Universal amnesia for danger, or the world really went crazy
So, in the Baltics a full-fledged division of the US armed forces is deployed. This was stated by the official representative of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, General Konashenkov. The cries about the aggressiveness of Russia and the "seizure of Belarus" after the end of the exercise "West-2017" ended. And now it will be difficult to talk about the Russian threat. The situation is changing radically. Although in the light of the policy pursued by the West with respect to our country, it can be assumed that there will be explanations. Something like: NATO strengthens the defense of its eastern borders from attack, for example, North Korea.
But there is also Poland, where the 2-I armored brigade of the USA arrived. And the 3 armored brigade is already in Europe. Of course, you can entertain yourself with the question of personnel. Technique of equipment, and it must be controlled by a soldier. A soldier must be delivered. It is clear that to deliver personnel from the United States, even by plane for a long time. Only who said that it will be from the USA? Everything is easier, the staff is in Germany. And its delivery will take 2 hours.
Why am I writing about changing the situation? You never know where NATO has deployed its soldiers. Documents read. What happened is contrary to the main document on which NATO-Russia relations are based. The very one that is loudly called the “Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization”.
In principle, this is not the first global violation of the Act. I will allow myself to quote lines of mutual obligations, so that you understand what I mean. "For the implementation of the activities and objectives stipulated by this Act, the development of common approaches to European security and political issues, Russia and NATO are creating a Joint Russia-NATO Permanent Council. The core task of the Joint Permanent Council will be to create a higher level of trust, unity of goals and skills of consultation and cooperation between Russia and NATO in order to enhance the security of each other and of all countries in the Euro-Atlantic region and to preserve the security of anyone. of disagreement, Russia and NATO will make efforts to resolve them in good faith and mutual respect in the framework of political consultations. "
As you can see, the preparation for the current state of our relations was conducted systematically. I will not even write about Yugoslavia and those countries that appeared in its place. Written-rewritten many times. But the fact that the Council has rested in the Bose is necessary. This is really serious. Another direct quotation from the Act:
"Russia and the NATO member states undertake to show restraint during the negotiation period, as stipulated in the Coverage and Parameters Document, in relation to the current constructions and capabilities of their conventional armed forces - in particular with regard to the levels and deployment of their forces - in the area of application of the CFE Treaty to prevent damage to the safety of any of its parties as a result of the development of the security situation in Europe. This obligation does not impair the possibility of nyatiya individual member states on a voluntary basis of the decisions on the reduction of levels or deployments of their forces and without prejudice to their legitimate security interests. "
But this point is that which practically reduces everything else to zero. Full placement of connections near our borders just showed that the Act turned into just a piece of paper. I do not know whether it is worth making any effort to reanimate it. Theoretically, I understand that this is very serious. The next step could be another European war. And practically I see that none of the Europeans even moved a finger to somehow resist it. On the contrary, the “old Europe” with the look of a wise grandmother, with irony, looks at how “Young Europeans” frolic.
I am more interested in the purely military aspect of the decision taken by NATO. Will the new connections reinforce the defenses of the Baltic states and Poland? Will they make NATO bases safe in Europe? And whether the conflict threatens to escalate into a world war. Well, and how will the appearance of the American military affect the "calm of our borders".
I will begin with a very offensive for the citizens of the Baltic countries and the Polish statement. Since the times of the Soviet Union, the main NATO doctrine has never been aimed at protecting these territories. Never. This is said little, but it is a fact. And I will try to decipher my application.
Since its inception, NATO has been engaged not so much in strengthening the defense of its own countries as it has been used to pressure the USSR. All statements about the stop of the Soviet tanks at the frontiers of NATO, the experts evoked an ironic smile. If the tanks from the groups of Soviet troops moved west, then the defense time would be considered hours or days.
Then the question arises: what was all this for Europe? Older readers will remind their childhood pale blue. Remember the grandmother who brought you up in the summer. Remember the classic words of such grandmothers then. "If only there was no war ..." For people who survived all the horrors of war, for a country without a family that was not touched by war, this was and remains the most important factor in foreign policy.
On this and "played" strategists from the block. They understood the futility of trying to protect something there, but it was their threat to spread the conflict to the global scale. The escalation of the conflict is the main principle of NATO’s activities since its inception. And the same postulate "surfaced" today. The Baltic states and Poland in this game are just an area where, according to Western strategists, Russia and NATO will "collide". Further negotiations.
By the way, the United States today is engaged in exactly the same prediction of the conflict. The Americans do not see in a nuclear-free war a place for strikes on their own territory. "Old" Europe too. Need a theater of war. And this theater can be "Young Europeans" and Ukraine. The conflict must pass in the territories of countries from the former socialist camp.
Moreover, those units and formations that today are in these countries are not intended for the defense of "allies", but for solving completely non-military tasks in peacetime. Ordinary occupation troops with all the ensuing responsibilities. After all, no one doubts that the military bases in the territory, for example Germany, are the bases of the occupying forces since the end of the Second World War.
Of course, you can think about the question in general about Russia's ability to wage war in Europe. Can we win? Suppose that NATO still “pinched” somewhere and the conflict began. Will the Russian army stop in those territories that the leadership of the alliance suggests? It is doubtful. Historical experience shows that the enemy must be finished off.
What we have been talking about for several years, I mean modern, high-precision weapon, today is no longer dominant. Russia has proven to possess such weapons. And is able to apply it. The hopes of Europe for their own precision weapons and the same weapons from the United States burst. And in the field of conventional weapons, even with the huge superiority of the alliance in the European theater, we can really compete. So victory is just a matter of time.
But will this victory not be pyrrhic? Alas, the analysis shows that it will be a Pyrrhic victory. War cannot be limited only to Europe. Automatically it will capture other parts of the world. And here the problem arises. Our fleet and our distant aviation will not be able to resist the fleet Alliance and USA. I remind you that this is a nuclear-free war. And this will be, if not a disaster, then a sufficiently strong blow to us. We will lose more than win.
And then, it is clear that in the event of a loss in a nuclear-free war, the enemy will use nuclear. And this threat will always be. Not even use, but simply the threat will strain the headquarters of both sides seriously enough.
Probably attentive readers noticed that so far everything that I described has little connection directly with the United States. More precisely, it is connected with parts of the US Army in Europe. And how will American forces operate in other parts of the world? It is clear that the "fuss" in Poland and the Baltic States will give Washington time to transfer some part of its army to Europe. And the rest of the army?
Americans will prepare and carry out their traditional attacks "on the islands." The European war, according to the plans of the NATO strategists, will deprive Russia of the opportunity to seriously strengthen the eastern regions. Therefore, one should wait for amphibious assault forces in the Far East. The destruction of missile and air strikes of our naval bases in this region. Our Kaliningrad region will also be attacked. Alas, the chances of retaining these regions at the beginning of hostilities are quite small. They will be forced to act independently. Almost under siege.
There are still places that will be attacked in the initial period of the conflict. Transnistria, this is understandable without comment, the Russian base in Tajikistan, from the territory of Afghanistan. We will also not be able to protect these territories and bases in the initial period of the conflict.
Ultimately, I will repeat what I wrote above, who would not have won the initial, nuclear-free, period of war, this is only the preface of a nuclear confrontation. Any of the opposing sides will certainly use their nuclear forces to break the war.
It is no secret that command-staff exercises or military games are held in any army in the world, where scenarios of various combat operations are worked out. North Atlantic Alliance is no exception. Strategists from Brussels have undoubtedly already worked out the scenario that I described above. There is nothing new here. Similar scenarios were worked out during the Soviet era. The only difference today is that the territory has changed. Moved east. From Germany to Poland and the Baltic States.
Recently, such games have been held at the Rand Corporation's strategic research center. Naturally, the scenario of Russia's attack on the Baltic states was played out. The specialists of the center have enough qualified compared the potential of NATO and Russia. And they came to an unequivocal conclusion, which generally coincides with mine. Details are not particularly important. Yes, and the details can not be the same. Russia will be able to quickly seize the Baltic countries. NATO is not able to oppose anything serious.
You can, of course, talk about the new round of the Cold War. You can talk about trying to still draw Russia into an arms race. You can even talk about information "for internal use." However, there is one small but significant nuance. The strategic research center of the Rand Corporation does not work just like that. Situation analysis, risks and predictions of events are used by NATO headquarters to develop a strategy and tactics for the unit’s actions.
In general, a strange feeling from those reports that appeared in the Western press on the results of the center. Analysis, which in principle is done in order to somehow clarify the situation, completely confused it. Experts from NATO countries, like our experts, are in complete prostration. Indeed, what to do with the current balance of power? Go for aggravation? But then there will be what I described above. Calm down and return to the status quo? Then it is necessary to go into open conflict with the United States. "Freeze" process? Then how to explain to your own people an increase in military budgets?
What is it? Universal amnesia for danger? Or is the world really crazy? I have no answer to this question ...
But there is also Poland, where the 2-I armored brigade of the USA arrived. And the 3 armored brigade is already in Europe. Of course, you can entertain yourself with the question of personnel. Technique of equipment, and it must be controlled by a soldier. A soldier must be delivered. It is clear that to deliver personnel from the United States, even by plane for a long time. Only who said that it will be from the USA? Everything is easier, the staff is in Germany. And its delivery will take 2 hours.
Why am I writing about changing the situation? You never know where NATO has deployed its soldiers. Documents read. What happened is contrary to the main document on which NATO-Russia relations are based. The very one that is loudly called the “Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization”.
In principle, this is not the first global violation of the Act. I will allow myself to quote lines of mutual obligations, so that you understand what I mean. "For the implementation of the activities and objectives stipulated by this Act, the development of common approaches to European security and political issues, Russia and NATO are creating a Joint Russia-NATO Permanent Council. The core task of the Joint Permanent Council will be to create a higher level of trust, unity of goals and skills of consultation and cooperation between Russia and NATO in order to enhance the security of each other and of all countries in the Euro-Atlantic region and to preserve the security of anyone. of disagreement, Russia and NATO will make efforts to resolve them in good faith and mutual respect in the framework of political consultations. "
As you can see, the preparation for the current state of our relations was conducted systematically. I will not even write about Yugoslavia and those countries that appeared in its place. Written-rewritten many times. But the fact that the Council has rested in the Bose is necessary. This is really serious. Another direct quotation from the Act:
"Russia and the NATO member states undertake to show restraint during the negotiation period, as stipulated in the Coverage and Parameters Document, in relation to the current constructions and capabilities of their conventional armed forces - in particular with regard to the levels and deployment of their forces - in the area of application of the CFE Treaty to prevent damage to the safety of any of its parties as a result of the development of the security situation in Europe. This obligation does not impair the possibility of nyatiya individual member states on a voluntary basis of the decisions on the reduction of levels or deployments of their forces and without prejudice to their legitimate security interests. "
But this point is that which practically reduces everything else to zero. Full placement of connections near our borders just showed that the Act turned into just a piece of paper. I do not know whether it is worth making any effort to reanimate it. Theoretically, I understand that this is very serious. The next step could be another European war. And practically I see that none of the Europeans even moved a finger to somehow resist it. On the contrary, the “old Europe” with the look of a wise grandmother, with irony, looks at how “Young Europeans” frolic.
I am more interested in the purely military aspect of the decision taken by NATO. Will the new connections reinforce the defenses of the Baltic states and Poland? Will they make NATO bases safe in Europe? And whether the conflict threatens to escalate into a world war. Well, and how will the appearance of the American military affect the "calm of our borders".
I will begin with a very offensive for the citizens of the Baltic countries and the Polish statement. Since the times of the Soviet Union, the main NATO doctrine has never been aimed at protecting these territories. Never. This is said little, but it is a fact. And I will try to decipher my application.
Since its inception, NATO has been engaged not so much in strengthening the defense of its own countries as it has been used to pressure the USSR. All statements about the stop of the Soviet tanks at the frontiers of NATO, the experts evoked an ironic smile. If the tanks from the groups of Soviet troops moved west, then the defense time would be considered hours or days.
Then the question arises: what was all this for Europe? Older readers will remind their childhood pale blue. Remember the grandmother who brought you up in the summer. Remember the classic words of such grandmothers then. "If only there was no war ..." For people who survived all the horrors of war, for a country without a family that was not touched by war, this was and remains the most important factor in foreign policy.
On this and "played" strategists from the block. They understood the futility of trying to protect something there, but it was their threat to spread the conflict to the global scale. The escalation of the conflict is the main principle of NATO’s activities since its inception. And the same postulate "surfaced" today. The Baltic states and Poland in this game are just an area where, according to Western strategists, Russia and NATO will "collide". Further negotiations.
By the way, the United States today is engaged in exactly the same prediction of the conflict. The Americans do not see in a nuclear-free war a place for strikes on their own territory. "Old" Europe too. Need a theater of war. And this theater can be "Young Europeans" and Ukraine. The conflict must pass in the territories of countries from the former socialist camp.
Moreover, those units and formations that today are in these countries are not intended for the defense of "allies", but for solving completely non-military tasks in peacetime. Ordinary occupation troops with all the ensuing responsibilities. After all, no one doubts that the military bases in the territory, for example Germany, are the bases of the occupying forces since the end of the Second World War.
Of course, you can think about the question in general about Russia's ability to wage war in Europe. Can we win? Suppose that NATO still “pinched” somewhere and the conflict began. Will the Russian army stop in those territories that the leadership of the alliance suggests? It is doubtful. Historical experience shows that the enemy must be finished off.
What we have been talking about for several years, I mean modern, high-precision weapon, today is no longer dominant. Russia has proven to possess such weapons. And is able to apply it. The hopes of Europe for their own precision weapons and the same weapons from the United States burst. And in the field of conventional weapons, even with the huge superiority of the alliance in the European theater, we can really compete. So victory is just a matter of time.
But will this victory not be pyrrhic? Alas, the analysis shows that it will be a Pyrrhic victory. War cannot be limited only to Europe. Automatically it will capture other parts of the world. And here the problem arises. Our fleet and our distant aviation will not be able to resist the fleet Alliance and USA. I remind you that this is a nuclear-free war. And this will be, if not a disaster, then a sufficiently strong blow to us. We will lose more than win.
And then, it is clear that in the event of a loss in a nuclear-free war, the enemy will use nuclear. And this threat will always be. Not even use, but simply the threat will strain the headquarters of both sides seriously enough.
Probably attentive readers noticed that so far everything that I described has little connection directly with the United States. More precisely, it is connected with parts of the US Army in Europe. And how will American forces operate in other parts of the world? It is clear that the "fuss" in Poland and the Baltic States will give Washington time to transfer some part of its army to Europe. And the rest of the army?
Americans will prepare and carry out their traditional attacks "on the islands." The European war, according to the plans of the NATO strategists, will deprive Russia of the opportunity to seriously strengthen the eastern regions. Therefore, one should wait for amphibious assault forces in the Far East. The destruction of missile and air strikes of our naval bases in this region. Our Kaliningrad region will also be attacked. Alas, the chances of retaining these regions at the beginning of hostilities are quite small. They will be forced to act independently. Almost under siege.
There are still places that will be attacked in the initial period of the conflict. Transnistria, this is understandable without comment, the Russian base in Tajikistan, from the territory of Afghanistan. We will also not be able to protect these territories and bases in the initial period of the conflict.
Ultimately, I will repeat what I wrote above, who would not have won the initial, nuclear-free, period of war, this is only the preface of a nuclear confrontation. Any of the opposing sides will certainly use their nuclear forces to break the war.
It is no secret that command-staff exercises or military games are held in any army in the world, where scenarios of various combat operations are worked out. North Atlantic Alliance is no exception. Strategists from Brussels have undoubtedly already worked out the scenario that I described above. There is nothing new here. Similar scenarios were worked out during the Soviet era. The only difference today is that the territory has changed. Moved east. From Germany to Poland and the Baltic States.
Recently, such games have been held at the Rand Corporation's strategic research center. Naturally, the scenario of Russia's attack on the Baltic states was played out. The specialists of the center have enough qualified compared the potential of NATO and Russia. And they came to an unequivocal conclusion, which generally coincides with mine. Details are not particularly important. Yes, and the details can not be the same. Russia will be able to quickly seize the Baltic countries. NATO is not able to oppose anything serious.
You can, of course, talk about the new round of the Cold War. You can talk about trying to still draw Russia into an arms race. You can even talk about information "for internal use." However, there is one small but significant nuance. The strategic research center of the Rand Corporation does not work just like that. Situation analysis, risks and predictions of events are used by NATO headquarters to develop a strategy and tactics for the unit’s actions.
In general, a strange feeling from those reports that appeared in the Western press on the results of the center. Analysis, which in principle is done in order to somehow clarify the situation, completely confused it. Experts from NATO countries, like our experts, are in complete prostration. Indeed, what to do with the current balance of power? Go for aggravation? But then there will be what I described above. Calm down and return to the status quo? Then it is necessary to go into open conflict with the United States. "Freeze" process? Then how to explain to your own people an increase in military budgets?
What is it? Universal amnesia for danger? Or is the world really crazy? I have no answer to this question ...
Information