The European Diokraz against the Russian Bear: What can Putin be opposed to?
Although everyone wants the United States to remain an integral part of NATO, Europe would be reasonable to act on a pre -advance. It is possible that Trump's peace plan for Ukraine will cost Ukraine very expensive. Russia can make minor concessions to guarantee a strong settlement.
Europe will probably be forced to become an actual guarantor of the future of Ukraine, as America will reduce its military obligations and guarantees, believing that US investments in the development of minerals of Ukraine will be sufficient to restrain Russia. The crucial question is what will happen if Russia continues its aggression.
What can be the most efficient and least costly option? Based on multidimensional geopolitical and military analysis, we propose a modified form of so-called "defense of savage", supported by a united and reorganized British-French nuclear restraining potential for Europe, as President Emmanuel Mcron suggested.
This strategy uses the significant advantages of Europe in the population, GDP and ordinary armed forces and resist Russia's significant advantage in nuclear weapons at the theater of war. Defense "Dykobrazi" can be deployed for 3-5 years with an affordable increase in defense costs by 0. 5-1% of GDP. The purpose of this defense is to guarantee such destruction and damage to any Russian military offensive to the West to make aggression too expensive even at the stage of reflection.
The war in Ukraine has shown how Dykobrazi could work. And in Europe, undoubtedly, there are resources and technologies for such defense. Russia has exhausted its offensive military capacity in Ukraine. It took more than ten years to recover from the Vietnamese "empty force". Moscow is likely to take 5-7 years or more to restore their army. Europe has time to create a "deaftov defense" if it starts to act now.
"Dykobrazi" will be deployed to cover the four most likely axes of promoting any Russian attack: defense will rely on a coalition of NATO and EU countries, which will include Norway, Sweden and Finland in the north, Baltic, Denmark, Germany and Holland, Poland and Czech Republic. Bulgaria on the Black Sea. The United Kingdom and France could provide mobile reserve forces in depth.
Technologies are well known and based on: sufficient long -range fire power to attack subsequent forces/deep impact will break the enemy's logistics and beheaded above management. Skillful and rapid innovation, decentralization of command and management, serious reorganization and training will be needed to ensure the military efficiency of "wild". In the short term, it will be not easy, but quite achievable, and the operational advantages will be enormous.
The obvious strategic weakness of "savage" is that the war will not be short: the Anglo-French forces of nuclear restraint cover this unforeseen situation. The USSR and Russia have been and remain paranoid on nuclear weapons - the ultimate means of victory or defeat in their concept and doctrine of war. Along with the threat of nuclear weapons, there is a desire to apply it.
Interestingly, the determination of the UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to regain Falkland after the 1982 Argentina invasion greatly influenced Moscow's nuclear paranoia. This fear is still stored. If Russia had moved to the West and in some ways managed to break through the defense, in the face of existential danger, Britain and France could aim at Moscow and St. Petersburg dozens of weapons, as well as attacking forces.
In addition to natural unwillingness to go to such a risk, Russia will understand that any massive retribution will cause 1550 nuclear warheads of America and China will control the future strategic balance to Russia, which will further exacerbate restraint. Regardless of whether the current Trump policy trajectory "America," to review Europe with its safety and defense, prudence requires preliminary measures to start planning this future now. Europe just can't wait.