US military containment against Russia reappears “cost imposition”

The continuous strategic containment and military provocation by the United States and NATO against Russia is due to the factors of exaggerating external threats to maintain the internal cohesion of the alliance, and the consideration of exerting pressure on Russia through the strategy of “cost imposition”. < / P > < p > “cost imposition” was first proposed by Andrew Marshall, a researcher of RAND Corporation, and was formally included in the document of the US Department of defense in 1976. The core idea of this strategic design is to increase the economic, political and social costs of competitors to implement relevant policies through conscious strategic actions in various ways, intensify their resource consumption, even endanger their government legitimacy and control ability, and force them to withdraw from the competition due to the continuous “strategic blood loss”. During the Reagan administration, the United States formulated and fully implemented the “cost imposition” strategy against the Soviet Union in order to break the “terrible nuclear balance” between the United States and the Soviet Union and regain its competitive advantage. In the view of many researchers, an important reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union is that its arms race with the United States consumed a lot of resources. < / P > < p > after the end of the cold war, the United States not only showed no mercy to Russia, but also further strengthened its containment and containment. In addition to economic sanctions, diplomatic offensives, public opinion propaganda, and the cultivation of internal opposition, the United States has also made frequent military moves. < / P > < p > strengthen the deployment of troops around Russia. The “Aegis”, “Sade” and “patriot-3” missile defense systems deployed by the United States in Poland, Romania, South Korea, Japan and its native Alaska have formed an anti missile “encirclement” against Russia. Since 2017, the United States has won over NATO and deployed four NATO battle groups to Estonia, Latvian, Lithuanian and other countries in rotation, with about 1000 people in each group. This year, the United States, on the pretext of confronting the “Russian threat”, sent about 1000 additional troops to Poland, increasing the number of US troops in Poland to about 5500. U.S. ambassador to Poland Mosbach also said publicly that the United States could transfer the nuclear weapons deployed in Germany to Poland, causing strong dissatisfaction from Russia. < / P > < p > increase the frequency and intensity of military provocations against Russia. According to figures disclosed by Russia’s Ministry of defense, NATO holds nearly 40 large-scale military exercises in Europe every year, which are obviously aimed at Russia. In 2019, the number of aerial reconnaissance along the Russian border increased by 33% year on year, and the number of maritime / coastal reconnaissance increased by 24%. Despite the impact of novel coronavirus pneumonia, NATO’s military provocation against Russia has increased this year. The U.S. b-52h strategic bombers have also conducted combat training in launching cruise missiles to attack Russia in the Black Sea, Estonia, Canada and the Arctic region, respectively, and the “missile air attack simulation” exercise against Russia has been normalized. < / P > < p > accelerate the development process of advanced weapons and equipment and new combat doctrine. For many years, the United States has been promoting the miniaturization and combat of nuclear weapons. In 2019, on the 16th day after the expiration of the China Missile Treaty, the United States conducted the test of land-based medium and short-range missiles previously prohibited by the treaty. The United States has also set up cyber command and space command to take the lead in “cyber arms race” and “space military race”. At the same time, the US military has put forward many operational theories such as “multi domain warfare”, “global warfare”, “decision-making center warfare” and “mosaic warfare”. < / P > < p > all of the above have formed a strong security threat and strategic pressure on Russia. For Russia, whose domestic economy is already in a weak position and which has suffered a lot from the epidemic, it will be somewhat difficult to deal with the long-term harassment and provocation of the US led NATO military group. This kind of escalating harassment may cause Russia a sense of strategic urgency, so as to invest more energy to speed up the research and development of advanced weapons and equipment or adopt other military response strategies, so that Russia will bear higher costs in the competition among big powers, and on the contrary, it will lose its competitiveness in other aspects to a certain extent. This result is the goal of the “cost imposed” strategy. < / P > < p > the United States took out the “ingenious plan” of “cost imposition” from the “brocade bag” during the cold war period, which fully proves that its cold war thinking and zero sum game concept are deeply rooted. In fact, hostility to Russia has a huge market in the US military and political circles. The main way for Russia to deal with the situation is neither to give in nor to expand the situation, but to better mobilize and allocate its strategic forces, occupy key nodes such as hypersonic weapon R & D and application, concentrate on creating asymmetric advantages in some areas, avoid time-consuming and labor-consuming struggle with the United States, and seek a breakthrough in the fierce big power game.