed to condemn the aggression against Yugoslavia, the UN Security Council effectively shared the responsibility for it. This institution is only capable to adopt resolutions which the Russian and also the French diplomacy understands as banning the use of force, but the US and British ones interpret in exactly the opposite sense as authorizing their aggression. Speaking of Israel, it is sure to come under the Iranian missile strikes. Possibly, the Hezbollah and the Palestinian resistance will become more active. Posing as victims, the Israelis will resort to provocations to justify their aggression, suffer some tolerable damage, and then the outraged US will destabilize Iran finally, making it look like a noble mission of retribution. Some people tend to believe that concerns over the worlds protests can stop the US. I do not think so. The importance of this factor should not be overstated. In the past, I have spent hours talking to Milosevic, trying to convince him that NATO was preparing to attack Yugoslavia. For a long time, he could not believe this and kept telling me: Just read the UN Charter. What grounds will they

have to do it? But they did it. They ignored the international law outrageously and did it. What do we have now? Yes, there was a shock, there was indignation. But the result is exactly what the aggressors wanted Milosevic is dead, Yugoslavia is partitioned, and Serbia is colonized NATO officers have set up their headquarters in the countrys ministry of defense. The same things happened to Iraq. There were a shock and indignation. But what matters to the Americans is not how big the shock is, but how high are the revenues of their military-industrial complex. The information that a second US aircraft-carrier is due to arrive at the Persian Gulf till the end of January makes it possible to analyze the possible evolution of the war situation. Attacking Iran, the US will mostly use air delivery of the nuclear munitions. Cruise missiles (carried by the US aircrafts as well as ships and submarines) and, possibly, ballistic missiles will be used. Probably, nuclear strikes will be followed by air raids from aircraft carriers and by other means of attack. The US command is trying to exclude a ground operation: Iran has a strong army and the US forces are likely to suffer massive casualties. This is unacceptable for G. Bush who already finds himself in a difficult situation. It does not take a ground operation to destroy infrastructures in Iran, to reverse the development of the country, to

cause panic, and to create a political, economic and military chaos. This can be accomplished by using first the nuclear, and subsequently the conventional means of warfare. Such is the purpose of bringing the aircraft carrier group closer to the Iranian coast. What resources for self-defense does Iran have? They are considerable, but incomparably inferior to the US forces. Iran has 29 Russian Tor systems. Definitely, they are an important reinforcement of the Iranian air defense. However, at present Iran has no guaranteed protection from air raids. The US tactics will be the same as usual: first, to neutralize the air defense and radars, and then to attack aircrafts in the air and on land, the control installations, and the infrastructure, while taking no risks. Within weeks from now, we will see the informational warfare machine start working. The public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian militaristic hysteria, new information leaks, disinformation, etc. At the same time all of the above sends a signal to the pro-Western opposition and to a fraction of Mahmoud Ahmadinejads elite to get ready for the coming developments. The US hopes that an attack on Iran will inevitably result in a chaos in the country, and that it will be possible to bribe some of the Iranian generals and thus to create a fifth

column in the country. Of course, Iran is very different from Iraq. However, if the aggressor succeeds in instigating a conflict between the two branches of the Iranian armed forces the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps and the army the country will find itself in a critical situation, especially in case at the very beginning of the campaign the US manages to hit the Iranian leadership and delivers a nuclear strike or a massive one by conventional warfare on the countrys central command. Today, the probability of a US aggression against Iran is extremely high. It does remain unclear, though, whether the US Congress is going to authorize the war. It may take a provocation to eliminate this obstacle (an attack on Israel or the US targets including military bases). The scale of the provocation may be comparable to the 9-11 attack in NY. Then the Congress will certainly say Yes to the US President. General Leonid Ivashov is the vice-president of the Academy on geopolitical affairs. He was the chief of the department for General affairs in the Soviet Unions ministry of Defense, secretary of the Council of defense ministers of the Community of independant states (CIS), chief of the Military cooperation department at the Russian federations Ministry of defense and Joint chief of staff of the

Russian armies

General Ivashov The US and its allies started the psychological preparation of world public opinion for the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons to resolve 'the Iranian problem'. The US propaganda machine is working hard to create the impression that a 'surgically precise' use of the nuclear weapon with only limited consequences is possible. However, this has been known to be untrue since the 1945 US nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After the very first nuclear strike, it will become totally impossible to prevent the use of all of the available means of mass destruction. In the situation of a mass extermination of their nations, the conflicting sides will resort to whatever means they have without limitations. Therefore, not only the nuclear arsenals of various countries, including those whose nuclear status is not recognized officially, will come into play. No doubt, chemical and biological warfare (and, generally, any poisonous substances), which can be produced on the basis of minimal industrial and economic resources, will be used. Currently, one can assert that peace and mankind are in great danger.

Consider the military-technical aspect of the situation. Practically, the operation's objective declared by the US - destroying some 1,500 targets on the territory of Iran - cannot be accomplished by the forces already amassed for the mission. This objective can only be met if tactical nuclear munitions are used. An examination of the military-political aspect of the matter reveals even more significant facts. The attack on Iran is not planned to include a ground offensive. Strikes on selected military and industrial installations can cause a severe damage to the Iranian defense potential and economy. Casualties are likely to be substantial, but not catastrophic from the military point of view. At the same time, it is impossible to gain control of the territory of a country as large as Iran without a ground operation. The planned offensive will entail a consolidation of forces not only in Iran, but also in other Muslim countries and among the public throughout the world. The support for the country suffering from the US-Israeli aggression will soar. Certainly, Washington is aware that the result will be not the strengthening but the loss of US positions in the world. Consequently, the goal of the US attack against Iran has to be seen in a different light. The nuclear offensive must boost the use of nuclear blackmail in global politics by the US and fundamentally transform the world order. Further evidence of the radicalization of the goals of the US and its allies is available. The early 2007

leaks, which exposed Israel's plans to use three nukes against Iran, were quite dangerous for a country in a hostile environment, but certainly they were deliberate. They meant that the decision on the character of Israel's activity had already been made, and all that remained to be done was to influence public opinion accordingly. The pretext for the operation against Iran does not appear serious. Judging from both the technical and the political points of view, there is no possibility of it developing nuclear weapons in the near future. One must remember that allegations of Iraq's possessing weapons of mass destruction were used by the US as a pretext for the war against the country. As a result, Iraq was devastated, and the civilian death toll rose to hundreds of thousands, but no evidence for the claims had ever been discovered. The really important question is not whether Iran is capable of making nuclear weapons. The only function of small stockpiles of nuclear weapons not backed by various forms of support is that of containment. The threat of a retaliation strike can stop any aggressor. As for attacking other countries and winning a nuclear war in the situation of a conflict with a coalition of major powers, this would require a potential that Iran neither has nor is going to have in the foreseeable future. The allegations that Iran can become a nuclear aggressor are absurd. Anyone having at least some theoretical knowledge of military affairs must understand this.

What is the real reason why the US is unleashing this military conflict? The activities having consequences of global proportions can only be intended to deal with a global problem. This problem itself is by no means something secret - it is the possibility of a crash of the global financial system based on the US dollar.Currently the mass of US currency exceeds the total worth of US assets by more than a factor of ten. Everything in the US - industry, buildings, high-tech, and so on - has been mortgaged more than ten times all over the world. A debt of such proportions will never be repaid - it can only be relieved. The dollar amounts on the accounts of individuals, organizations, and state treasuries are a virtual reality. These records are not secured by products, valuables or anything that exists in reality. Writing-off this US indebtedness to the rest of the world would turn the majority of its population into deceived depositors.It would be the end of the well-established rule of the golden calf. The significance of the coming events is truly epic. This is why the aggressor ignores the global catastrophic consequences of its offensive. The bankrupt 'global bankers' need a force major event of global proportions to get out of the situation. The solution is already in the plans. The US has nothing to offer the rest of the world to save the

declining dollar except for military operations like the ones in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. But even these local conflicts only yield short-term effects. Something a lot greater is needed, and the need is urgent. The moment is drawing closer when the financial crisis will make the world realize that all of the US assets, all of its industrial, technological, and other potentials do not rightfully belong to the country. Then, it must be confiscated to compensate the victims, and the rights of ownership of everything bought for dollars all over the world everything drawn from the wealth of various nations - are to be revised. What might cause the force major event of the required scale? Everything seems to indicate that Israel will be sacrificed. Its involvement in a war with Iran - especially in a nuclear war - is bound to trigger a global catastrophe. The statehoods of Israel and Iran are based on the countries' official religions. A military conflict between Israel and Iran will immediately evolve into a religious one, a conflict between Judaism and Islam. Due to the presence of numerous Jewish and Muslim populations in the developed countries, this would make a global bloodbath inevitable. All of the active forces of most of the countries of the world would end up fighting, with almost no room for neutrality left. Judging by the increasingly massive acquisitions of the residential housing for the Israeli citizens, especially in Russia and Ukraine, a lot of people already have an idea of what the future holds. However, it is hard to imagine

a quiet heaven where one might hide from the coming doom. Forecasts of the territorial distribution of the fighting, the quantities and the efficiency of the armaments involved, the profound character of the underlying roots of the conflict and the severity of the religious strife all leave no doubt that this clash will be in all respects much more nightmarish than WWII. So far, the response of the world's major political players to the developments gives no cause for optimism. The inconsequent UN resolutions concerning Iran, the attempts to appease the aggressor who no longer disguises his intentions are reminiscent of the Munich Pact on the eve of WWII. The intense shuttle diplomacy focusing on all sorts of international problems except for the main one discussed above is also indicative of the problem. This is a usual practice on the eve of a war, aiming to provide for alliances with third-party countries or to ensure their neutrality. Such politics seeks to avert or soften the first strikes, which would be the most sudden and devastating ones. Is it possible to prevent the bloodshed? The only efficient argument that might stop the aggressors is the threat of their total global isolation for instigating a nuclear war. The implementation of the scenario described above can be made impossible by a complete absence of allies for the US-Israeli tandem, combined with loud public protests in the countries. Therefore, these days a

definite and uncompromising stance of country leaders, governments, politicians, public figures, religious leaders, scientists, and artists with respect to the prepared nuclear aggression would be an invaluable service to mankind. The coordinated public activities must be organized with the promptness adequate to the war-time conditions. The forces of aggression have already been amassed and concentrated at the starting positions in the state of full combat readiness. The US military do not make it a secret that everything can be a matter of weeks or even days. There are indirect indications that the US will launch a nuclear strike on Iran already in April, 2007. After the very first nuclear blast, mankind will find itself in an entirely new world, an absolutely inhumane one. The chances to prevent this outcome must be used completely. General Leonid Ivashov is the vice-president of the Academy on geopolitical affairs. He was the chief of the department for General affairs in the Soviet Unions ministry of Defense, secretary of the Council of defense ministers of the Community of independant states (CIS), chief of the Military cooperation department at the Russian federations Ministry of defense and Joint chief of staff of the Russian armies. General Ivashof is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Washington has officially unveiled its new nuclear doctrine, the new START-3 Treaty between Russia and the US is ready for signing in Prague on April 8, and on April 12-13 US President B. Obama will host the Nuclear

Security Summit in Washington. Evidently, the US is launching a broad anti-nuclear offensive. No examples of sacrificial service of the US elites to mankind or peoples of other countries can be discovered in the US history over the past century. Would it be realistic to expect the advent of an African-American president to the White House to change the country's political philosophy traditionally aimed at achieving global dominance? Those believing that something like that is possible should try to realize why the US the country with a military budget already greater than those of all other countries of the world combined continues spending enormous sums of money on preparations for war. Why is Washington actively spreading military activity to space, building up it its strategic non-nuclear forces, developing global missile defense, and converting its formerly nuclear-armed powerful Ohio-class submarines into carriers of cruise missiles with non-nuclear warheads? There are too many questions inviting obvious answers, and the answers combine into a picture showing that the US intentions are anything but peaceful. Let us survey briefly the US strategy over the recent years. In 2002 G. Bush established a commission to survey the situation in the nuclear arms sphere. Its conclusions were the following: - Russia in its current state does not present a nuclear threat to the US; - The US nuclear weapons do not serve as an efficient instrument of implementing the US security strategy as they can neither protect the country from terrorist attacks nor be used to exert pressure on rogue states. - While being a huge financial burden, maintaining the nuclear arsenals is not cost-efficient. After heated debates sparked by the conclusions, Washington decided to slash the budget of the strategic nuclear forces and to focus on developing new generations of conventional warfare. As a compromise with the proponents of the pro-nuclear strategy and those still concerned over Russia and China as sources of nuclear threat, the US Administration made the decision to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and to deploy a global missile shield.

In 2003, G. Bush approved the Prompt Global Strike concept. The same year the US officially scrapped the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and established the Global Strike Command to which 450 system from the strategic nuclear forces were transferred upon conversion into precision means of delivery with conventional warheads. Work began on equipping 4 Ohio submarines to carry cruise missiles. The submarines' 24 Trident-2 submarine-launched ballistic missiles were replaced with 160 upgraded Tomahawks. The Trident-2 missiles were also upgraded to carry non-nuclear warheads. At the same time, efforts intensified to create a new class of strategic cruise missiles (with the 6,000 km range and the velocity reaching 6 Mach). An extensive program of deploying roughly 1,400 strategic missile defense installations was also implemented. The Prompt Global Strike concept envisages a concentrated strike using several thousand precision conventional weapons in 2-4 hours that would completely destroy the critical infrastructures of the target country and thus force it to capitulate. In 2009 the Prompt Global Strike initiative which used to be the favorite brainchild of G. Bush's Administration was inherited by B. Obama. The pragmatically minded new Administration reckoned that it made no sense to spend a lot on nuclear weapons that were impossible to use in practice (due to the risk of a retaliatory nuclear strike and the concerns over radioactive contamination of large areas). The wars in Yugoslavia and Iraq were won with the help of conventional warfare, mainly precision cruise missiles and bombs. The Prompt Global Strike concept is meant to sustain the US monopoly in the military sphere and to widen the gap between it and the rest of the world. Combined with the deployment of the missile defense supposed to keep the US immune to retaliatory strikes from Russia and China, the Prompt Global Strike initiative is going to turn Washington into a modern era global dictator. The actual objective of the dovish 2010 anti-nuclear campaign floated by Obama's Administration is to make the implementation of the above program cheaper. Presenting Washington's new nuclear doctrine, B. Obama said the US pledges not to use nuclear weapons even in case it comes under

a chemical or bacteriological warfare attack. Immediately, criticism was leveled at the authors of Russia's military doctrine for Moscow's not rejecting the first nuclear strike option. We have serious reasons to exercise caution, though. Simply, the US arsenals of intercontinental-range delivery systems carrying conventional warfare are so impressive that it no longer has to rely on the nuclear strike option. In essence, the new US nuclear doctrine is an element of the novel US security strategy that would be more adequately described as the strategy of total impunity. The US is boosting its military budget, unleashing NATO as the global gendarme, and planning real-life exercise in Iran to test the efficiency of the Prompt Global Strike initiative in practice. At the same time, Washington is talking about the completely nuclear-free world. Leonid Ivashov is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

World War II Was Unleashed by Adepts of Drang nach Osten The information war over the history of World War II is at full swing, hence it makes sense to re-examine the covert schemes which the West and the shadowy organizations promoting the interests of its capital used to unleash it. Quite obviously, expansion to the east and to the south has always been the key theme of Western geopolitics. The notorious Drang nach Osten was by no means Hitler's invention it came into being much earlier, no later than in the epoch of Charles the Great (VIII century). Searches for treasures in miraculous India and its colonization, the economically motivated conquest and

extermination of oriental tribes and peoples were manifestations of the same eternal Drang nach Osten which used to be the legitimizing concept of the West's existence. Even America was discovered in the process of going east. Quite logically, late XIX-early XX century geopolitical concepts and theories were also centered on the conquest of the territories stretching to the east. Halford Mackinder, an Englishman, formulated the theory of global dominance as the theoretical foundation of Great Britain's colonial politics when he wrote: Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland (Russia L. Ivashov); Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island (Eurasia L. Ivashov); Who rules the World Island commands the World. The intention to dominate Russia is an obvious element of the vision. US theorist A. Mahan, in his turn, developed the strategy of strangling the continuous continental mass of the Russian Empire. The German geopolitical school (F. Ratzel, K. Haushofer, K. Scmidt) regarded a state as a living organism whose development is accompanied by a progressing need for space, all the way up to the planetary level. Again, the theory envisioned eastward expansion, automatically assigning to Russia the role of the prime target. The above concepts were not tributes to fleeting fashion but reflected many centuries of aggressive expansionist politics. Whereas Russians fought in Europe only in the name of selfdefense or interests of other Western countries, the Great BritainFranceGermany triangle always (or at least throughout the last two centuries) harbored the strategic aspiration to expand over Russia's immense territories or at

least to provoke other players to wage war against Russia. Great Britain was a particularly successful player in the latter game. The British connection is obvious in the cases of Napoleon's aggression against Russia and the 1904 Japanese attack on Russia's Far East as well as the in the provoking of World War I. The same applies to an even greater extent to Hitler's eastern drive. No doubt, London and Paris were seriously concerned over Germany's growing might and feared that some day they would have to confront it on their own. As a result their politics oscillated between pursuing two objectives: - To avoid facing the German aggression alone; - To urge Hitler to attack the USSR. Some factions of the British and French elites advocated collective efforts aimed at curbing Hitler's aggressiveness jointly with the USSR. Other factions (especially influential in Great Britain) sought to help Hitler implement his notorious Drang nach Osten plan. British conservatives never forgot the political testament of Lloyd George who said in the early XX century that the traditions and vital interests of Great Britain required destroying the Russian Empire in order to safeguard British dominance in India and to realize Great Britain's interests in Transcaucasia and Central Asia. The switchings between the above two strategies eventually led to the politics of appeasing Hitler and to attempts to create favorable conditions for his attack east. In September, 1938 Great Britain and France signed the Munich Treaty with Hitler and ruthlessly fed Czechoslovakia to him as a reward for the deal. Being Europe's fourth largest economy, Czechoslovakia was a valuable acquisition for Germany.

Those who claim that World War II was somehow triggered by the Soviet-German Non-aggression Pact should recall the circumstances of the above drama. The Soviet Union notified the Czechoslovakian government it was ready to comply fully with the May 16, 1935 Treaty the USSR had signed with the country. The statements aired on October 2 and 4, 1938 by TASS (the official Soviet media outlet) also condemned the annexation of the Sudetenland which belonged to Czechoslovakia and disproved rumors that the countries which signed the Munich Treaty had consulted the representatives of the USSR regarding the deal. Upon returning to London from Munich Nenille Chamberlain told his countrymen that he brought peace from his trip. The loud statement actually disguised the following two facts which were of great importance to London: 1. Hitler's military might was now turned to the east, towards the USSR. 2. A declaration was signed with Hitler expressing the wish of the British and German nations to never again fight each other. On December 6, 1938 French foreign minister G. Bonnet and German foreign minister J. Ribbentrop signed a similar French-German declaration. The Soviet leadership could not but be concerned over the developments which appeared to be a collusion victimizing not only Czechoslovakia but potentially the USSR as well. Moreover, Chamberlain said that Germany and Great Britain were the two pillars of European peace and anti-communism and thus had to peacefully overcome their disagreements. He said explicitly that it would be possible to find a solution in European politics acceptable for all parties except for Russia. Was it not an instigation of Hitler's

aggression east at the expense of the security of the USSR? The question arising naturally is: was it possible to prevent World War II? I am sure that the possibility existed and resurfaced a number of times. The first chance was blown at the time of Hitler's Anschluss of Austria. Even Mussolini objected to the audacious move, but Great Britain and France somehow remained unperturbed. Not surprisingly, Hitler saw the absence of reaction from their side as a sign of weakness and a green light to his politics. The second chance evaporated when Europe was on the way to the Munich Treaty. Chamberlain's government even allowed Hitler to strengthen Germany by absorbing the resources of the Czechoslovakian industry and army just to reorient his expansionist intentions towards the east. Great Britain staunchly refused to influence Poland its loyal ally to convince Warsaw grant the Red Army the right to pass across Polish territory to rescue Czechoslovakia. Even in August, 1939 it was still possible to prevent the outbreak of World War II. All that was needed was the consent of Great Britain and France (whose delegations were at the time negotiating in Moscow) to the creation of an anti-fascist coalition. The combined military potential of the three countries was almost twice that of Germany plus Italy. London, however, was guided by its own logic and separate political calculations. The US also had a lot to do with the pre-war developments in Europe. US capital benefited massively from World War I doing business with the countries at war, and Washington acted on the eve of the new global disaster in line with the experience. The US in parallel nourished Hitler, helped Great Britain, and assisted the USSR in creating its own industry. Besides, the coming war was obviously

going to weaken the European rivals of the US. Overall, the US was looking forward to the new drama, hoping to gain control over Europe, Great Britain with its colonies, Japan, and the devastated USSR as its result. For the US, the World War opened opportunities to both benefit materially and to emerge as a new global empire. In other words, another and the last - chance to tame Hitler was lost in August, 1939. In these settings, Stalins choice was imposed by circumstances. It was imperative for him to find a way to postpone if not altogether preclude German aggression against the USSR. Contrary to the view widely held among Western politicians and political scientists, the Non-Aggression Pact signed by Germany and the USSR on August 23, 1939 was not nor could possibly be the root cause of Hitler's attack on Poland and of World War II in general. First, the USSR decided to sign the Pact only after the delegations of Great Britain and France rejected the option of signing an agreement on opposing Hitler jointly with the Soviet Union. Stalin had to take into account the fact that London and Paris signed military deals with Berlin, and the USSR could fall victim to an analog of the Munich Treaty. Secondly, there was no direct connection between the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and Hitler's decision to seize Poland. Hitler penned the plan for a war against Poland on April 3, 1939, and Germany scrapped its nonaggression and friendship pact with Poland on April 28, 1939. Consequently, Berlin decided to occupy Poland and thus to gain a foothold for an attack against the Soviet Union that is, months before the August 23 signing of the Pact with the USSR.

Thirdly, the USSR absolutely had to take measures to create a buffer zone by shifting its borders west as it was facing an imminent war. Already on March 1, 1936 Stalin said in reply to a question asked by US newspaperman Roy Harvard: I do not know exactly what borders Germany can arrange in accord with its objectives, but I suspect that there are forces eager to 'lend' borders to it. Signing the 1939 Non-Aggression Pact and its secret addenda, the Soviet government did not have in mind the objective of annexing the territories of any East European countries. Its goal was to delay the fascist attack and to prevent the emergence of an alliance of Western countries for an aggression against the USSR, as well as to curb Germany's expansion east. These days, the Drang nach Osten still continues. Needing a universal interpretation of the events of World War II epoch that would suit all NATO and EU countries, Western politicians are upholding the concept of two totalitarisms. Its thrust is that Stalin and Hitler divided Europe via the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact but later got locked in a conflict. Moreover, allegations are floated that Hitler barely made it to strike first as Stalin was planning an attack on Germany. The vision implies that all countries expect for the USSR and Germany were victims. Since fascist Germany was defeated and ceased to exist while Russia as the successor to the USSR retained its place on the map of the world, it is the country that now must accept the responsibility for unleashing World War II. The populations of Poland, the Baltic Republics, Czechoslovakia, and other countries are thus supposed to be victims, first of a collusion between Stalin and Hitler and then of the Soviet occupation. Even Ukraine is portrayed as

a victim of the Soviet occupation that - jointly with fascist Germany fought against a much more ominous enemy, which is, of course, Russia. Born in the West, the concept of two totalitarisms follows the trajectory of Drang nach Osten it propagates east. Even Germany, long restrained by the guilt complex, finally grew active in this regard. In 2002, the Adenauer Prize was awarded to E. Nolte, described by the German media as the country's only philosophizing historian, for studies proving that the extermination of Jews by the Nazi regime was believe it or not a reaction to the elimination of the classes of landed gentry and peasantry in Russia. In his view, the German national-socialism mirrored the Russian Revolution, the genocide of peoples perpetrated by fascists the elimination of classes in the USSR, and Auschwitz - the Gulag. Such is the historical truth currently attempting to conquer the east. Recently the equal responsibility concept was echoed by the notorious July 3, 2009 PACE Resolution. The question asked by Russia's foes is: does Russia have the right to an opinion in international politics if as they allege its own origin is illegitimate and its status is owed to the odd role it played in World War II? Our answer is: yes, it has the right to an opinion in international politics. This is what we reply resolutely to the ideologists and practitioners of Drang nach Osten on the 70th annive
rsary of the outbreak of World War II.

Now that US President Obama's visit to Moscow is over, what do we have at the bottom line? First, the summit produced a framework document defining the number of strategic carriers quite broadly (500-1,100) and the number of nuclear warheads in a narrower corridor (1,500-1,675). The limits are set by the US and Russian Presidents for their negotiating teams and can easily be adjusted in case the sides reach another consensus on the issue. Secondly, Presidents Obama and Medvedev discussed the future of the US missile defense, but this part of the talks led to no definite agreements. All that was said was that the existing viewpoints would have to be taken into account. Moreover, by default the examination of missile defense was limited to just two and not even the most important of the hundreds of elements it actually comprises. There were indefinite suggestions to go on discussing the possibility to cooperate in building the missile shield, jointly analyzing the XXI century missile challenges, and monitoring missile programs across the world. As a clear reference to North Korea and Iran, the two Presidents warned all the countries having missile potentials against missile technology proliferation. Thirdly, Russia allowed the US Air Forces to use its airspace, leaving the general public oblivious to details of the deal. The above are the practical results of the Moscow summit. Can the Russian side be satisfied with the parameters of the agreement on carriers and warheads? Yes and no at the same time. Given the current situation in the nuclear arms sphere (the condition of Russia's strategic nuclear forces, the level of development of the US missile defense and precision weapons, the magnitude of the return potential concealed by the START-1 Treaty) Russia should regard 1,700 warheads as the critical minimum. Why? Estimates

show that with this number of warheads and the corresponding number of carriers the Russian nuclear forces can retain functionality after an attack by US high-precision weapons, launch on warning before nuclear warheads carried by US ballistic missiles reach Russia, penetrate the US missile defense (with some 800-1,000 warheads) and inflict unacceptable damage on the US. This is the essence of the nuclear deterrence. The build-up of the US supersonic high-precision cruise missile potential and the development of the US missile defense capable of intercepting missiles at the boost phase and warheads after their separation from carriers undermine Russias ability to launch on warning or deliver a retaliatory strike. In other words, the advancement of the US capability to destroy the Russian nuclear forces in their positioning regions (on the ground, on strategic bombers at airfields, and on docked submarines) as well as to intercept Russian missiles and warheads creates such a situation that even having a certain number of nuclear munitions Russia will not be able to deliver them to target locations. Experts project that until 2012-2015 the level of 1,700 munitions will be sufficient to keep Russia safe, but in more distant future either the US arsenals will have to be slashed or Russias capabilities to safeguard its strategic nuclear forces will have to be upgraded to preserve the balance. The latter option appears unrealistic due to the overall negative situation in the Russian military-industrial complex and the current conditions and trends in the Russian strategic nuclear forces. What we witness at present is the degradation of Russias military-industrial complex, the ageing of its missile arsenals, shortages of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium, and serious difficulties faced by Russian missile-manufacturing enterprises. As the US Administration is fully aware of the state of Russias strategic nuclear forces and the outlook for them,

its consent to the proposed parameters of the arms reduction was not hard to extract. Speaking precisely, Washington simply tailored the parameters of the proposed cuts to its own military programs whose underlying strategy is to rely less on nuclear arms and more on advanced conventional weapons, especially cruise missiles and spacebased, ground-based, and marine missile defense systems. At present the US leadership in conventional warfare goes unchallenged but the nuclear potentials of Russia, China, and other countries still preclude the global US dictate. As a result, the reduction of nuclear potentials plays into the hands of the US. There are a number of reasons why at the moment Russia should exercise maximal restraint. First, the entire sphere of its national security is in disrepair. Russia needs a fundamental analysis of the international situation in the context of the current economic crisis and its own global strategy aimed at rebuilding the international security system. It should also make resolute efforts to restore its military-industrial complex. Secondly, the ongoing shifts in the domestic situation in the US must be taken into account. The US is struggling with the current global crisis, and Washington is in the process of rethinking its politics, both domestic and international. Russia should keep its finger on the pulse of the process and be ready to support the US Presidents steps whenever they are constructive. Thirdly, the uncertainty in the US-China-Russia triangle seriously factors into the situation. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRIC summits convened shortly prior to B. Obamas Moscow visit, and Beijing sided with Moscow at both forums. However, it is clear that China will be concerned over Moscows de facto consent to the continuation of the US missile defense program and especially over the indications that Russia and the US might start implementing it jointly. It is natural for Beijing to regard the plan as a threat. Russias opening its airspace to US military transit is also an alarming development from

Chinas standpoint as Beijing probably suspects a correlation between the surge of the Tibet and Uyghur separatism and the presence of the US forces in Afghanistan. Attention should also be paid to the fact that China no less than other countries seeks strategic partnership with the US. Such partnership was offered to Beijing unofficially some time ago at a high level and has not been rejected so far. China is likely to maneuver between the US and Russia, but only as long as Russia does not drop out of the top international politics league where it will remain only in case it manages to maintain nuclear parity with the US and nuclear superiority over China. While the US and China mainly owe their geopolitical positions to their economic might, and their nuclear potentials only further strengthen their statuses, Russias geopolitical standing is based on the proportions of its nuclear arsenal more than on anything else. In any case, it is a positive result that the nuclear disarmament of Russia ended up being postponed. The Russian expert community has the time to analyze the situation and to formulate suggestions for the Russian leadership on the relations between Russia and the US in the military sphere.

Now that US President Obama's visit to Moscow is over, what do we have at the bottom line? First, the summit produced a framework document defining the number of strategic carriers quite broadly (500-1,100)

and the number of nuclear warheads in a narrower corridor (1,500-1,675). The limits are set by the US and Russian Presidents for their negotiating teams and can easily be adjusted in case the sides reach another consensus on the issue. Secondly, Presidents Obama and Medvedev discussed the future of the US missile defense, but this part of the talks led to no definite agreements. All that was said was that the existing viewpoints would have to be taken into account. Moreover, by default the examination of missile defense was limited to just two and not even the most important of the hundreds of elements it actually comprises. There were indefinite suggestions to go on discussing the possibility to cooperate in building the missile shield, jointly analyzing the XXI century missile challenges, and monitoring missile programs across the world. As a clear reference to North Korea and Iran, the two Presidents warned all the countries having missile potentials against missile technology proliferation. Thirdly, Russia allowed the US Air Forces to use its airspace, leaving the general public oblivious to details of the deal. The above are the practical results of the Moscow summit. Can the Russian side be satisfied with the parameters of the agreement on carriers and warheads? Yes and no at the same time. Given the current situation in the nuclear arms sphere (the condition of Russia's strategic nuclear forces, the level of development of the US missile defense and precision weapons, the magnitude of the return potential concealed by the START-1 Treaty) Russia should regard 1,700 warheads as the critical minimum. Why? Estimates show that with this number of warheads and the corresponding number of carriers the Russian nuclear forces can retain functionality after an attack by US high-precision weapons, launch on warning before nuclear warheads

carried by US ballistic missiles reach Russia, penetrate the US missile defense (with some 800-1,000 warheads) and inflict unacceptable damage on the US. This is the essence of the nuclear deterrence. The build-up of the US supersonic high-precision cruise missile potential and the development of the US missile defense capable of intercepting missiles at the boost phase and warheads after their separation from carriers undermine Russias ability to launch on warning or deliver a retaliatory strike. In other words, the advancement of the US capability to destroy the Russian nuclear forces in their positioning regions (on the ground, on strategic bombers at airfields, and on docked submarines) as well as to intercept Russian missiles and warheads creates such a situation that even having a certain number of nuclear munitions Russia will not be able to deliver them to target locations. Experts project that until 2012-2015 the level of 1,700 munitions will be sufficient to keep Russia safe, but in more distant future either the US arsenals will have to be slashed or Russias capabilities to safeguard its strategic nuclear forces will have to be upgraded to preserve the balance. The latter option appears unrealistic due to the overall negative situation in the Russian military-industrial complex and the current conditions and trends in the Russian strategic nuclear forces. What we witness at present is the degradation of Russias military-industrial complex, the ageing of its missile arsenals, shortages of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium, and serious difficulties faced by Russian missile-manufacturing enterprises. As the US Administration is fully aware of the state of Russias strategic nuclear forces and the outlook for them, its consent to the proposed parameters of the arms reduction was not hard to extract. Speaking precisely, Washington simply tailored the parameters of the proposed cuts to its own military programs whose underlying strategy

is to rely less on nuclear arms and more on advanced conventional weapons, especially cruise missiles and spacebased, ground-based, and marine missile defense systems. At present the US leadership in conventional warfare goes unchallenged but the nuclear potentials of Russia, China, and other countries still preclude the global US dictate. As a result, the reduction of nuclear potentials plays into the hands of the US. There are a number of reasons why at the moment Russia should exercise maximal restraint. First, the entire sphere of its national security is in disrepair. Russia needs a fundamental analysis of the international situation in the context of the current economic crisis and its own global strategy aimed at rebuilding the international security system. It should also make resolute efforts to restore its military-industrial complex. Secondly, the ongoing shifts in the domestic situation in the US must be taken into account. The US is struggling with the current global crisis, and Washington is in the process of rethinking its politics, both domestic and international. Russia should keep its finger on the pulse of the process and be ready to support the US Presidents steps whenever they are constructive. Thirdly, the uncertainty in the US-China-Russia triangle seriously factors into the situation. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRIC summits convened shortly prior to B. Obamas Moscow visit, and Beijing sided with Moscow at both forums. However, it is clear that China will be concerned over Moscows de facto consent to the continuation of the US missile defense program and especially over the indications that Russia and the US might start implementing it jointly. It is natural for Beijing to regard the plan as a threat. Russias opening its airspace to US military transit is also an alarming development from Chinas standpoint as Beijing probably suspects a correlation between the surge of the Tibet and Uyghur separatism and the presence of the US forces in Afghanistan. Attention should also be paid to the fact that China no less than other

countries seeks strategic partnership with the US. Such partnership was offered to Beijing unofficially some time ago at a high level and has not been rejected so far. China is likely to maneuver between the US and Russia, but only as long as Russia does not drop out of the top international politics league where it will remain only in case it manages to maintain nuclear parity with the US and nuclear superiority over China. While the US and China mainly owe their geopolitical positions to their economic might, and their nuclear potentials only further strengthen their statuses, Russias geopolitical standing is based on the proportions of its nuclear arsenal more than on anything else. In any case, it is a positive result that the nuclear disarmament of Russia ended up being postponed. The Russian expert community has the time to analyze the situation and to formulate suggestions for the Russian leadership on the relations between Russia and the US in the military sphere.