Proxy Wars and the Hybrid Wars - Syria, Pakistan and Russia proxies and USA Projection

Together the advance of USA through the Extreme Asia, acerting the steps on China, through the new Chinese Blackwater to Hong Kong, headed by Bolton and Neonconservative theoretics, Erik Prince and the Global Americanism of Trump, the men that hates United Nations, and the Platonic Romance of Trump and Kim, that broke last weeks because the inconstant hormonal relations of them... well... this novel is far from an end.

Well. Trump gave up United Nations after the terrible meeting with Merkel, where both hate themselves. Merkel with the completely antipathetic admire for Trump simply gave up on NATO and Trump, by the way, charged the Europeans to keep up NATO. So Trump simply jumped the European Unition to a friendship, fake but a friendship, to Russia, in concern to upgrade the relations to Ukraine and Putin, to a geopolitical projection through there, and make a presence between Turkey and Russia, to weaken Turkey relations with Russia and the relations and the military projection of the country in Syria.

With this projection, Trump can siege the Russian relations, and also China, with the military diplomacy on their borders and on ther influence territories.

The surpass on EU showed that USA is interested on make new relations with old rivals and take off the investments on countries that are involved with globalist bankers, like Deutchland that accepted the international funds and make a government pro-global interests, like immigration and anti-nationalism.

The Economic warfare against the Turkey showed that USA can stil dictates the laws in economy through Europe, also the charge of NATO to keep the countries on, showed that USA still have the military power and economic capacity to promote a military presence through Europe and make a front on Ukraine and Syria against Russia's superpower.

But this is impossible for now, 'cause USA must keep the laces strong to make a geopolitical pesence strong and weakens some rivals and make the projection through Syria a place to show the military capacity in region, provoking Russia, that is strenghten more and more the military capabilities. Syria became the perfect scenario for this military procession.

The proximity of Russia to Hungary is another relation to be explored by USA, in a near future, the investment on nationalist politician between countries that preserve the traditional system of international unity, can be explored to a better geographical influence of the country in Europe.

Well, the Pentagon doesn't give the solution to many of the problems of national security,, but the USA capability of action against terrorism and immigration problem, and also, Russia and China cannot still face USA in a global scale. Russia is using the small wars and still dind't show the Total Warfare capability, but is using the paramilitary and small unitis of specoal forces to promote victory and influence. China is using the Economic Warfare to promote the influence of Chinese money to promote Chinese projection world wide. Also, China dominates the pacific with artificial islands with military basis... USA should care about the military projection of these small units, knowing that they carry mass destruction weapons...

The strategy is stop with the small ones and start dealing with the Super Powers.

In this scenario of USA projection through Europe to Russia and Pacific, the USA is being undermined by Pakistan in the influence on South Asia. Russna and Pakistan held the inalgural Russia-Pakistan Joint Military Consultative Committee (JMCC) in Rawalpindi, signed an agreement allowing Pakistani servicemen to study at military institions in Russia. The Russian military forces and diplomatic corps are showing presence in Pakistan advancing more and more in the geographical Area, and have this proximity with India. Pakistan also showed interest on a peace try with Taliban forces in Afghanistan, to guarantee security in Central Asia and icrease the Pakistani presence in the region. 

After this all, the deterrence of USA into Russia relations is order to purchase an agravated military presence in the region have impacted the economy of Russia. But anyway, Kremlin can support the conditions of this offensive and give the support on Iran and Syria, to the retake of Bashar al-Assad Idlib Province in Northern. The continuation of use of proxy forces in Eastern Ukraine shows that Syris is ahead to destabilize the country ahead to 2019's presidential elections in Ukraine, which Azov Battalion will come with political representation against the NATO geopolitical influences and against the Russian leadership in country.

This will not affect Russia as affected the Europe with the regret of USA in the EU politics and the USA can mantain the counter economic warfare and financial pressure as Russia and European East still support the anti-Western bloc in proposal of support of domestic economy, while increasing bilateral cooperation with China to reduce USA's influence in Middle East and Asian-Pacific Theater - after the projection of USA in Asian-Pacific with PMC and Military-Diplomatic influences.


In this year, China will send troops to join the Russian "Vostok 2018" military exercises in Sepember. This cooperation will boos their tires in energy and Eastern Economic Forum in order to strengthen the relations amid USA sanctions.

A New US Defense Strategy for the Future

After two decades of putting out brush fires across the globe, Washington is refocusing on China and Russia.

https://geopoliticalfutures.com/new-us-defense-strategy-future/

By Phillip Orchard

The Pentagon’s new National Defense Strategy articulated a profound shift in U.S. strategy, but one that has long been underway: Great power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of U.S. national security.

According to the NDS: “The central challenge to U.S. prosperity and security is the re-emergence of long-term, strategic competition by what the National Security Strategy classifies as revisionist powers. It is increasingly clear that China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model – gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions. Long-term strategic competitions with China and Russia are the principal priorities for the Department, and require both increased and sustained investment, because of the magnitude of the threats they pose to U.S. security and prosperity today, and the potential for those threats to increase in the future.”

The relegation of so-called rogue states and terrorist groups may seem premature, given the immediacy of these purportedly lesser concerns. It’s North Korea that is the focus of a reportedly contentious debate in the White House about whether to conduct a limited, “punitive” strike following the North’s next nuclear or ballistic missile test, and whatever the U.S. decides to do next could lay the groundwork for an extraordinary regional realignment. It’s Iran whose regional ambitions are dominating the attention of core U.S. allies in the Middle East and putting the nuclear deal back in the U.S. media spotlight. And it’s the threat of a major terrorist attack that still paralyzes the U.S. public like no other.

Meanwhile, in response to the NDS, the Chinese accused the U.S. of being stuck in a Cold War, zero-sum mindset – and it’s not hard to see the issue from their perspective. The U.S. is the world’s sole superpower. For all their ability to frustrate U.S. initiatives from time to time, neither China nor Russia has the intention or the capability to fully replace the U.S. on a global scale. And recent surges in Chinese and Russian assertiveness are, in large part, a function of fundamental vulnerabilities that are left exposed in the U.S.-led order.

But the U.S. isn’t gearing up to fight a new Cold War, nor dismissing the importance of threats posed by lesser powers. Rather, it’s trying to preserve something akin to the established order without getting overstretched and bogged down in conflicts that are somewhat peripheral to core U.S. interests. The overriding U.S. goal is to be able to manage and contain potential challenges across the globe through more subtle, remote manipulation, using a range of historical advantages, from economic power to its unparalleled naval might to its vast network of security allies and partners. Its approach to combating the Islamic State with a much smaller footprint than during the counterterrorism operations of the early 2000s illustrates how this shift has long been underway. But the U.S. is also grappling with some increasingly evident limitations in its ability to manage critical issues from afar – and larger powers like China and Russia are uniquely positioned to exploit these limitations to complicate the U.S. strategy.

This is evident in two core areas of focus in the NDS. The first is the heavy emphasis on maintaining the U.S. military’s decisive technological edge, which the NDS says is eroding. According to Secretary of Defense James Mattis, this should take priority over expanding the size of the military.

China and Russia are aiming to raise the cost of U.S. interference in their respective spheres of influence beyond what Washington may be willing to bear. And with the future of warfare increasingly influenced by the space and cyber realms, Russian or Chinese breakthroughs in these areas would make the United States’ sizable conventional and geographical advantages matter less. The Irans, North Koreas and even Islamic States of the world can dabble in these realms (cyber in particular), but not to the same extent. Nor can they leverage these tools to try to gain some degree of conventional forces parity in the way that China and Russia could to alter the balance of power in their immediate periphery.

The second, and perhaps most striking, part of the National Defense Strategy is just how much the Pentagon calls attention to threats – particularly economic – that it is ill-suited to do anything about, except in narrow settings. China is the main focus here.

The NDS states, “As China continues its economic and military ascendance, asserting power through an all-of-nation long-term strategy, it will continue to pursue a military modernization program that seeks Indo-Pacific regional hegemony in the near-term and displacement of the United States to achieve global preeminence in the future.” China’s use of “predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors,” as the Pentagon put it, threatens the U.S. primarily by weakening the alliance structure it would like to lean on to manage distant challenges. Indeed, at last year’s epochal Communist Party Congress, President Xi Jinping admitted that China is still several decades from becoming a world-class military power. Thus, it has little choice but to attempt to use its growing economic heft to forge political arrangements with its neighbors (such as the Philippines) that weaken U.S. standing in the region.

It’s debatable how effective Chinese economic statecraft can actually be, given the number of other deep-pocketed players in the region (particularly Japan), the fact that China is facing a prolonged economic slowdown, and the high risk of political blowback for leaders seen as selling out national sovereignty to Beijing. Nonetheless, the potential for Chinese economic coercion is why trade was a central component of the strategic rationale underpinning former President Barack Obama’s administration’s so-called Pivot to Asia, which the NDS echoes heavily. And it’s why, despite jettisoning the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact early last year, President Donald Trump’s administration has joined Japan, India and Australia in openly mulling ways to counter China’s One Belt, One Road Initiative. (Whatever the economic or political logic for the U.S. to withdraw from TPP, the pact was designed with broader strategic considerations in mind and would have deepened U.S. influence in key states like Vietnam, likely at the expense of Beijing.)

The Pentagon doesn’t offer much in the way of specific solutions to this problem. This is, in part, because countering Chinese economic coercion isn’t the Pentagon’s job, and the main point of the NDS is merely to focus attention on what the Pentagon has identified as emerging priorities. But by calling for the U.S. to “enlarge the competitive space” – i.e., challenging adversaries and exploiting their vulnerabilities from multiple and unexpected directions – the Pentagon is making the case for a comprehensively geopolitical strategy. And, after two decades of putting out brush fires across the globe, the U.S. is attempting to refocus on the strategic realities that will dominate its future.

How a 4-Hour Battle Between Russian Mercenaries and U.S. Commandos Unfolded in Syria

By Thomas Gibbons-Neff

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html

WASHINGTON — The artillery barrage was so intense that the American commandos dived into foxholes for protection, emerging covered in flying dirt and debris to fire back at a column of tanks advancing under the heavy shelling. It was the opening salvo in a nearly four-hour assault in February by around 500 pro-Syrian government forces — including Russian mercenaries — that threatened to inflame already-simmering tensions between Washington and Moscow.

In the end, 200 to 300 of the attacking fighters were killed. The others retreated under merciless airstrikes from the United States, returning later to retrieve their battlefield dead. None of the Americans at the small outpost in eastern Syria — about 40 by the end of the firefight — were harmed.

The details of the Feb. 7 firefight were gleaned from interviews and documents newly obtained by The New York Times. They provide the Pentagon’s first public on-the-ground accounting of one of the single bloodiest battles the American military has faced in Syria since deploying to fight the Islamic State.

The firefight was described by the Pentagon as an act of self-defense against a unit of pro-Syrian government forces. In interviews, United States military officials said they had watched — with dread — hundreds of approaching rival troops, vehicles and artillery pieces in the week leading up to the attack.

The prospect of Russian military forces and American troops colliding has long been feared as the Cold War adversaries take opposing sides in Syria’s seven-year civil war.

At worst, officials and experts have said, it could plunge both countries into bloody conflict. And at a minimum, squaring off in crowded battlefields has added to heightened tensions between Russia and the United States as they each seek to exert influence in the Middle East.

Commanders of the rival militaries had long steered clear of the other by speaking through often-used deconfliction telephone lines. In the days leading up to the attack, and on opposite sides of the Euphrates River, Russia and the United States were backing separate offensives against the Islamic State in Syria’s oil-rich Deir al-Zour Province, which borders Iraq.

American military officials repeatedly warned about the growing mass of troops. But Russian military officials said they had no control over the fighters assembling near the river — even though American surveillance equipment monitoring radio transmissions had revealed the ground force was speaking in Russian.

The documents described the fighters as a “pro-regime force,” loyal to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. It included some Syrian government soldiers and militias, but American military and intelligence officials have said a majority were private Russian paramilitary mercenaries — and most likely a part of the Wagner Group, a company often used by the Kremlin to carry out objectives that officials do not want to be connected to the Russian government.

“The Russian high command in Syria assured us it was not their people,” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told senators in testimony last month. He said he directed Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “for the force, then, to be annihilated.”

“And it was.”

Amassing forces

The day began with little hint of the battle that was about to unfold.

A team of about 30 Delta Force soldiers and Rangers from the Joint Special Operations Command were working alongside Kurdish and Arab forces at a small dusty outpost next to a Conoco gas plant, near the city of Deir al-Zour.

Roughly 20 miles away, at a base known as a mission support site, a team of Green Berets and a platoon of infantry Marines stared at their computer screens, watching drone feeds and passing information to the Americans at the gas plant about the gathering fighters.

At 3 p.m. the Syrian force began edging toward the Conoco plant. By early evening, more than 500 troops and 27 vehicles — including tanks and armored personnel carriers — had amassed.

In the American air operations center at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, and at the Pentagon, confounded military officers and intelligence analysts watched the scene unfold. Commanders briefed pilots and ground crews. Aircraft across the region were placed on alert, military officials said.

Back at the mission support site, the Green Berets and Marines were preparing a small reaction force — roughly 16 troops in four mine-resistant vehicles — in case they were needed at the Conoco plant. They inspected their weapons and ensured the trucks were loaded with anti-tank missiles, thermal optics and food and water.

At 8:30 p.m., three Russian-made T-72 tanks — vehicles weighing nearly 50 tons and armed with 125-millimeter guns — moved within a mile of the Conoco plant. Bracing for an attack, the Green Berets prepared to launch the reaction force.

At the outpost, American soldiers watched a column of tanks and other armored vehicles turn and drive toward them around 10 p.m., emerging from a neighborhood of houses where they had tried to gather undetected.

A half-hour later, the Russian mercenaries and Syrian forces struck.

The Conoco outpost was hit with a mixture of tank fire, large artillery and mortar rounds, the documents show. The air was filled with dust and shrapnel. The American commandos took cover, then ran behind dirt berms to fire anti-tank missiles and machine guns at the advancing column of armored vehicles.

For the first 15 minutes, American military officials called their Russian counterparts and urged them to stop the attack. When that failed, American troops fired warning shots at a group of vehicles and a howitzer.

Still the troops advanced.

From the horizon, a barrage of artillery

American warplanes arrived in waves, including Reaper drones, F-22 stealth fighter jets, F-15E Strike Fighters, B-52 bombers, AC-130 gunships and AH-64 Apache helicopters. For the next three hours, American officials said, scores of strikes pummeled enemy troops, tanks and other vehicles. Marine rocket artillery was fired from the ground.

The reaction team sped toward the fight. It was dark, according to the documents, and the roads were littered with felled power lines and shell craters. The 20-mile drive was made all the more difficult since the trucks did not turn on their headlights, relying solely on thermal-imaging cameras to navigate.

As the Green Berets and Marines neared the Conoco plant around 11:30 p.m., they were forced to stop. The barrage of artillery was too dangerous to drive through until airstrikes silenced the enemy’s howitzers and tanks.

At the plant, the commandos were pinned down by enemy artillery and burning through ammunition. Flashes from tank muzzles, antiaircraft weapons and machine guns lit up the air.

At 1 a.m., with the artillery fire dwindling, the team of Marines and Green Berets pulled up to the Conoco outpost and began firing. By then, some of the American warplanes had returned to base, low on either fuel or ammunition.

The United States troops on the ground, now roughly 40 in all, braced their defenses as the mercenaries left their vehicles and headed toward the outpost on foot.

A handful of Marines ran ammunition to machine guns and Javelin missile launchers scattered along the berms and wedged among the trucks. Some of the Green Berets and Marines took aim from exposed hatches. Others remained in their trucks, using a combination of thermal screens and joysticks to control and fire the heavy machine guns affixed on their roofs.

A few of the commandos, including Air Force combat controllers, worked the radios to direct the next fleet of bombers flying toward the battlefield. At least one Marine exposed himself to incoming fire as he used a missile guidance computer to find targets’ locations and pass them on to the commandos calling in the airstrikes.

An hour later, the enemy fighters had started to retreat and the American troops stopped firing. From their outpost, the commandos watched the mercenaries and Syrian fighters return to collect their dead. The small team of American troops was not harmed. One allied Syrian fighter was wounded.

Who led the ill-fated attack?

The number of casualties from the Feb. 7 fight is in dispute.

Initially, Russian officials said only four Russian citizens — but perhaps dozens more — were killed; a Syrian officer said around 100 Syrian soldiers had died. The documents obtained by The Times estimated 200 to 300 of the “pro-regime force” were killed.

The outcome of the battle, and much of its mechanics, suggest that the Russian mercenaries and their Syrian allies were in the wrong part of the world to try a simple, massed assault on an American military position. Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United States Central Command has refined the amount of equipment, logistics, coordination and tactics required to mix weapons fired from both the air and ground.

Questions remain about exactly who the Russian mercenaries were, and why they attacked.

American intelligence officials say that the Wagner Group, known by the nickname of the retired Russian officer who leads it, is in Syria to seize oil and gas fields and protect them on behalf of the Assad government. The mercenaries earn of a share of the production proceeds from the oil fields they reclaim, officials said.

The mercenaries loosely coordinate with the Russian military in Syria, although Wagner’s leaders have reportedly received awards in the Kremlin, and its mercenaries are trained at the Russian Defense Ministry’s bases.

Russian government forces in Syria maintain they were not involved in the battle. But in recent weeks, according to United States military officials, they have jammed the communications of smaller American drones and gunships such as the type used in the attack.

“Right now in Syria, we’re in the most aggressive E.W. environment on the planet from our adversaries,” Gen. Tony Thomas, the head of United States Special Operations Command, said recently, referring to electronic warfare. “They’re testing us every day.”

Reporting was contributed by Eric Schmitt from Washington; Ivan Nechepurenko from St. Petersburg, Russia; and C.J. Chivers. Kitty Bennett contributed research.

Русский мир в Сирии

https://inosmi.ru/sngbaltia/20150911/230216710.html

Информация об «отпускниках» из России, воюющих на стороне правительственных войск в Сирии, имеет эффект дежа-вю. Подобный десант «отдыхающих» уже недавно высаживался — в Крыму и в неподконтрольных Украине районах Донецкой и Луганской области. А сходные речи об отсутствии десанта трактористов и сотрудников ЧОПов тоже уже звучали. Сравнение двух ставших неожиданно популярными в России «туристических» направлений, украинского и сирийского, помогает разобраться с действительным содержанием концепта «русского мира».

Русский мир: вчера и сегодня

Исторически «русский мир» рассматривался в качестве альтернативы миру западному, основанному на погоне за наживой и обезличенных отношениях между людьми. Русский мир Достоевского, Толстого и Чехова представлял для западного интеллектуала 19-го века многочисленные возможности для критики утилитаризма и бюрократизма. Не случайно среди замеченных в симпатиях к русскому миру в те времена можно было встретить весьма неожиданных и примечательных личностей — Франца Кафку, например, который надеялся найти в России альтернативу западному «Замку». В наши дни Россия вряд ли являет собой культурную альтернативу «Замку», хотя некоторые западные «левые» по старой привычке верят в это.

Рынок, говорите? Есть, наличествует. Потребительская культура? Наличествует — россияне потребляют, берут кредиты и опять потребляют. Бюрократизм, бездушие и безличие чиновничества? Без них здесь никуда. В общем, все это в России есть. Почти как в Греции, если процитировать одного из идеологов оригинального русского мира Чехова. Однако русский мир как политический и геополитический проект — не исчез. Наоборот, в последние годы идея русского мира переживает своеобразный ренессанс, да будет простительно европейское заимствование в данном контексте. Сначала были колонки Петра Щедровицкого в «Независимой газете« еще старого образца и в «Русском журнале». Потом было создание поддерживаемого правительством фонда «Русский мир». Затем последовала проповедь Патриарха Кирилла на торжественном открытии III Ассамблеи Русского мира с призывом сотворить русский мир на земле.

Наконец, с начала 2014 года пришла пора этих самых практических шагов по установлению русского мира — сначала в Крыму, а потом и в отдельных районах Донецкой и Луганской областей Украины, с перспективой повторить их в Молдове и Прибалтике.

Новый русский мир основан не на загадочной и тонкой русской душе. Как признал Патриарх, «грешников у нас было не меньше, чем в других странах». Основания «Русского мира 2.0» иные. Согласно проповеди Патриарха, их три: православие, русский язык и «общая историческая память и общие взгляды на историческое развитие». Все три компонента были задействованы в Крыму и на востоке Украины: православие по версии УПЦ(МП), языковый вопрос и георгиевские ленточки упоминались в контексте «русской весны» чаще, чем что-либо другое.

Были ли сражения за Славянск, Мариуполь, Иловайск и Дебальцево крестовыми походами против потребительства и бюрократии? По российской версии, это были битвы за православную веру, русский язык и в память о Великой Отечественной войне. Причем последнее ненавязчиво подчеркивалось поставками в район конфликта раритетной военной техники, вплоть до легендарных Т-34.

Зачем нужен берег сирийский

За что бьются «отпускники» на другом жарком «курорте», в Сирии? Представить борьбу с Исламским Государством Ирака и Леванта, ИГИЛ, как «священную войну за русский мир» — трудно даже с большой натяжкой. Даже до начала сирийского кризиса, то есть, без учета эмиграции и беженцев, христиане были относительно малочисленной конфессиональной группой. Более того, наряду с православными христианами здесь жили и представители других ветвей христианства — католики и протестанты. Прихожан РПЦ в Сирии можно и вовсе пересчитать по пальцам, хотя Патриарх Кирилл успел побывать и там.

Кроме «отпускников», на русском в Сирии говорят единицы. Использования георгиевских ленточек сторонами сирийского конфликта тоже до сих пор не фиксировалось. Так в чем же связь русского мира и Сирии? Почему российские «отпускники» вдруг направили свои взоры на эту страну Ближнего Востока? Возможно, это часто не замечаемое и еще реже упоминаемое в официальном дискурсе связующее звено заключается в сходстве тех моделей власти, на которых основана политическая система в Сирии и России Четвертым элементом русского мира является «русская власть» как особая система отношений между субъектами и объектами власти на всех уровнях — в повседневной жизни — между родителями и детьми, мужем и женой; внтури организаций — между начальником и подчиненным; и в политике.

Исследователи русской власти — Пивоваров, Фурсов, Макаренко — отмечают такие ее особенности, как:

– самоценность власти для ее обладателей;

– необязательность легитимации власти (принцип «я — начальник, ты — дурак, ты — начальник, я — дурак»);

– наличие у субъекта власти одних прав, а у ее объекта — одних обязанностей;

– отсутствие у объекта власти возможности «достучаться» до обладателя власти;

– использование субъектом власти насильственных средств для навязывания своей воли.

По их мнению, именно такая модель власть преобладала на всем протяжении российской истории за исключением коротких периодов. Привлекательность такой системы власти, однако, не ограничивается границами России. Восприимчивой к ней предположительно оказались многие жители Крыма, а так же ряда территорий на Востоке Украины. Заложенные в основу фунционирования самопровозглашенных образований ДНР и ЛНР принципы вполне перекликаются с конституцией русской власти. Жестокая и самоценная власть, как нужно признать, не лишена привлекательности для некоторых и за российскими границами по состоянию до 2014 года.

Не исключено, что аналогичные предпосылки — наличествующий спрос на русскую власть, пусть даже и местного разлива — присутствуют и в Сирии среди поддерживающих президента Башара Асада людей. Сирийский лидер и его сторонники стремятся удержаться у власти любой ценой. Иначе говоря, русский мир можно экспортировать везде, где основополагающие принципы русской власти находят отклик среди элит и как минимум части населения. Говорить по-русски при этом не обязательно. Креститься в определенной последовательности тоже. И георгиевскую ленточку на одежду или машину привязывать не нужно. Важно лишь понимать и воспринимать власть в чистом виде, без ограничений и примесей. Именно такой она была и есть в России.

Последний вопрос — а зачем участие в сирийском конфликте самим носителям русской власти на ее родине, в России? После последовательного исключения религии, языка и общей истории остается предположить, что дело, вероятно, в отвлечении внимания своих сторонников от неудачи на украинском фронте.

Маленькая победоносная война на Востоке Украины не удалась — она попросту привела в тупик. «Новороссия», этот проект по материализации русского мира, однозначно не состоялась. «ДНР» и «ЛНР» принесли российскому руководству больше проблем, чем дивидендов — как и послевоенную Чечню, эти образования приходится «кормить» из скудеющего бюджета, да еще и расплачиваться за это санкциями. А показывать слабость обладателям русской власти никак нельзя. Соответствующая аура разрушится.

Объекты власти начинают задумываться о легитимации власти — точнее, о том, что ее нет, отсутствии шансов быть услышанными и, что самое ужасное — о своих правах. «Если власть не абсолютна, значит, на часть ее прерогатив могу претендовать и я, ранее удовлетворявшийся ролью маленького винтика всеобъемлющего механизма». А такие крамольные мысли разрушают основы власти в ее чистом виде, материализовать которую удалось именно в России.

Поэтому понадобилась другая маленькая победоносная война, теперь в Сирии. Никакого другого разумного объяснения стремление российского руководства организовать массовый отпуск своих граждан на сирийском взморье, как представляется, не имеет. Отпуск в Сирии — и за Крым, и за Донбасс, и за десант, и за спецназ.

Последствия для Украины

На первый взгляд, перенос основного удара авангарда русского мира на Сирию — это хорошая новость для Украины. Воевать на два фронта всегда трудно, а уж тем более все глубже увязающей в кризисе и санкциях стране. Чем более масштабно присутствие России в Сирии, тем меньше шансов на активизацию боевых действий на Востоке Украины. Однако новости хороши отнюдь не для всех на Украине. Причем речь идет даже не о первых лицах самопровозглашенных ДНР и ЛНР — об ударе по их амбициям и мечтам о завоевании территории «от моря до моря». На войну в Донецкой и Луганской областях можно было списывать все ошибки в действиях властвующей элиты в Киеве и в регионах. Если оказался не предателем или соглашателем — уже хорошо.

Однако замораживание конфликта лишает представителей украинской власти возможности мобилизовывать население в свою поддержку вопреки сохранению коррупции и отсутствию продуманной социальной, да и экономической политики. Списывать на «временные трудности военного времени» теперь все труднее — а значит, и спрос с пришедших во власть после Революции достоинства будет другой. Спрашивать с них теперь будут как раз по максимуму — насколько их политика совместима с уважением человеческого достоинства.

В этих условиях не исключено, что ряд аспектов русской власти, например, ее самоценность и стремление ее обладателей сохраниться у власти любой ценой, окажется привлекательным и для некоторых представителей новой украинской элиты. Наличие таких политиков тогда будет свидетельством успеха русской весны в Крыму и на Донбассе. Русская власть по-прежнему имеет своих сторонников в Киеве — а значит, «воевали не зря». С такими людьми «всегда можно договориться». И они рано или поздно обратятся в столицу русской власти за поддержкой.

Антон Олейник, профессор Университета «Мемориал» (Канада).

What we know about the shadowy Russian mercenary firm behind an attack on U.S. troops in Syria

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/02/23/what-we-know-about-the-shadowy-russian-mercenary-firm-behind-the-attack-on-u-s-troops-in-syria/

Putin ally's private army behind attack on U.S.-backed forces?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-vladimir-putin-yevgeny-prigozhin-wagner-group-attack-us-allies-syria/

MOSCOW -- We are learning more about who was likely behind an attack earlier this month on a rebel base in northern Syria, where American forces were embedded with the fighters. The Russian mercenaries who carried out the siege -- which was repelled by U.S. airstrikes -- were reportedly working for oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin, a close ally of Vladimir Putin and the same man accused of running a troll factory that targeted American voters.

As CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer reports, the attack took place on Feb. 7, and the U.S. response resulted in a number of Russian mercenaries being killed. There were no U.S. casualties.

When the U.S. soldiers called in airstrikes to defend themselves, they had no idea they would end up killing dozens Russian civilians.

The U.S. military has released video of the strike, showing some of the mercenaries and one of their tanks. U.S. officials believe the soldiers-for-hire were attacking a gas installation right next to the base controlled by U.S. special operations forces and their Kurdish allies.

U.S. officials have told CBS News that Prigozhin was in contact with both Syrian and Russian officials in the days before and after the attack.  The U.S. believes the Russian mercenaries knew they were attacking a position held by the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) rebels, but didn't know there were U.S. advisers at the site.

The mercenaries -- members of what is essentially Yevgeny Prigozhin's private army -- originally went to Syria to back up the Russian military, which came to the rescue of dictator Bashar Assad's beleaguered forces a couple years ago.

More recently, however, Prigozhin's so called Wagner group struck an agreement with the Syrian government to seize oil and gas fields in rebel-held territory in Syria, and Prigozhin stands to get a share of the profits. The Wagner group is officially a private defense firm in Russia, but many suspect that, given the oligarch's close ties with Putin, it works to some degree in conjunction with Russia's Ministry of Defense.

It was only when pictures of the men killed in the strike started to appear on social media that the U.S. knew they'd killed Russian citizens.

As Palmer reports, there is a hotline between the Russian military and the U.S. forces that's intended to avoid incidents like this on the complicated battlefields of Syria, and the Pentagon says they used it to warn the Russian military before the counterstrikes on Feb. 7.

The Russian military officers contacted did not try to stop the U.S. airstrikes, probably, Palmer says, because they resent the mercenaries freelancing to enrich a Kremlin-backed oligarch on an already complex battlefield -- where mistakes like this risk dangerous escalation.