US Navy Chief of Staff John Richardson urged America to "strike first"

МОСКВА, 06 августа 2021, Институт РУССТРАТ. Speaking at the Atlantic Council, Admiral and Chief of Staff of the US Navy John Richardson expressed categorical displeasure with the fact of the expansion of the geopolitical influence of Russia and China in the world ocean. In particular, he noted the progressive pace of the US and NATO’s loss of control over the Black Sea, which poses a threat to the global dominance of the United States in the world. Although this was covered up by traditional mantras about the threat to democratic principles and a certain freedom of navigation in international waters, in fact, we are talking about the recognition by the Pentagon of the fact of the displacement of the fleets of NATO countries from the Black Sea, as well as the gradual weakening of the American naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean. In other words, the chief of staff of the US Navy was outraged by the fact that "the Russians are advancing everywhere, and they are doing it successfully." Like saying that "Great" America finds itself in the position of catching up and reacting only after the fact. This state of affairs does not leave any hope for the success of defensive actions and is fraught with a global strategic defeat. According to the admiral, it can be prevented only by a decisive interception of the initiative in the form of imposing on the enemy (which Richardson names directly as Russia and China ) their own "first strikes", forcing Moscow and Beijing to act according to American rules. "From time to time, playing on the white side of the (chess) board is an advantage," the American admiral said. Of course, these words could be attributed to the natural hawkish aggressiveness of the military, receiving a salary precisely for its determination. However, we should not forget that at the end of last year, more than 40 US senators appealed to then-President Donald Trump to "lead an active multinational operation to ensure freedom of navigation in the Black Sea" in order to "demonstrate support for internationally recognised borders, bilateral agreements and safe passage through the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov" and "repel Russia's excessive claims to sovereignty." To date, there is a new president in America, but these senators, as well as the dominant sentiments in the US leadership, have not gone away. Admiral Richardson just broadcasts them. "It would be great to force the Russians, our competitors, to react to our first steps." This indicates the formation of a dangerous trend – the growing desire of the US leadership to move to direct muscle play in disputed regions, not so much for the sake of capturing them or some theoretical defence, but simply out of the conviction that America's military superiority over any country in the world or their alliance is indisputable. Since the sanctions "did not work", and the belief in geopolitical (economic, technological and, above all, military) superiority remains dominant, in the near future we should expect an increase in the number of military provocations by the collective West, under the leadership of the United States. The incident with the British destroyer is a clear confirmation of this. The United States traditionally uses the armed forces of its allies as the" first-line infantry". If something goes "wrong", it is easy to write off their losses as "inevitable accidents in the big game" or even declare everything an accident and a fatal combination of circumstances. But this also creates the danger of such a scenario developing, for which all parties, including Washington, will be critically unprepared. In this case, more and more often, the overwhelming majority begin to react purely instinctively, no longer being aware of the chain reaction of escalation of mutual aggressiveness of actions. And this is how eventually big wars begin. Undoubtedly, it is certainly necessary to give a legal assessment of such appeals. However, the problem is that the American establishment listens to such of our  assessments less and less. So it is possible to cool their too hot heads only by clearly indicating to them the specific location and composition of the "red lines", the intersection of which automatically means an exchange of strategic nuclear strikes. There is no other way.