As we gather here, an outbreak of Ebola overwhelms public health systems in West Africa and threatens to move rapidly across borders. Russian aggression in Europe recalls the days when large nations trampled small ones in pursuit of territorial ambition. The brutality of terrorists in Syria and Iraq forces us to look into the heart of darkness.
Each of these problems demands urgent attention.So, from this viewpoint, the three top threats to the world are: Ebola, Russia, terrorists (evidently, ISIL).
At the same time no one can say these problems received proper medication during the last year. We don't hear about the US' victory over Ebola; after a year of anti-ISIL airstrikes media announced just new and new acts of brutality, terror and vandalism of the ISIL, which doesn't seem to be somehow bothered by the coalition's warfare. Those 'sanctions' supposed to stop so called 'Russian aggression did weaken our national currency to the point of considerable strengthening of our domestic economy, which is not bad at all now, though, surely, could be better.
So, what we have in the world now?
Magically, the second biggest US' trouble is somehow winning over the first and the third ones.
As for Ebola, good news came in June. Our Russian hospital in Guinea announced 76% of patients with confirmed Ebola virus disease, restored to health completely. Not that bad in comparison with estimated lethality of 90%, isn't it?
As for terrorists in the ME, within just two days the Russian air force seems to do more than the coalition did within a year. The only trouble among those bad guys some are worse that the others, and some are good friends of the colaition agains Assad; but Russia, as a bad guy herself, does not obliget to sort shits out, does she?
So, when there will be neither Ebola, nor ISIL, what comes next? I doubt Russia will fight herself to please the wise guy of the White House. US and NATO are strong enough — against weak enemies (Yugoslavia, Libya, Afghanistsan, Iraq, you name it), trying to escape warfare on the ground by all means, as it incurres unacceptable losses.
Besides, way pack in 1962, Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, said to the House of Lords:
Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: "Do not march on Moscow". Various people have tried it, Napoleon and Hitler, and it is no good. That is the first rule.(By the way, he added Rule 2, for China; if you are interested, Google comes to help you read it.)
Since these words were said, quite a while has passed, but the idea remains the same: marching on Moscow is not a kind of lottery, but the way to defeat. The guys in the headquarters of Washington and Brussels can be as stupid as they are, but they are definitely not inclined to committing an immediate mass suicide.
"If you sit by a river long enough, you will see the body of your ebemy float by", Sun Zi (or Tzu, if you wish) said that about 1500 years ago.
But if Obama chooses to do nothing and hopes to see Russia floating by after Ebola and ISIL, he is at risk of losing the game, for meanwhile Mother Russia does not sit and wait. She is just doing the world better, right now, every coming and passing minute.
And when she succeeds, together with all those goodwilling powers that are in the world, US and their