From proxy war against Russia to direct strikes

The terrorist act on the three branches of the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines became the brightest event that focused the whole essence of US global policy, and not only in relation to Russia.

Despite the emergence of a version of Russia's involvement in the terrorist act, even the Western media replicating it do this somewhat "shamefully", knowing full well who is behind the terrorist act.

Even urgently invented versions about “Ukrainian combat swimmers” do not save.

The biggest consequences of the terrorist attack in the Baltic are clear: Germany's demonstration that it is no longer a subject of politics, as it was five or seven years ago, but an object of US and British policy.

Even the maximum servility towards Washington cannot save Germany.

The US and UK are no longer satisfied with the disappearance of Frankfurt as a possible alternative globally significant financial center, which happened in the mid-2010s.

The United States has set a course for the destruction of Germany as a global industrial power.

Germany, and with it the whole of Europe, must quickly turn into just a market from which the maximum amount of funds is pumped out in various ways.

In this case, it is only interesting that on the eve of the internally difficult midterm congressional elections, Washington decided to speed up this sluggish process.

This, on the one hand, means that the Americans do not expect any real response from Germany, that is, the German political elite is completely controllable.

And on the other hand (and this is probably the most important thing) - for the United States the situation is also very acute and it is necessary to constantly increase the stakes in a simultaneous confrontation with Russia and China.

And even a minimal "wobble" of the Atlantic allies becomes dangerous.

But let's dwell on the medium-term consequences of the terrorist act - no less important than the frank demonstration of colonial relations in the "Atlantic world", the basis of the "coalition of democracies", which the "collective Biden" often talks about.

First

.

A terrorist act in the Baltic Sea is, of course,

.

But it is also a clear indicator that this war is starting to move from the hidden and ongoing on the periphery of the global economic space (Tropical Africa and the Horn of Africa, the Western Mediterranean, Southeast Asia, the South Caucasus) to the "metropolis" of the post-industrial world.

This means that we, on the one hand, are at the stage of an open transition to the redistribution of the economic space already outside of corporate mechanisms.

The state was already behind the attack.

On the other hand, the methods of power geoeconomics have been finally legalized.

And this is actually a completely replicated story: if such methods were used in the center of Europe, then such a geo-economic reformatting somewhere in the Middle East or North Africa will not raise big questions at all.

But it seems that the new framework for the geo-economic reformatting of the world will first manifest itself in the soft underbelly of Europe.

In the Balkans.

And how it usually ends, we all know perfectly well.

Second.

A new level of hybrid war of the collective West against Russia.

The United States and, probably, Great Britain, which is probably trying to play an independent role, have indicated their readiness to move from a proxy war against Russia, which was fully manifested during the Kharkov counteroffensive, to direct strikes against infrastructure that is significant for Russia.

Of course, this is happening in the "grey zone", in international waters.

But the property is largely Russian.

But in general, one must understand that from a terrorist act against a Russian asset located in the international economic space to the destruction of objects and assets located on the territory of Russia in one way or another, it is only a step.

But before strikes on objects located on the territory of other countries, for example, the states of post-Soviet Eurasia (such as, for example, space objects in Kazakhstan, economic objects in other countries of Eurasia), even less - half a step.

It is all the more worth recalling the legalization of cyber-strike weapons that have taken place in recent years and were used to disable social infrastructure and public administration facilities.

Third

.

Formation of a request for 

 not only pipelines, but also

 which has been developing at a very rapid pace over the past 20 years.

I hope we all understand that the geo-economically new world implies, first of all, a change in the direction and mode of operation of world trade and its logistics, in many respects its deglobalization, a reduction in the supply arm, and most importantly, competition with other contenders for leadership through the destruction of the infrastructure for access to resources .

How easy it turns out to be, especially when the big players “turn their backs”, was proved by the explosion at Nord Streams - the first and second.

The natural conclusion that the largest geo-economic powers of the world will draw from the situation is to refrain as much as possible from the use of logistics corridors, communication systems, transport systems (such as, for example, large channels) in nationally unprotected zones.

Ultimately, we will talk about the sovereignization of such facilities, which provides the possibility of their direct military protection.

Indeed, if logistics facilities in the Caspian Sea, including hydrocarbon production and transportation facilities, are relatively protected by political agreements of the "Caspian Five" - ​​responsible members of world economic processes, then this cannot be said about gas pipelines in the Mediterranean,

All global logistics is beginning to be not just at risk, but at unpredictable risk.

And here very serious consequences are possible, up to the requirements of extraterritoriality, just as China acted at the beginning of the process of implementing the Great Silk Road project.

Then these requirements were softened, but now there are new - and quite reasonable - reasons for them.

Fourth

.

The course towards achieving the industrial potential of Old Europe at the same time means the need to form a new "industrial semi-periphery".

The United States in the Old World needs a new South Korea, providing with its industrial potential the American military presence in the region, which, as we understand, will not go anywhere in the next decade and a half.

The European allies of the United States turned out to be painfully weak.

The obvious answer is Poland, but the US never puts its eggs in one basket.

Probably, in the coming weeks we will see some kind of “bidding competition” from the European satellites of the United States.

And of course, one of the main requirements will be the readiness of the governments of the respective countries not just for Russophobic rhetoric, but also for practical participation (if you like, participation in blood) in anti-Russian actions.

In other words, the situation with the consequences of the terrorist act against the three lines of Nord Stream in the medium and long term is no less acute than the immediate panic reaction to the prospect of not just a cold winter, but a cold winter against the background of the growing de-industrialization of Europe.

But these processes should be treated calmly, as natural side effects of building a new world.

And in it the competition will be much tougher and more merciless than in the world of "globalization intoxication".

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.