Europe`s Eastern Frontline: The Time of Change

Photo:REUTERS/Ints Kalnins U.S. troops make a stop during tactical roadmarch Dragoon Ride II near Subate, Latvia,June 6, 2016Valuable Advice from Washington and WarsawIn November 2015, Washington-based Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), which also

has an office in Warsaw, published a report titled "Frontline Allies: War and Change in Central Europe" produced by the U.S.-Central Europe Strategic Assessment Group devoted to foreign and defense policies of the CEE countries  , implications of the recent developments for U.S. national security interests, and American policies aimed at influencing the CEE states for "longer-term regional geopolitical results."

There seem to be several reasons why both theoreticians and practitioners in the Russian military-political establishment may find this analysis helpful, among them:

— The July 8-9 NATO summit in Warsaw that should make a decision on the deployment of rotational multinational battalions in Poland and the Baltic .

— The resumption of the Russia-NATO Council sessions.— Continued mutual accusations about planned and surprise exercises by both sides.The End of the Long Peace

CEPA report «Frontline Allies: War and Changein Central Europe»

Rhythmical changes between war and peace have been quite normal for the greater part of the European history. The authors cite two exceptions, i.e. the "long peace" from the Congress of Vienna to the First World War and a peaceful period after the close of the Cold War. They believe that by expanding NATO and the European Union, the West has created a zone of stability stretching from the Pacific Ocean to Poland's eastern border, thus obviating the need for diplomatic jockeying and arms race. They also point out that the arrangement was sealed by the weakness of Russia and the military and political involvement of the United States in European affairs.

The CEE states have gained from this "historical pause" more than other party, while the return of Russia to the global scene (the interpretation of this indisputable fact notwithstanding) has considerably altered the layout.

The report suggests drawing the "new frontline" along the eastern border of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.

Interestingly, along with Russia, Poland is the most frequently cited country, with NATO mentioned much more often than the EU, and the OSCE totally neglected, as well as the late CFE Treaty.

The New Russian Threat and ResponsesAccording to the Strategic Assessment Group (SAG), the Ukraine events indicate that change has

occurred along two lines:— Politically, the war in Ukraine displayed a new type of threat – quick, stealthy, low-intensity,

and limited land conquests, perfectly engineered to exploit divergences of threat perception among NATO’s western and eastern members, isolating vulnerable frontline states by impeding the process of political consensus needed for the Article 5 Collective Security guarantee to function.

Fig.1NATO on duty— Militarily, the “limited war” tactics with an emphasis on fast territorial faits accomplis are a

form of warfare well-designed to defeat NATO’s security posture characterized by weak perimeter states reliant upon distant reinforcements. Hence, while NATO plans a defense-in-depth, Russia threatens to rewrite the map around the extremities. Backed by an “escalate-to-deescalate” nuclear doctrine and growing Russian control of air superiority assets, these techniques represent a formidable strategic problem.

Thus, the CEPA suggests getting back to territorial defense, which is viewed by CEE countries somewhat differently. Poland is launching a military buildup program, the Baltic states demand deployment of foreign troops or permanent stationing of weapons and military hardware in their territories, Hungary and Czech Republic are cautiously searching for opportunities beyond NATO and the EU. At that, each of these tactics would not exclude other ways.

The processes underway imply several potentially negative aftereffects:1. Greater division in NATO and the EU.2. New openings for Russian influence emerge because of excessive accommodation

displayed toward some countries.3. Reduced military interoperability because national defense programs may fall out of sync

with NATO.

4. Increased nationalism within the CEE increases doubts that supranational bodies can offer them security.

5. A perennial NATO crisis related to the potential vulnerability of CEE countries in the absence of materialized guarantees for collective defense.

While NATO plans a defense-in-depth, Russia threatens to rewrite the map around the extremities. These techniques represent a formidable strategic problem. Thus, the CEPA suggests getting back to territorial defense.

The SAG describes the cornerstone of the U.S. policy as diminishing Russia's control over escalation and congruent minimization of the potential consequences of "military adventures" in the CEE region.

What we are doing now is attempting to classify the suggested ways to support the "frontline allies" and bolster their defenses.

The Political Dimension

Fig. 2Regional allied structures (NBP 9 – informalassociation of Scandinavian and Baltic statesand Poland)Frontline Allies: War and Change in CentralEuropeThe SAG recommends that the United States render comprehensive support to boost cooperation

between same-thinking countries, first of all between Poland, Sweden, Finland and the Baltic states.Notably, disagreements exist even between states that share values and aspirations, as seen by the

SAG, among other things in view of the prospects for peaceful cooperation with Russia  [4]. If the formation of a "unified front" in Northern and Central Europe becomes a reality, outside actors, i.e. the United States, will have to get deeply involved, which should bring the need for additional economic, technological and human resources.

The SAG underlines the contradictions within the Visegrád Group, as Poland insists on the military containment of Russia jointly with NATO, while the southern states see NATO membership as potential irritant for Russia and would not like to concentrate on security. The V4 is advised to place more priority on interactions in regional defense, and put trade and economic relations with Russia or national minorities' issues on the backburner.

The SAG also points out the need for deeper U.S. engagement with Poland irrespective of domestic politics and intra-EU relations, which means all-out support of Warsaw, primarily in defense which should be the key for "countering Russian aggression." Should the Polish forces and other resources be elevated to a new level, the U.S. could theoretically hand over the banner of defender against the Russian barbarians to Poland and focus on other regions.

The SAG also points out the need for deeper U.S. engagement with Poland irrespective of domestic politics and intra-EU relations, which means all-out support of Warsaw, primarily in defense.

A lot of importance is given to economic and technological cooperation between the U.S. and the CEE, to a great extent in view of breaking their ties with Russia, primarily in the energy area.

Quite fascinating is the SAG strategy implying an attack against the enemy's political system intended to force the adversary into a political collapse and make him give up on the attempted aggression and agree to concessions. The authors admit that this strategy is hardly feasible if taken on by minor frontline states, but they may be in the know of the adversary's domestic vulnerabilities due to common history, language, cultural, trade and economic ties, thus providing the allies with an opening and a tool for damaging the domestic politics of the "resurging enemy."

Military-Technical and Organizational Measures

Fig. 3Estonian Defence ForcesEstonian soldiers with the Javelin antitank systemIn this sphere, the efforts must be focused on creating an environment that would make an attack

on a "frontline state" too costly for the aggressor, thus providing either containment or punishment.Among other things, containment could occur by dragging the enemy into counterproductive

costs, for example the development of wasteful military systems, or through solutions that would enhance the defense capabilities of a potential victim state.

First of all, the "frontline states" must be equipped with advanced antitank and antiaircraft weapons, counter-battery radars, artillery (including rockets), as well as cruise missiles, depending on the country's operational capabilities.

The report also names the topographically vulnerable regions, among them the Suwałki gap in Poland, Lithuania’s land corridor between Kaliningrad and Belarus, the Danish island of Bornholm, the Finnish island of Aland, Romania’s Moldovan frontier and eastern Estonia.

The "frontline states" must be equipped with advanced antitank and antiaircraft weapons, counter-battery radars, artillery, as well as cruise missiles, depending on the country's operational capabilities.

Vulnerabilities are to be compensated by the permanent deployment of U.S. forces up to a full brigade in each country, as well as by readiness of other allies for forward deployment.

The territorial defense of the CEE states should be central to NATO military planning, while Washington would work hard to develop the CEE capabilities, which appears quite a theme to be watched during the NATO summit in Warsaw next July 8-9.

The report gives much attention to countering "limited nuclear escalation." Fortunately, the CEE countries will hardly find a nuclear weapons provider, but within the nuclear exchange program, all relevant states [5] are recommended to swiftly purchase nuclear-capable aircraft. On the whole, the SAG regards the issue of a limited nuclear strike as underdeveloped, hence national and NATO headquarters should step up their cooperation, including holding appropriate exercises. More than that, authorized persons should be appointed for a permanent duty in case "limited nuclear retaliation" is required.

The View from Russia

Fig. 4Vulnerable areas, author's mapThe very emergence of this report only illustrates the failure of the U.S. and EU economic

sanctions against Russia. Had those been effective, different hypothetical threats would have been needed to substantiate the described complicated and costly defense efforts.

The SAG focuses on the CEE but at the same time repeatedly underlines the key role of the United States in maintaining and strengthening their security. As a result, the illusory Russian threat to the CEE sovereignty is materialized in their "voluntary" offering of the sovereignty to the cause of anti-Russian struggle.

Using data from the media, the SAG and CEPA seem to be promoting a pointedly twisted vision of Moscow's foreign and defense policies. However, their opinions and proposals are taken up both by politician and government officials. For example, Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic candidate for U.S. presidency, believes the Baltic countries may change their foreign policies if Washington becomes less active .

As far as the military solutions are concerned, former EUCOM Commander Philip Breedlove said that next February an additional tank brigade is to be redeployed preferably to the CEE countries bordering with Russia.

Another confirmation has come from one of the first statements made by Poland's President Andrzej Duda upon his election in 2015: "We need more NATO in this part of Europe." 

The SAG recommends that the United States render comprehensive support to boost cooperation between same-thinking countries, first of all between Poland, Sweden, Finland and the Baltic states.

Logistical training within operations for redeployment of even minor contingents with equipment does help to improve readiness and capabilities for responding to new threats.

One should say that the combatant value of a U.S. contingent in the CEE countries seems minor against the very fact of the U.S. military presence and the threat to American lives. Still valid appears the 100-year-old statement of General Foch who in 1910 replied to General Wilson's question on the minimum number of British soldiers to be deployed in Europe for a war with Germany: "One will do, and we make sure he is killed." 

Many of the SAG proposals are described as "non-provocative" and intended for peacetime. Some of them seem quite suitable for Russia's foreign and defense policies, although Moscow should hardly apply them only to the East European non-military theater:

1. Supplies of the A2/AD systems (air defense units, cruise missiles taking into account of the MTCR limitations) to friendly countries in regions vital for defense, positioning and economic development of Russia, among them the CSTO and SCO states, Syria and Iran.

2. Temporary or permanent bases to support friendly regimes in their territories.3. Building of bilateral and multilateral international cooperation on the basis of common

goals, with the differences left behind.Just as in the case of the "hybrid war," these activities appear hardly unique for Russia as well.

Fig. 5Russian Defense Ministry, Syria.mil.ruS-400 missile defense system guarding the Russian aerospace contingent in SyriaWeapons deliveries to Iraq, the Kurds and Syria have made Russia a key fighter against the

Islamic Stateb  and immensely expanded its resources in the overall Middle East region. In fact, the terrorists have been denied access mostly with help of conventional systems like attack aircraft and heavy flame throwers that were used in Iraq.

Apart from attacking the terrorists, the air forces and other formations in Syria have helped Russia to prevent a "closed sky" planned by the opponents of Damascus and established control of the Syrian airspace similar to effective NATO mission Baltic Air Policing.

The establishment of the Information Center in Baghdad and various formats for interaction with other forces opposing terrorism offers one more example of cooperation for a common cause that cannot be affected by differences on other issues.

However, there is also a reverse trend. For example, interdiction used to be related to the capabilities of Russia, China and Iran to prevent projection of the U.S. force  within the A2/AD strategies.

The SAG regards the issue of a limited nuclear strike as underdeveloped, hence national and NATO headquarters should step up their.

Of major interest appear proposed activities in the nuclear area. It may seem sensible to step up the Russia-U.S. dialogue with the possible involvement of other countries and discuss theater nuclear weapons for creating a single conceptual apparatus in view of future talks on their control and reduction. It would be of help to achieve a minimally transparent level in the technical and organizational matters related to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, and also specify the conceptual basics for its use. The problem is all the more urgent because of the nonstop accusations of violations of the INF Treaty by Russia, as well as because of the U.S. plans to deploy the B61-12 in Europe.

The foreign and defense approaches of the "resurging Russia" are studied under he microscope in various circles, with the scrutinized results directly affecting the effectiveness of Moscow's policy. The dissemination of true and exact information on the aims and methods used by Russia (naturally, with room for maneuver) may reduce misinterpretations, with a solid step in this direction made by the recent coverage of the Syria operation by the Russian Defense Ministry, regular briefings of the Russian Foreign Ministry and official statements of Russian leaders.

War between Russia and USA may break out in Syria23.06.2016 http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/politics/23-06-2016/134812-russia_usa-0/

Brexit: The collapse of Europe24.06.2016http://www.pravdareport.com/world/europe/24-06-2016/134816-brexit-0/

Source: Pravda.Ru archiveUK Prime Minister David Cameron announced his resignation after the Britons voted to exit the

European Union on June 23. According to Cameron, the country needs a new leader and he does not want to be the captain to take the country to a new destination. he resigned after the vote to withdraw Britain from the EU. According to him, the country needs new leadership.

David Cameron steps down after Brexit"We should aim to have a new prime minister in place by the start of the Conservative Party

conference in October," he said. "The British people have voted to leave the European Union and their will must be respected," Cameron said.

More than a half of the people who took part in the referendum voted for Great Britain's exit from the European Union. According to most recent data, the margin of the victory was 52% to 48%.

The supporters of Brexit (British + Exit) have thus won the referendum, breaking the barrier of 16.7 million votes. The turnout in the referendum was about 72 percent - the highest vote turnout in Great Britain since the early 1990s.

The Brexit referendum was David Cameron's own initiative, so he will not be able to ignore the results of the vote in Britain.

However, the Brexit referendum is not of legally binding character, and the British government can decide the fate of its country at its own will.

Chairman of the Northern Ireland nationalist party, Declan Kearney, said that UK's exit from the EU could serve as a reason for the unification of Ireland as the British government will thus be deprived of the powers to represent the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

Britain leaves EU destroying Brussel's evil empirePravda.Ru asked an opinion from a British voter, who asked us to be introduced as Carolina Price

from Newcastle."All of our family votes for Brexit. In reality, the majority of citizens support Britain's pullout

from the European Union - up to 65 percent. Most of the people older thant 45 want to pull out from the EU, while most of those under 45 years of age want the country to remain an EU member. Yet, the system does not want to let Britain out of the EU and it will not let it leave. We are being pessimistic about it, because we know that we will remain part of the EU regardless of the result of the vote."

The woman also told Pravda.Ru that the recent murder of MP Joe Cox was committed to stir up public opinion in the right direction. The news about the murder of Joe Cox was used as a reason to refuse from a number of activities within the framework of preparations for the referendum.

"Without Britain, the European Union will fall apart like a house of cards, and everyone knows that," Carolina Price told Pravda.Ru.

Britain's pull out from the EU will help destroy Brussel's evil empire and liberate 27 nations from the oppression of the Eurocrats, the leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) Nigel Farage and the current Justice Secretary Michael Gove.

At the same time, former Conservative leader William Hague, for instance, warned that the collapse of the EU, which may occur as a consequence of Brexit, would throw Europe into the darkness of poisonous tribal hatred and predatory economic policy."

"The British society is deeply divided," Konstantin Voronov, a senior officer at the Department for European Political Studies at the Institute for International Economic Relations told Pravda.Ru. According to the expert, the EU will be able to fully adapt to living without the UK, unless the EU stakes on the Euro-Atlantic Partnership.

"The EU now faces a dilemma of how to solve the further deepening of integration. It will be up to major EU countries - Germany, France, Italy and Benelux - to deepen integration, build an economic currency union and a military-political union," Konstantin Voronov said.

Russia wants to see European, rather than Euro-Atlantic Europe"Of course, Russia wants to see the European, rather than the Euro-Atlantic Europe that would

obey its partner across the ocean, even though the requirements from overseas may very often contradict to Europe's interests," the expert added.

Russia's Finance Minister Anton Siluanov believes that the results of the Brexit referendum may send oil prices down and thus weaken the Russian ruble and increase volatility in financial markets.

"These is quite unpleasant news indeed. This volatility is much less than the one that we have been through, so the influence of this news on the Russian economic dynamics will be limited," said Siluanov.

According to the minister, the vote in the UK has shown that hopes for markets and the world economy to recover were overly optimistic. As a result, there will be two key consequences - a sharp increase in market volatility and uncertainty about the future development of global economy, Siluanov said.

Brexit: Market members panic, stocks collapseBrexit has triggered a massive exodus of investors from risks to defensive assets. Oil prices have

dropped by five percent. Brent oil was traded at $48.3 per barrel. Gold, by contrast, has gone five percent up.

European markets are dealing with "Black Friday" on June 24: the euro fell by more than three percent, having thus marked the deepest drop since the introduction of the joint European currency in 1999. Government bonds of the European periphery (Spain, Italy) have fallen in prices as well, whereas the European stock market has fallen by 2.8%.

Germany's DAX index, which reflects the dynamics of the cost of 30 largest companies, has fallen by 8.09% at the opening to 9437 points - the strongest fall in five years. Most of all, the results of the referendum have affected the cost of banks and financial companies: shares of Deutsche Bank slid by 17,5%, Commerzbank - by 16,2%, Allianz - by 12.4%. On the eve of the referendum, German markets closed in the green zone. On June 23, DAX rose by 1.85%, RBC reports.

The shares of British banks have collapsed. They have lost nearly a third of their value at the opening of trading: Barclays shares fell by 30%, Royal Bank of Scotland - by 35%, Lloyd's Bank dropped by 30%. The shares of financial companies of FTSE 100 Index have collapsed as well.

- See more at: http://www.pravdareport.com/world/europe/24-06-2016/134816-brexit-0/#sthash.RjD7j3zv.dpuf

Source: Pravda.Ru archiveThe New York Times published a collection of theses from the letter written by 51 diplomats

criticizing the US State Department for its policy in Syria. The diplomats suggested attacking Bashar Assad's government troops with bombs and missiles to topple the unwanted Syrian president. According to the diplomats, thebombings of the Syrian government troops will help in the struggle against the Islamic State terrorist group (the organization is banned in Russia).

Vladimir Vasilyev, chief researcher at the Institute for the USA and Canada, believes that the most serious consequence of the above-mentioned letter could be a probable war between Russia and the United States.

"The war between Russia and the USA may break out even tomorrow, if the US bombs Assad. Units of the Russian Air Force are still present in Syria, so clashes between Russia and America are very likely to occur in Syria," Vladimir Vasiliev said in a brief interview with Pravda.Ru.

Should the US start bombing Assad's troops, the situation may aggravate in mere weeks or even days, and this is one of the goals that Washington pursues for a variety of reasons with the election campaign being the most important one of them.

The prime goal is to topple Bashar Assad's regime and inform electors of another "achievement" of American democracy.

Noteworthy, Russian President Putin sent Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu to look into the state of affairs in Syria. The move comes as another signal for a possible military confrontation between the air forces of Russia and the USA, the expert told Pravda.Ru.

The US presidential administration has launched psychological preparations for a military solution to the Syrian problem. Diplomats calling for war is an episode of glaring absurdity, Vladimir Vasiliev said.

"This letter is a fake. It was arranged by orders from the top. It came shortly after the terrorist attack in Orlando. The US administration used the moment of confusion over the domestic, rather than an international terrorist act, to ask diplomats instead of colonels, generals or admirals to decide the question of bombings ," Vladimir Vasiliev said.

Most likely, the letter could not work among the military, who perfectly understand that an attack on Syria would lead to a direct military confrontation with Russia's Air Force.

"If the Orlando shooting had been an act of international terrorism as it was in Paris and Brussels, the US administration could have created a wave of mass discontent. Yet, it was an act of internal terrorism, so it was decided that it was up to US diplomats to decide on the bombings of Syria," Vladimir Vasiliev said.

Vladimir Vasilyev believes that US Secretary of State John Kerry indirectly supported the letter. Kerry had had a meeting with the authors of the letter several years ago.

"Kerry shared the concerns of the diplomats about the situation in Syria. Therefore, Kerry supports the initiative from the diplomats," the expert concluded.

- See more at: http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/politics/23-06-2016/134812-russia_usa-0/#sthash.XaxsCDkg.dpuf

After Syria, Russia to provide military help to Lebanon?21.06.2016http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/politics/21-06-2016/134789-russia_lebanon-0/

Source: Pravda.Ru photo archiveLebanon asked Russia to help the armed forces of the country to combat terrorism. The

Lebanese army shows daily resistance to the onslaught of Islamic State and Jabhat en-Nusra terrorists (the organization are banned in Russia), Minister of Finance of the Republic of Lebanon, Ali Khalil, said during a meeting with Chairman of the Federation Council's Committee for International Affairs, Konstantin Kosachev.

Analysts say that the state of affairs in Lebanon remains highly intense. What will Russia do? Pravda.Ru asked this question to Doctor of Social Sciences, Director of the Institute for Interdisciplinary Research, Alexey Novotochinov.

According to the expert, the tactics of terrorists is to drag Lebanon into a war as quickly as possible. The prime goal of the terrorists is Hezbollah - the movement that represents a point of stability in the country.

Also read: Syria: A military analysis"The terrorists are trying to get Lebanon involved in a large-scale regional massacre and expand

the territory of the so-called Islamic State," he said. "One shall assume that the Lebanese will seek assistance from Russia and Iran. I am sure that

negotiations on the level of embassies and other departments are already underway," Alexey Novotochinov said in an interview with Pravda.Ru.

In his opinion, Russia could supply arms to Kurdistan and promote the idea of the independent Kurdistan to try to establish law and order. Bashar al-Assad is a stumbling block at this point, like Saddam Hussein used to be, although he is absolutely legal.

"Moscow takes a very clear and understandable position here. Russia stands up for stability and humanism. A different approach to the problem will cost Russia money and people's lives. Two days ago, another Russian military man, a very young man, was killed in Syria. It does not matter, whether it is one man or a thousand who get killed. We are losing people - this is most important," the expert told Pravda.Ru.

Therefore, Russia should take a broader approach to the events in the region and think about the prospects of the possible interference, including negative ones.

Also read: Can Russian shells hit the same place twice?From the point of view of Alexei Novotochinov, the Islamic State prepares an offensive via

Turkmenistan and then to Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan to South Urals and, ultimately, to Moscow. In turn, the Taliban wants to capture Kunduz and Kandahar to attack Tajikistan.

"We have seen outbursts of violence in Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan lately, although this is not a talked-about piece of news. All these events come as a rehearsal of the offensive of the Islamic State," the export told Pravda.Ru. The expert believes that one should carefully listen to what Foreign Minister Lavrov and Defense Minister Shoigu say on the subject. They, in addition to President Putin, are two highly responsible and well-educated men. Sergei Shoigu has already visited Turkmenistan and Syria. Rational and forward-looking decisions are to be made soon.

Czechia, Hungary, Slovakia, and Greece are ready to leave EU24.06.2016 | Source:

A referendum on leaving the EU has taken place in Great Britain, where the Brexit supporters gained victory. 52% of the British are reported to have voted for exit. Petr Iskenderov, senior fellow at the Institute of Slavic Studies, told Pravda.Ru about consequences Britain and the whole world face after Brexit.

How will the changed power balance influence the EU?First of all, it should be noted that it will happen not immediately, as the parties should

implement a number of legal procedures, which will regulate further relationship between London and Brussels. But the consequences will certainly take place. First, eurosceptic mood will strengthen in other EU countries and the same campaigns on organization of such referendums may be expected in Central and Eastern Europe, in particular in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia, as well as in the Mediterranean, Greece first of all. Second, we can expect yet another referendum in Scotland, as it voted for remain of Great Britain in the EU, and leaders of movement for Scotland's independence have already declared that they would initiate a second referendum on leaving Britain. Third, there will be change of power balance in foreign policy. Positions of adherents of hard policy towards Russia will

evidently weaken, as the Scandinavian countries, the Baltics and Poland were guided namely by Great Britain and the PM Cameron, who declared about his intention to leave.

Which will be the results in countries, where such referendums would take place? In France, in the Netherlands?

It is necessary to change the ruling coalition in France to carry out such referendum. It will be possible if National Front achieves success at the coming parliamentary elections. The same is in Germany. A victory of the Alternative for Germany movement is needed to conduct alike referendum. However in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as in Greece, one can carry out referendums under current political conditions, and victory of those who support exit from the EU is possible.

Will there be serious economic consequences for the world and Russia after Brexit?Certainly, yes. First of all it will lead to redistribution of power and reformatting of all the global

financial markets. Shares of the British and other European companies will have losses. The American dollar and Japanese yen will benefit as most advantageous and sustainable items for investments. The American fund market will undoubtedly win along with the American treasury obligation. What about Russia, it will neither lose nor win significantly in financial and economic fields. As Russia's relations with Europe and Great Britain are not at the highest level now. What is more, Russian economy is pegged more to oil prices rather than fund markets or any other indices. Uncertain, undetermined situation at the fund markets may push oil prices up. Thus, Russia will find itself in a neutral zone. In any case, Russia will have no major losses. Even if rouble drops a little bit, it will maintain its parity towards dollar.

- See more at: http://www.pravdareport.com/news/world/europe/24-06-2016/134824-brexit-0/#sthash.HuJnl9WR.dpuf