Military Review

Russia against NATO. Background conflict

153



The second version of the conflict between Russia and NATO is nuclear-free. According to the author, the chances that the countries participating in it will be able to refrain from using nuclear weapons, vanishingly small, where the likelihood of the start of a global nuclear missile war is higher, but still there is some scant chance of a non-nuclear conflict. Here the role of aircraft carriers will depend very strongly on how and under what circumstances such a conflict will begin. And if so, then let's postpone the aircraft carriers until the next article, but for now let's see what can lead to a full-scale non-nuclear conflict of NATO against the Russian Federation and what goals such a war can pursue.

Is it possible that the Russian Federation will become an aggressor? Historically, Russia has never sought to conquer Europe, the Russian people simply do not need this. Nothing like the invasions of Napoleon and Hitler. The Russian state never suited Europe, and why? No Russian tsar, general secretary or president has ever viewed the conquest of Europe as a deed useful to Russia.

However, the lack of desire to conquer Europe does not mean that Russia has no interests in Europe. These interests historically have been to:
1) To provide Russia with free trade with Europe, for which sustainable outlets to the coasts of the Baltic and Black Seas were needed, and the Straits on the Black Sea
2) “Reason” overly zealous neighbors who view the property and population of Russia as their legitimate prey (yes, at least in the Crimean Tatars in a certain period of our stories, Turks, Poles)
3) Support Slavic societies outside of Russia (brothers-Slavs)

In addition, Russia sometimes entered into European war conflicts, fulfilling allied obligations to any or several European countries.

Thus, it can be stated: Russia has never been (and will not be) a country that would like to conquer Europe. But at the same time, Russia historically is not very inclined to tolerate the peoples bordering on it and openly hostile to it. Those were conquered by Russia (Poland, Crimea), after which Russia tried to assimilate them, without suppressing, at the same time, national identity. Also, Russia may come into conflict for its local interests, if it sees that someone threatens these interests with open force.



In recent years, we have already seen several times how the Russian armed forces are involved in operations outside their native homeland, but the term “aggression” is of little use here. In the case of an operation to force Georgia to peace, or the 08.08.08 war, the Russian Federation had unconditional formal grounds for intervention in the conflict: Saakashvili’s armed forces attacked Russian peacekeepers, killing Russian soldiers. From no side call aggression and the actions of our videoconferencing in Syria — they are there at the invitation of an officially acting and completely legitimate government.

But with the Crimea it is already much more complicated, because under international law, the armed forces of the Russian Federation nevertheless invaded the territory of an adjacent, completely independent (and in something even non-fi ne) state. But the thing is - apart from the letter of the law, its spirit exists, and in this case the following happened:
1) In Ukraine, a coup d'etat inspired from outside
2) The overwhelming majority of the Crimean population did not welcome this coup and wished to return to Russia
3) Under no circumstances would the new Ukrainian government give the Crimeans the right to self-determination

In other words, the foreign leadership of the Crimean people, which they did not choose, restricts them to rights that are absolutely legal from the point of view of international law. And now the armed forces of the Russian Federation absolutely illegally invade the territory of a foreign state ... and provide absolutely legal rights to the citizens living there. And then the Crimea, having conducted an absolutely legal referendum, is absolutely legally part of the Russian Federation. By the way, this is a legal incident that turned out to be not in the mind of Ksenia Sobchak - the entry of the Crimea into the Russian Federation is completely legal from the point of view of international law. Only the introduction of troops was illegal, but from the point of view of the same legislation, this input and the referendum in the Crimea are completely unrelated events.

An exemplary analysis of this situation is contained in an article published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. The author, Professor Reinhard Merkel of the University of Hamburg, a teacher of legal philosophy, gave completely comprehensive explanations of all the nuances of the Crimea joining the Russian Federation from the point of view of international law:

“Did Russia annex the Crimea? Not. Did the referendum in the Crimea and the subsequent separation from Ukraine violate the norms of international law? Not. So they were legal? No: they violated the Ukrainian constitution - but this is not a question of international law. Shouldn’t Russia have to reject accession because of such a violation? No: the action of the Ukrainian constitution does not apply to Russia. That is, Russia's actions did not violate international law? No, they broke: the fact of the presence of the Russian military outside the territory they rented was illegal. Does this not mean that the separation of Crimea from Ukraine, which became possible only due to the presence of the Russian military, is void, and its subsequent joining to Russia is nothing other than a hidden annexation? No, does not mean. "

Of course, the reunification of the Crimea with the Russian Federation is completely legal. Nevertheless, this accession has shown with all certainty that the Russian Federation can and will defend its interests by armed force, even if this to some extent contradicts international law.

Shy this in any case is not necessary. The modern world wanted to spit on international law - if laws could cry, then African deserts would become lakes of tears when the European coalition killed the statehood of Libya and the family of Muammar Gaddafi. We can only be proud that while the violation of international legislation by other countries leads to wars, mass deaths, rampant banditry and internal chaos, violation of the same legislation by the Russian Federation entails an almost bloodless restoration of law and historical justice, the fulfillment of the aspirations of two million people ...

However, such actions by Russia can at least theoretically cause an armed conflict in which the Russian Federation can be considered the aggressor on a formal basis.

Recall the regrettable episode in Syria, when the Turkish fighter shot down our Su-24. The Turks claim that our “drying” already entered the Turkish airspace for as many 6 seconds as they tried to contact the plane, that Su-24 was attacked while in the skies of Turkey. The Turks do not refute the fact that the plane was shot down in the sky of Syria. The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation says that the Su-24 did not enter Turkish airspace and no calls of our pilots to the connection were recorded. In general, whether the rights of the Turks were formally violated or not is a moot point. But it is absolutely clear that if such a violation was, then it was just a formal one, since it did not contain any threats to Turkey - the entrance to its airspace was short-lived, the Russian aircraft did not represent any threat to the Turks, did not perform reconnaissance functions.



At that time, the Russian leadership did not consider the death of the Su-24 to be the reason for the reciprocal use of force - the embargo was confined, and it was quite quickly canceled. Interestingly, many compatriots (and the author of this article as well) considered such an answer to be incongruously small and unworthy of the Russian Federation. But at the same time, it should be recognized: if the Russian Federation had undertaken a power rally of retaliation, this could be the beginning of a full-scale conflict between the Russian Federation and Turkey, and she, as you know, is a member of NATO.

For good or for ill, but it did not come to a reciprocal strike against Turkey - the leadership of the Russian Federation did not decide on such actions, but this does not mean that the other Russian president will do the same in the future. In other words, in the future, in a similar situation, Russia may escalate the conflict, and this, in turn, may entail a large-scale military confrontation (although, of course, it may not entail).

That's actually all the reasons why the Russian Federation could be the "instigator" of the conflict with NATO, as the author sees them. As for Europe, everything is easier. Our country endured two terrible pan-European invasions in 1812 and in 1941-45: Napoleon and Hitler.

Interestingly, there is quite a lot in common between Hitler and Napoleon - they were not completely human, and were guided by different motives, but their actions turned out to be utterly similar. Each of them made his country the strongest European state, and then conquered Europe. But, being the strongest in Europe, they automatically became opponents of England, whose whole European policy for centuries was to prevent any power from strengthening to the ability to consolidate Europe, because in this case England had a quick end.

So both Hitler and Napoleon were enemies of the British, both of them had powerful armies that could easily crush the British troops, but both did not fleetcapable of delivering these armies to England. As a result, both were forced to switch to indirect methods of warfare. Napoleon came up with a continental blockade in order to discourage European trade with the British and strangle the British economically. Russia did not want and could not at that time stop trading with England, it could not support the continental blockade of Napoleon, and this led to the Patriotic War of 1812. Hitler suggested that the destruction of the last powerful country that remained on the continent, such as the USSR, would help him achieve peace with Great Britain, since in the person of the USSR it would lose the last possible ally in Europe.

Therefore, it can be considered that both invasions were undertaken as actions due to the confrontation with Great Britain, but it should be understood: even if no England existed, Hitler and Napoleon would still invade Russia, although this probably would have happened later. The only realistic way if not to avoid, then at least delay the invasion was the vassalization of Russia, i.e. our recognition of ourselves as a second-class state and the rejection of an independent role in politics.

Possessing almost absolute power in Europe, both Napoleon and Hitler would sooner or later turn their eyes to the east, not suffering alongside a powerful and leading independent policy power. Napoleon could well do without invading 1812 if Alexander, with slavish obedience, accepted his conditions and made every effort to fulfill them. True, in this case, with great probability, Alexander himself would have suffered an “apoplexy blow to the head” that had befallen his father, Paul I. Later, a new king would come to power, ready to ignore Napoleon’s “continental blockade” and war all the same would take place. But even if he had not come, the whole logic of the reign of Napoleon led to the fact that he absolutely did not need any militarily strong neighbors.

As for Hitler, he finally decided to invade the USSR, when negotiations with Stalin showed him that the USSR absolutely did not accept the role of junior partner, “without speeches” content with allowing the hegemon to allow it. It can be assumed that if Stalin had assumed such a humiliating role for the USSR, then perhaps the invasion of the USSR would have taken place not in 1941, but a little later.

Thus, we come to the fact that the necessary prerequisite for a global invasion of Europe into the Russian Federation is a certain militarily strong state capable of consolidating Europe and placing it under centralized leadership. With some reservations, we have such power - this is the United States and NATO.

Of course, Napoleonic or Hitler’s Europe has fundamental differences from NATO, at least in the fact that NATO is, in essence, a conglomerate that cannot agree among themselves. This is not a united Europe, because each of its members is trying to pursue their own interests and is trying to shift the purely military aspect to the hegemon, that is, the United States.

But with all of this, today's NATO has at least two features that are frighteningly similar to Napoleonic and Hitler’s Europe:
1) NATO reacts extremely painfully to all political independence of Russia. That is, NATO would absolutely suit the Russian Federation, lagging behind European politics and not having its own voice in anything, but our every attempt to show independence (not to mention protecting our own interests) is perceived in the most negative way.
2) NATO sees war as a normal, natural way of solving its political problems (we are looking at the same Libya)

Thus, we have to admit that it is not that a threat, but the prerequisites for a large-scale invasion of NATO into the Russian Federation do exist. But why does the author consider such a possibility as vanishingly small? For one simple reason: a country can only become an aggressor if, as a result of the war, it can achieve a better world than before the war.

Napoleon was dissatisfied with the fact that Russia continues to trade with England and it is possible that British goods (already under Russian brands) penetrate Europe. If he had forced Russia to join the blockade, he would have been able to prevail over his main enemy, England, and would thus consolidate his final hegemony on the continent. In the event of a victory over the USSR, Hitler also got the opportunity to settle his affairs with England and eliminated any continental threat to Germany, and also received his Lebensraum. Thus, both of them hoped to achieve a better position for their empires than by the war.

In a non-nuclear conflict, NATO can count on success. The military potential of NATO today far exceeds that of the Russian Federation. Therefore, if the US and NATO, having properly prepared and concentrated their forces, undertake a “non-nuclear” invasion, it will hardly be possible to stop it with conventional weapons. But today Russia is a nuclear superpower. And although, as we wrote in the previous article, its nuclear arsenal is completely insufficient to wipe out Europe and the United States, or at least the United States alone, but the Russian Federation is quite capable of causing unacceptable damage to both.



Unacceptable damage is not at all "the whole world is in dust" and not "we will kill all Americans eight times." This is such damage, which completely excludes for the aggressor the attainment of peace, better than the prewar one.

If the US and NATO armies invade the Russian Federation, the Russian Federation may well use the first nuclear weapon. NATO will answer that Armageddon will still be left for them: it is quite likely that in this case the United States and NATO will prevail. But at the same time, they themselves will suffer so heavy losses that they will need dozens (and maybe hundreds) of the hardest work, not just to return, but to at least approach the pre-war level. In other words, if a large-scale invasion of the Russian Federation automatically entails Armageddon, and he, in turn, will bring the US and NATO nothing but "blood, sweat and pain", why start all this?

As a matter of fact, this is why the global nuclear missile Armageddon, according to the author, is more likely than a large-scale non-nuclear conflict. The fact is that the exchange of nuclear strikes is extremely transient and leaves almost no time for joint consultations and decision-making. There have already been cases where early detection systems erroneously reported the start of a nuclear-missile attack, fortunately, until now, it was possible to deal with this before a full-scale response follows. But no system guarantees 100% failure free. And therefore there is always a non-zero likelihood that one of the parties, being absolutely (albeit erroneously) confident that she has undergone an unprovoked nuclear attack, and having time to make a decision at best within 15-20 minutes, will give no less full nuclear response. The other side, already without any mistake and in the same scale will answer and ... there you are, grandmother, and St. George’s day.

Therefore, the first (and, perhaps, the only real) cause of nuclear Armageddon is a mistake.

But perhaps, if there is (and it exists!) The probability of the death of hundreds of millions as a result of a banal mistake - maybe it makes sense to abandon nuclear weapons in general? In no case. Because due to the current political situation (independent Russia and consolidated Europe) and in the absence of a “great peacemaker”, such as the nuclear arsenal, the Third World War is, in fact, inevitable. It is worth remembering that the instigators of the first and second world wars did not suggest the apocalyptic carnage that followed their start. Nobody expected that the First World War would drag on for years, and the creator of the Second World War, Hitler, relied on a blitzkrieg. But the result - the years of battles, tens of millions of victims.

So it will be in the third (even if nuclear-free) world, if we allow it. At the same time, the power and capabilities of modern non-nuclear weapons are such that everything that the armies of the first and second world wars fought against are simply children's toys. Accordingly, there is no point in abandoning nuclear weapons due to the extremely unlikely Apocalypse, almost guaranteed to pay for it with tens of millions of lives lost in yet another world war.

The United States and NATO can take the risk and still carry out an invasion of the Russian Federation only on one condition - if their leadership is absolutely certain that Russia will not use its nuclear arsenal. And where can such confidence come from? She has nowhere to take.

"Disarming blow"? Not funny, the flight time of cruise missiles to the missile mines of Siberia is more than enough to make a decision on nuclear retaliation. The use of hypersonic non-nuclear weapons? Completeness, if suddenly the detection system will fix a large-scale launch of missiles in the direction of our country, no one will understand, nuclear warheads on them, or not, and nuclear weapons will be immediately applied. Missile defense Today, all that the creators of such systems can count on is a reflection of the impact of several ballistic missiles, and even then ... far from one hundred percent probability. In other words, today there are no technical means capable of protecting or preventing a large-scale nuclear strike. And will not exist in the foreseeable future.

What other weapons do our enemies have? Dollar? This is definitely serious. Many commentators at the IN claim that our domineering elite would prefer to surrender their own country, saving their lives and savings in offshore companies. But the thing is ... even if it were so, all the same, nothing like this would have happened. Oddly enough, the reason for this is the extremely short-sighted policy of the United States and NATO.

It is possible to reproach the leadership of the Russian Federation with anything (whether it is justified or not — another question), but no one has ever refused him the instinct of self-preservation. And what should this very instinct suggest? How did the leaders of the states that invaded the armies of the West end their lives? They spent the rest of their days enjoying life in villas by the sea, spending billions earned by "honest labor"? By no means.

What happened to Slobodan Milosevic? He died of myocardial infarction in a prison cell. What happened to Saddam Hussein? Hanged. What happened to Moammar Gaddafi? Killed by an angry mob after hours of violence. Who among the leadership of the Russian Federation wants to follow their example? A rhetorical question ...

Here it can be argued that, in the end, the same Gaddafi was killed not by NATO soldiers, but by his own countrymen, and this is certainly so. But does anyone really think that the crowd of our oppositionists, give her power, show more mercy?

No matter who takes the post of the President of the Russian Federation in the future, whatever personal qualities this person possesses, he will be firmly convinced that Russia's loss of war means his personal physical, and perhaps very painful death, and, most likely, , death of relatives and friends. Needless to say, one can expect a lot from a person put in such conditions, but never a surrender.

Accordingly, a massive invasion of the US and NATO into the Russian Federation with the use of non-nuclear weapons is extremely unlikely. But if all of the above is true, then is it even possible to have a situation in which the powers - the owners of the most powerful nuclear potentials of the planet - come into conflict without using nuclear weapons?

Theoretically, this option is possible. But only in the unlikely event that Russia and NATO collide in a kind of local conflict that is not resolved at the diplomatic level, despite the fact that the goals of such a conflict do not justify the use of nuclear weapons for either side.

The fact is that neither the Russian Federation, nor the United States and NATO are completely eager to release a nuclear shaitan into the wild. Even after losing in Korea and Vietnam, the Americans did not use atomic bombs. Great Britain, after the capture of the Falkland Islands by Argentina, could well send a “Resolution” or “Revenge” to the Atlantic, shuffle the Polaris with a nuclear warhead across Argentina (away from the United States, so as not to have problems with the hegemon) and repulse the President’s telegram with the following contents “If the Argentine warriors do not leave the Falkland Islands in a week, Buenos Aires and a couple of cities at the Queen’s discretion will be wiped off the face of the earth.” But instead, the Crown started a very risky and costly military expedition designed to recapture the Falklands with non-nuclear weapons. Despite the fact that, in all honesty, the Royal Navy formally did not have superiority in the conflict zone, and was technically not ready for such feats (the absence of minesweepers, imputed deck aviation etc.).

Therefore, the most likely (with all its improbability) version of the conflict between NATO and the Russian Federation is a sudden outbreak of military conflict outside the Russian Federation, which no one expected. Scenario? Yes, at least the same Su-24, shot down by the Turks. The Russian Federation is conducting a kind of military operation on the territory of Syria, the Turks shoot down our plane that allegedly invaded their airspace, in response to this, the Russian Federation announces an operation to force the Turks into the world and burns a military base with cruise missiles from which the interceptors took off. Turkey does not agree ... And let us imagine that after all this, NATO has already announced the start of an operation to force Russia to peace. An operation strictly limited to specific countries - in our case - Turkey and Syria.

The space for such a scenario is ready - some are making serious efforts to increase the degree of Russophobia in the countries bordering the Russian Federation. Here we recall the same Ukraine ... And this is fraught with military conflicts - of course, as long as everything is limited by anti-Russian rhetoric, nothing can happen, but someone can move from words to deeds, as happened with one Georgian president ...

And yet, the above scenario of confrontation between the Russian Federation and NATO is almost unbelievable: simply because such an escalation of the conflict could easily turn into a nuclear Armageddon, and no one wants this. But if somehow politicians manage to agree on the localization of hostilities and the non-use of nuclear weapons, then ... still, a much more likely option under such conditions is the sudden outbreak of a non-nuclear conflict between Russia and NATO at its later stages will still develop into a nuclear one.

And one more condition - the period of tension preceding the conflict. A situation is possible in which no “preparatory period” will happen, because the start of a conflict may be completely unexpected, sudden for all parties involved in it. Erdogan, giving the go-ahead to the destruction of the Russian aircraft, clearly did not count on a full-scale war with Russia. He just wanted to demonstrate his own significance and hoped that he would get away with it. Russia, focusing on Syria’s affairs, did not expect Turkey to intervene. But (here we are already talking about a possible scenario) by launching a missile strike, the Russian Federation will give an adequate, from its point of view, military response and expect Turkey not to go on further escalation. And if it goes, then for NATO, all the events we have invented will be a completely unexpected and unpleasant surprise, but something must be done ...

But it can happen in a different way - the political tension between the Russian Federation and NATO reached the highest point for any reason, both sides decided to confirm the seriousness of their intentions by “iron rattling” near the borders, the United States carried out a massive transfer of its armed forces to Europe, the Russian Federation and NATO "in the grip of the grave" is looking at each other at sights across the border ... and suddenly something provokes the beginning of a conflict.

In our next article, we will look at the use of US aircraft carriers in a sudden full-blown non-nuclear European conflict, and in an equally large-scale, but one that was preceded by a multi-month period of aggravation of relations. But if dear readers see some other options, then the author asks to speak in the comments - your suggestions will be taken into account.

Продолжение следует ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Russia against NATO. The role of aircraft carriers in nuclear conflict
153 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech
    Same lech 30 November 2017 06: 36 New
    11
    because under international law, the armed forces of the Russian Federation nevertheless invaded the territory of a neighboring, quite self-dependent (and in some ways even unpredictable) state


    I don’t agree with Andrei ... our armed forces were in Crimea legally at that time ... there was an agreement with UKRAINE on military bases in Sevastopol ... so everything is fine here ...
    as for the green men ... they worked extremely well not allowing the burning of Russian people by the Ukrainian Nazis in their homes and shooting ... so that's right.

    As for the military conflict with NATO and the United States in particular ... looking at the current situation on the eve of the Olympics and presidential elections in RUSSIA, the Anglo-Saxons will bet on the information war and the fifth column in RUSSIA.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      30 November 2017 08: 57 New
      13
      Quote: The same Lech
      I don’t agree with Andrei ... our armed forces were in Crimea legally at that time ... there was an agreement with UKRAINE on military bases in Sevastopol ... so everything is fine here ...

      No, it’s not normal, because they went beyond the territory of the leased territory :)))
      1. tol100v
        tol100v 30 November 2017 17: 01 New
        +4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        No, it’s not normal, because they went beyond the territory of the leased territory :)))

        No normal! They went to the dismissal and stopped mass violations of public order!
      2. Okolotochny
        Okolotochny 1 December 2017 00: 26 New
        +5
        And did anyone read the agreement on basing the Black Sea Fleet and other units in the Crimea? I don’t think that it says that the military should be constantly in places of deployment.
    2. serezhasoldatow
      serezhasoldatow 30 November 2017 12: 50 New
      +3
      Sevastopol and Crimea has never been hohlyachim. That way the author made a big "woof."
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        30 November 2017 13: 59 New
        +4
        Quote: serezhasoldatow
        Sevastopol and Crimea has never been hohlyachim.

        It was, but everything is complicated here, that's why I wrote
        violation of the same legislation by the Russian Federation entails an almost bloodless restoration of the rule of law and historical justice

        The fact is that yes, Crimea was transferred to Ukraine during the USSR, but was transferred with gross violations of the law. But then, when the USSR collapsed, we recognized the borders of Ukraine along with the Crimea located in them
        In general, of course, Crimea had no relation to Ukraine and does not have it, but legally it turned out to be Ukrainian when the EBN recognized the Ukrainian borders.
        From the point of view of international law, Crimea should have been given a choice - to remain in Ukraine or return to Russia, but according to the Ukrainian constitution, it is not allowed. Tseevropa, what to take from her. But in fact Crimea was Russian, it is now Russian, and will always be such
        1. Town Hall
          Town Hall 30 November 2017 17: 07 New
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The fact is that yes, Crimea was transferred to Ukraine during the USSR, but was transferred with gross violations of the law.



          Can I find out which ones?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            30 November 2017 18: 08 New
            +6
            Quote: Town Hall
            Can I find out which ones?

            the decision was made by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the USSR, and should have been - by the Supreme Council of the USSR. And the plus to this was not to cut the territory of the RSFSR without its consent, and the Supreme Council of the Republic did not give it. Then, in hindsight, the constitution seems to have been amended for this incident, but at the time of the transfer, the wrongful act was 100%
            1. Town Hall
              Town Hall 30 November 2017 21: 55 New
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Quote: Town Hall
              Can I find out which ones?

              the decision was made by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the USSR, and should have been - by the Supreme Council of the USSR. And the plus to this was not to cut the territory of the RSFSR without its consent, and the Supreme Council of the Republic did not give it. Then, in hindsight, the constitution seems to have been amended for this incident, but at the time of the transfer, the wrongful act was 100%




              Can you indicate specific articles of which specific laws were violated during the transfer of Crimea from the RSFSR to the USSR ?.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                30 November 2017 22: 24 New
                +3
                Quote: Town Hall
                Can you indicate specific articles of which specific laws were violated during the transfer of Crimea from the RSFSR to the USSR ?.

                Sorry, but I have enough other things to look for in the then constitution paragraphs
                1. Town Hall
                  Town Hall 30 November 2017 22: 27 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Sorry, but I have enough other things to look for in the then constitution paragraphs



                  You don’t need to look for anything for me. I know these articles. Unlike you. Just if you read them, you would be more careful in the statements .... maybe
                  1. shuravi
                    shuravi 30 November 2017 23: 20 New
                    +4
                    You don’t know a damn thing.
                    16 Article. The territory of the RSFSR cannot be changed without the consent of the RSFSR.
                    22 Article. The supreme body of state power of the RSFSR is the Supreme Council of the RSFSR.
                    23 Article. The Supreme Council of the RSFSR exercises all the rights conferred by the RSFSR in accordance with Articles 13 and 19 of the Constitution of the RSFSR, since they do not fall, by virtue of the Constitution, into the competence of the organs of the RSFSR reporting to the Supreme Council of the RSFSR: the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR, the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR and the People’s Commissariats of the RSFSR
                    1. Okolotochny
                      Okolotochny 1 December 2017 00: 28 New
                      +6
                      Bravo, these "comrades" must be beaten with the letter of the law.
                    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      1 December 2017 13: 57 New
                      +1
                      Thank! The fact is that I studied this question (with corresponding studies of the then constitution and many others) about 10 years ago, I made conclusions for myself, but, of course, my memory did not preserve the evidence base
        2. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 30 November 2017 23: 05 New
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The fact is that yes, Crimea was transferred to Ukraine during Soviet times, but was transferred with gross violations of the law

          Ready to believe that the government comrade Khrushchev-Malenkov could have missed out on some formalities. This does not make talking about the events of the 54th year a less empty thing.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          but legally it turned out to be Ukrainian when the EBN recognized the Ukrainian borders.

          An agreement on friendship, cooperation and partnership between the Russian Federation and Ukraine was signed in 1997 under the anti-people government of Yeltsin-Chernomyrdin and extended by default in 2008 under the people's government of Medvedev-Putin.
          1. Town Hall
            Town Hall 1 December 2017 01: 19 New
            0
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Ready to believe that the government comrade Khrushchev-Malenkov could have missed out on some formalities. This does not make talking about the events of the 54th year a less empty thing.



            As far as I know, all the formalities were followed in accordance with the then laws even then
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            1 December 2017 13: 58 New
            +2
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Ready to believe that the government comrade Khrushchev-Malenkova could have missed some formality

            Yes, the constitution :))))
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 1 December 2017 14: 08 New
              +1
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              could miss some formalities.

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Yes, the constitution :))))

              Not to the smallest detail.
        3. shuravi
          shuravi 30 November 2017 23: 09 New
          +2
          Legally, Crimea could not have been Ukrainian. During the transfer, one small detail was “forgotten”. He was not legally expelled from the RSFSR. Consequently, all subsequent decisions are illegal.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 1 December 2017 00: 57 New
            +1
            Quote: shuravi
            Legally, Crimea could not be Ukrainian

            Your stories about the curvature of Soviet lawyers have nothing to do with the borders of the Russian Federation and Ukraine. These borders were not established by the authorities of the USSR, but exclusively by bilateral and multilateral treaties of these countries. From which "base" these borders were drawn - the tenth question.
        4. silver_roman
          silver_roman 22 February 2018 12: 40 New
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          But then, when the USSR fell apart

          I propose to discuss whether the collapse of the USSR is legal? De jure, it is NOT legal and in fact nothing prevents us from now recognizing the collapse of the USSR as illegal with all the consequences ...
          This is to say that it is an ungrateful thing to delve into and understand the legality of sometimes very stupid and rather spontaneous decisions.
          You must ALWAYS be firm in your decisions. The Saxons alone respect this. And you do not need to make long and stubborn excuses. We did what we did in order to defend our interests. DOT. As the Americans said about their puppet in Nicarragua: "he is at least a scoundrel, but our scoundrel." This is called upholding their ....
    3. Costeneshty
      Costeneshty 30 November 2017 13: 25 New
      0
      watch less telly and the Nazis will stop moving in Ukraine)
      1. teron
        teron 30 November 2017 16: 44 New
        +3
        Well, yes, for sure, there are no Nazis in Ukraine! But I’m stupidly watching “telly” - I don’t know how to read, nor my own brains.
        1. silver_roman
          silver_roman 22 February 2018 12: 44 New
          0
          guys, in Ukraine there is a crowd of Nazis, there are no Nazis themselves. It is just for tv. People already as FSUs as it's all called. I just want to live a normal life. Enough to invent.
          Frankly, the Russian Federation missed Ukraine. It was necessary to be more active. Although while their wounds were licking, the enemy did not sleep. anyway. This is offtopic. many copies have already been broken about this topic.
  2. parma
    parma 30 November 2017 07: 02 New
    11
    I really "like" the beginning of the article ... The author very coolly operates on the peacefulness of the Russian people, saying that the annexation of the Crimean Khanate or which of the neighbors is not aggression, because we are not them, but they are us, these are defensive attacks ... Suvorov’s campaign in 1799, too, is somehow not considered, we were there as part of the union! Eternal war with the Turks does not count, we helped the Slavs, and indeed the neighbors, to fill the face of a neighbor is normal. Apparently exclusively defensively, our kings were able to spit out the largest piece of land ... Apparently, all kinds of Chukchi and other small nations there meanly invaded Russian land, and then, after our exclusively defensive victory (in particular, Yermak’s campaign), they voluntarily joined Russia .. .With Crimea, it’s generally cool to say that this is kakbe aggression, but they are bad Ukrainians, and we are good (although here I partially agree with the author, although the fact of aggression is by sight, it’s done correctly). If you believe the article, there will be no war, not because Russia is in the minority, no, not because without the nuclear weapons, the Russian Federation in conflict with NATO has practically no chance (and on the other side understand this), but because we are very kind ... Well, overall verbiage article ....
    1. andrewkor
      andrewkor 30 November 2017 08: 39 New
      +4
      I completely agree with you that Alexander’s 3rd’s reckoning justifies the conquest of Turkestan: “... In the name of expanding the borders of the Empire!” But the laws of social development are such that the Empires must expand, who did not have time to grab a bigger piece was late (Italy, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Japan) and the struggle begins for the redivision of the World, which continues to this day. I don’t remember who of the British leaders, back in the 19th century, said: “It’s not fair that Russia owns Siberia alone!” a constant vector of relations between the West and Russia!
    2. Cxnumx
      Cxnumx 30 November 2017 08: 44 New
      15
      Quote: parma
      I really "like" the beginning of the article ... The author very coolly operates on the peacefulness of the Russian people, saying that the annexation of the Crimean Khanate or any of the neighbors is not aggression, because we are not them, but they are us, these are defensive attacks ...

      mmm ... about the Khanate: enduring centuries, I repeat century invasions from the Crimea, and then conquer it, so that there would be no more thousands of dead and enslaved, and at the same time not be taken away by the roots of all local residents, like advanced Europeans in the colonies are a very peaceful policy.
      about Kazan - a similar situation, raids were regularly carried out from Kazan to Russia. moreover, it was conquered by it, it seems, as far back as Ivan 3. but just didn’t attach it, and then the raids continued.
      about the Turks: what lands did we take from them?
      Quote: parma
      Suvorov’s campaign in 1799 is also somehow not considered, we were there as part of the union!
      and the fact that he, namely him, was specifically requested by the Austrians - is it considered? and what is he there conquered? what land was planned join?
      our "aggression" went east, and although the local rights were lower than the "Russians", for the most part they were not too indignant, because a life after conquest somehow got better than to. and its quality under the Soviet regime is not worth comparing at all, because all were equal.
      PS Yes, of course Russia is not a fluffy white bunny (although against the background of Europe it’s just angels), but regarding Europe we never crawled further than punishing the enemy (Poland itself is almost the most vicious enemy throughout history its independence) and go to sea (actually access to the Baltic Sea is almost the only "conquering" story in Europe).
      1. 97110
        97110 30 November 2017 16: 52 New
        +1
        Quote: K0
        our "aggression" went east,

        Incidentally, the term "Parma" in many peoples of Russia means taiga, and not at all an Italian town. That is why the taiga and raised a wave.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      30 November 2017 09: 00 New
      +6
      Quote: parma
      Suvorov’s campaign in 1799 is also somehow not considered

      The article has such words
      In addition, Russia sometimes entered into European war conflicts, fulfilling allied obligations to any or several European countries.

      What does not suit you? Or do you think Suvorov undertook a pan-European conquest? :)))
      Quote: parma
      Eternal war with the Turks does not count, we helped the Slavs, and indeed the neighbors, to fill the face of a neighbor is normal

      This is not the annexation of Europe, but the Turks - these are historically hostile people to us.
      Quote: parma
      Apparently all kinds of Chukchi and other small nations meanly invaded Russian land,

      I did not know that the Chukchi live in Europe wassat
      1. Town Hall
        Town Hall 30 November 2017 17: 12 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        In addition, Russia sometimes entered into European war conflicts, fulfilling allied obligations to any or several European countries.
        What does not suit you? Or do you think Suvorov undertook a pan-European conquest? :)))




        So you have no complaints against the Hungarians, Italians, Romanians who fulfilled allied obligations in 41-45?


        Maybe still leave an owl alone?)
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          30 November 2017 18: 15 New
          +2
          Quote: Town Hall
          So you have no complaints against the Hungarians, Italians, Romanians who fulfilled allied obligations in 41-45?

          For me they are the enemies of my country in 1941-45 and I have claims for war crimes. And the rest - no complaints.
          Quote: Town Hall
          Maybe still leave an owl alone?)

          How can I leave her alone when she yells on your globe like that? :)
          1. Town Hall
            Town Hall 30 November 2017 21: 47 New
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            For me they are the enemies of my country in 1941-45 and I have claims for war crimes. And the rest - no complaints.




            So you decide on the genre of your “analytics” then ... or it’s attempts to claim more or less impartial objective analysis of events .. or fodder for the Patriot Directory ... and then no questions.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              30 November 2017 22: 21 New
              +3
              Quote: Town Hall
              So you decide on the genre of your "analytics"

              You will determine the claims that you are making. While you are frankly delirious, thinking for me that I did not write and did not say
              I am writing about Russia's non-participation in the capture of Europe. Well, we didn’t want to capture her, never. In response to this - a stunning remark about the Hungarians.
              Hungarians Italians and others, loyal to allied duty (although ... well, you don’t talk about such nuances), invaded us together with the German fascists. And they were going to conquer the USSR. Accordingly, the Hungarians and other Italians participated in a campaign against my country. It is for the purpose of its full conquest. We did this with respect to our near and harmful neighbors, but never against all of Europe, which is what the article says.
              There is a moral and there is a legal aspect to wars. In the legal field, Hitler’s satellites did nothing out of the ordinary (if they had only declared war before joining it and didn’t commit war crimes) They fought, raked, calmed down, and in the right field, if there are complaints, it’s not for the war, but for violations of its rules (for those who have had such violations). But there is a moral aspect - yes, here, I have complaints against them, because I consider their invasion to be unprovoked.
              With regard to Suvorov, I understand perfectly well that, from the moral point of view, there can be claims from French mothers who have lost their sons who fought with him. And I accept these claims. But in the article I am writing not about morality, but about the legal aspect, and from the position of law Suvorov fought honestly, did not violate the laws of war, and did not try to capture Europe.
              I'm trying to give a legal assessment of actions in an article
              1. Town Hall
                Town Hall 30 November 2017 22: 46 New
                +2
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                But there is a moral aspect - yes, here, I have complaints against them, because I consider their invasion to be unprovoked.



                the seizure by the USSR of part of Romania the year before, of course, is not a reason for you to think. Neither legally nor morally).


                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                But in the article I’m writing not about morality, but about the legal aspect, but
                Suvorov fought honestly from a position of law, did not violate the laws of war, and did not try to capture Europe.



                Tried. Another thing is that the ogre, as you put it. And with the crushed remains of the army, having left carts, artillery and wounded, he returned to Russia.


                But I understand that for you he was not engaged in conquest. And he made a trip to the resorts of Italy and Switzerland. Well, I tried to restore the maximum constitutional order in France. Yes, and in Poland too. They have spies. We have scouts
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  1 December 2017 11: 15 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  Tried to.

                  I have no more questions ...
                  1. silver_roman
                    silver_roman 22 February 2018 12: 54 New
                    0
                    By the way, the USSR in the 45th also captured Europe. Andrey, didn’t you know? captured successfully, played and then threw. But the fact of capture on the face. I will become the president of Ukraine with this slogan)))).
                    Of course, all this is a joke.
                    I will say only one thing. I often repeat this and NEVER forget. I meant all the laws, legal norms, aspects and so on. THIS IS ONE NUMBER: 26 people !!!!!!!! The Red Army was composed of a force of 000 million .... who are the rest? migrants ???? or maybe refugees? but no .... THIS IS VICTIMS !!!! I'm already silent about the demographic hole ....
                    how much has Germany lost? according to official figures, about 11 million. About the size of the army + some percentage of the civilian population. Dresden, who was so diligently ironed by the Saxons, is also here ... The USSR NEVER destroys the population PURPOSE. All losses were a coincidence of war .... and not the goal. And I will say frankly: 000-000 - YEARS OF THE GENOCIDE OF THE RUSSIAN POPULATION!
                    ps I apologize, I got into offtopic a bit, based on your discussion. It just burned a bit. hi
            2. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 30 November 2017 23: 18 New
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              For me they are the enemies of my country in 1941-45 and I have claims for war crimes. And the rest - no complaints.

              I am forced to note that the idea of ​​the author, that war criminals are representatives of the party that lost the war, is fully consistent with the international consensus on this issue, as enshrined in the conclusions of the Nuremberg, Tokyo, The Hague and other tribunals. And while the Hague Tribunal is not very popular in Russia, the conclusions of the Nuremberg are not subject to discussion under pain of criminal punishment.
              Quote: Town Hall
              USSR seizure of part of Romania a year before

              Below uv. Andrei already answered me about the same thing. Romanians were politely asked, and they politely agreed. A gentleman in the company of gentlemen does his small business (s). You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone (c).
              Quote: Town Hall
              But I understand that for you he was not engaged in conquests

              There he was engaged in "restoring (up to) the constitutional order." By order, the government of Alexander I understood the struggle for any monarchy against any republics.
              1. Town Hall
                Town Hall 1 December 2017 00: 47 New
                0
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Below uv. Andrei already answered me about the same thing. Romanians were politely asked, and they politely agreed. A gentleman in the company of gentlemen does his small business (s). You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone (c).



                In criminal law, there are also such deals. A gentleman will put a gun to another gentleman’s temple and ask for a wallet. And, characteristically, the second gentleman gives it away voluntarily. But the Criminal Code is written by some sort of bumpkins who are secular rules alien to)
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 1 December 2017 00: 54 New
                  0
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  But the Criminal Code is written by some sort of dorks

                  I would venture to seem intrusive, but the Criminal Code doesn’t work in international affairs, and in the summer of 40 there was somehow no time for crocheting.
                  1. Town Hall
                    Town Hall 1 December 2017 01: 06 New
                    0
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    I would venture to seem intrusive


                    Not a question. It is always interesting to exchange opinions with a smart person.




                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Quote: Town Hall
                    But the Criminal Code is written by some sort of dorks

                    I would venture to seem intrusive, but the Criminal Code doesn’t work in international affairs, and in the summer of 40 there was somehow no time for crocheting.



                    I just “landed” a little situation. I transferred from trans-block Talleyrand heights to an analogy understandable to the majority)




                    And in the summer of the 40th da.tov.Stalin put into practice at the international level the simple principle of "robbed loot", which he understood from a stormy youth.
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 1 December 2017 01: 16 New
                      0
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      stormy youth, the principle of "robbed loot"

                      Your metaphor is not accurate, the loot was not particularly there. Stealing in a fire is so close.
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      I just landed

                      Needless to explain such things.
                    2. Maverick78
                      Maverick78 6 December 2017 16: 14 New
                      0
                      Can you tell me when and as a result of which Bessarabia ended up in Romania? Regarding bukovina - ready to return at least now)
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                1 December 2017 11: 16 New
                +1
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                I have to note that the idea of ​​the author is that war criminals are representatives of the party that lost the war

                Pfff :))) Already distorting shamelessly? I did not expect from you
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 1 December 2017 12: 45 New
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Already distorting shamelessly?

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  enemies of my country in 1941-45 and I have claims for war crimes

                  From your phrase, I made the assumption that war crimes are something unusual, since you have a claim for it (to the Romanians, my God). The American command, EMNIP, stated bluntly that the guys were young and that the time was hard, so she won’t deal with her raped Germans, and no one would pay child support either.
                  Do you think this is a juggle? Then I apologize
    4. bistrov.
      bistrov. 30 November 2017 09: 07 New
      12
      Quote: parma
      Apparently all kinds of Chukchi and other small nations meanly invaded Russian land,

      You yourself do not engage in verbiage. And you can agree to the point that each individual rural "subject of international law." The Chukchi and other small nations were at that time at the level of tribal relations and lived in yarangs and plagues, did not know any written language ate raw meat, according to rumors and a little human being, did not disdain, Russia brought them a higher culture, but did not destroy them, or drove them on a reservation, like the American colonialists, as a result, now representatives of these peoples occupy the highest state posts. their land is the highest degree of demagogy and a perversion of reality.
      The same thing happened with "pieces of territory" in Asia, where feudal relations reigned, and then they immediately stepped into socialism, although some representatives of these peoples did not appreciate this and preferred to secede, as a result, feudal orders returned in some Central Asian republics.
      1. parma
        parma 30 November 2017 09: 25 New
        +3
        You apparently didn’t understand my promise ... In world politics, the good, cute, white and fluffy do not live! The article says that Russia NEVER BEEN AN AGGRESSOR! Yes, Siberia is not Europe, but it was not conquered? There were no Ermak campaigns? You can start comparing different methods of different countries, if we didn’t do the same, it doesn’t mean that we did not win our neighbors in principle! And it’s not necessary here to bring culture, civilization, etc., for each one’s own vision of how to live better, or don’t you condemn the actions of the United States in BV and Syria, what kind of double standards? It’s not always the goal of aggression to conquer — the campaigns of the Russian princes on Constantinople were exclusively predatory in nature (which does not cease to be aggression). Russia's participation in the wars against France for almost 30 years has been a series of mutual aggressions! Which territories have we recaptured from Turkey? hmm, Caucasus, no?
        PS: I do not say at all that Russia is an aggressor, that it’s earlier now. It all depends on the situation, and being an aggressor is not bad at all ..
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          30 November 2017 09: 39 New
          +5
          Quote: parma
          The article says that Russia NEVER BEEN AN AGGRESSOR!

          Sorry, what kind of nonsense? :) Quote the appropriate place in the article
          Quote: parma
          Yes, Siberia is not Europe, but it was not conquered? There were no Ermak campaigns?

          Was there no Kazan Khanate? And raids on Russia?
          Quote: parma
          It’s not always the goal of aggression to conquer — the campaigns of the Russian princes on Constantinople were exclusively predatory in nature (which does not cease to be aggression).

          You do not understand. The article refers to the fact that Russia never sought to conquer Europe. It does not follow from this that Russia has never been an aggressor :)
          1. Town Hall
            Town Hall 30 November 2017 17: 14 New
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Was there no Kazan Khanate? And raids on Russia?



            And then Russia did not make any raids / campaigns in Kazan or Crimea there?)
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              30 November 2017 18: 16 New
              +2
              Quote: Town Hall
              And then Russia did not make any raids / campaigns in Kazan or Crimea there?)

              Learn the story at your leisure. Why and who staged raids and who slaves the Turkish port at the most reasonable price traded.
              1. Town Hall
                Town Hall 30 November 2017 21: 39 New
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Learn the story at your leisure. Why and who staged raids and who slaves the Turkish port at the most reasonable price traded.



                What story? ... which the winners wrote?


                Very few Kazan historical sources have survived to our time, and the history of the Khanate is studied mainly based on foreign or mostly Russian sources. The reason for this is that the main sources, the state archives of the Kazan Khanate, died. Russian historians were interested in the history of the Kazan Khanate only as material for studying the advancement of the Russian tribe to the east. It should be noted that they mainly paid attention to the last moment of the struggle - the conquest of the region, in particular - the victorious siege of Kazan, but left almost no attention to the gradual stages through which the process of absorption of one state by another passed. [1] According to the historian M.G. Khudyakov, the general drawback of this concept is tendentiousness, which gives the Kazan Khanate a passive role and is imbued with a strong patriotic position, which brings the statement of facts to a caricatured distortion.


                This one?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  30 November 2017 22: 06 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  What story? ... which the winners wrote?

                  Yes, no question, quote the story that the conquered wrote :)))
                  Well, what are you quoting?
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  Very few historical Kazan historical sources have survived to our time, and the history of the khanate is studied mainly based on foreign or mostly Russian sources.

                  Well
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  According to the historian M.G. Khudyakov, a common drawback of this concept is bias, which assigns a passive role to the Kazan Khanate and is imbued with a strong patriotic position, which brings the statement of facts to a caricatured distortion.

                  Based on WHAT did he draw these conclusions? He found these very archives? :))) Restored from the ashes?
                  In essence, Khudyakov said - I do not like officialdom, but I can’t refute it because of a lack of documents.
                  And?
        2. 97110
          97110 30 November 2017 16: 57 New
          +1
          Quote: parma
          hmm, Caucasus, no?

          Where were the Turks when Mstislav Rededu killed? Didn’t you read the tales of temporary years? Do you have your own view on the history of Russia? From the taiga ...
        3. Black5Raven
          Black5Raven 30 November 2017 18: 37 New
          0
          Quote: parma
          And it’s not necessary here to bring culture, civilization, etc., for each one’s own vision of how to live better, or don’t you condemn the actions of the United States in BV and Syria, what kind of double standards?

          As if you are the first day at VO. So much duplicity in each topic, but according to unless there is no halo.

        4. WarriorWolf
          WarriorWolf 30 November 2017 19: 13 New
          +1
          Quote: parma
          Yes, Siberia is not Europe, but it was not conquered?

          If you don’t know: in Siberia there was a DEVELOPMENT, but they conquered America ... They bought the Baltic states from the Swedes, Finland recaptured them from them, and then ... Monsters preserved churches, culture, languages ​​and other ... Even the local aristocracy ... as in Poland ...
      2. Dimy4
        Dimy4 30 November 2017 13: 22 New
        +4
        The same thing happened with "pieces of territory" in Asia, where feudal relations reigned, and then they immediately stepped into socialism, although some representatives of these peoples did not appreciate this and preferred to secede, as a result, feudal orders returned in some Central Asian republics.

        As they say, it’s easy to take a girl out of the village, but it’s much harder to get the girl out of the village. Having become Soviet republics, they could not get rid of their feudal past, which is hundreds of years old.
    5. bistrov.
      bistrov. 30 November 2017 09: 29 New
      +3
      Quote: parma
      . Apparently all kinds of Chukchi and other small nations meanly invaded Russian land

      Following your logic, you must now invite the American population to free the North American continent and return back to the English islands. Well, try offering this to the USA.
      Firstly, in those days no "international law" existed, there was one "international law" - the STRONG LAW, and even now they are turning this "international law" as they like, especially the main "democratizer" and the European states subject to it.
      1. av58
        av58 30 November 2017 13: 54 New
        +1
        As for "free territory", and go back, the idea is not bad. In any case, it would be worth proposing to report on the genocide of the indigenous population. International law was, albeit in a different form. Nevertheless, peace treaties, coalitions, and economic treaties existed, and war needed at least a formal legal occasion, rather than a banal Faustrecht.
    6. andj61
      andj61 30 November 2017 13: 11 New
      +2
      Quote: parma
      It’s cool to say that it’s kakbe aggression with Crimea, but they’re bad Ukrainians, and we are good (although I partially agree with the author, although the fact of aggression is obvious, it was done correctly).

      Incidentally, this is a legal incident, which turned out to be out of Ksenia Sobchak's mind - the entry of Crimea into the Russian Federation is completely legal from the point of view of international law. Only the entry of troops was illegal, but from the point of view of all the same legislation, the entry and referendum in Crimea are completely unrelated events.

      Regarding the illegality of the introduction of troops - this is still how to look!
      According to the agreement between Russia and Ukraine, up to 25 Russian troops could be in the Crimea. In reality, there were a little more than 000. The movement to Crimea of ​​a large number of servicemen was not recorded during this period - so the fact of the introduction of troops was not confirmed by anything: the troops were ALREADY there.
      Regarding international law, not everything is so perfect. International law is controversial in its two fundamental principles: the right of nations to self-determination contradicts the principle of inviolability of state borders. And to follow these principles at the same time in the case of the Crimea there was no way. hi
      1. parma
        parma 30 November 2017 13: 40 New
        0
        Whether the input was or wasn’t additional forces, the issue is separate (someone looking at the numbers and the Tigers even names the units that were transferred), but what exactly was a violation of the treaty — blocking the border of Crimea and the rest of the country, as well as blocking the military units of the Armed Forces and administrative buildings.
        1. andj61
          andj61 30 November 2017 14: 29 New
          +1
          Quote: parma
          Whether the input was or wasn’t additional forces, the issue is separate (someone looking at the numbers and the Tigers even names the units that were transferred), but what exactly was a violation of the treaty — blocking the border of Crimea and the rest of the country, as well as blocking the military units of the Armed Forces and administrative buildings.

          Only blocking the military units of the Armed Forces and administrative buildings. Overlapping the borders of Crimea, at least on the first line, was carried out by the Simferopol and Sevastopol Berkut - our troops did not shine there.
    7. Ehanatone
      Ehanatone 30 November 2017 23: 28 New
      -1
      Rarna
      Well about verbiage - re-read your comment ...
    8. Reklastik
      Reklastik 2 December 2017 21: 15 New
      +1
      You, dear, in The Hague, need! They like to judge everyone who does not fit into the framework of the European worldview and the law, regardless of the conditions under which and for what reasons the actions were committed laughing God grant these guys the strength to hold out before the colonization of alien inhabited planets begins - Europeans will justify in a moment the lack of indigenous rights to life and their guilt))))
  3. Soho
    Soho 30 November 2017 07: 44 New
    +4
    in fact, there can be much more reasons for nuclear war than the author thinks. Recall that balancing on the verge of a nuclear apocalypse in the Caribbean crisis did not arise due to the US invasion of the USSR or vice versa. A nuclear fire could break out only because the Americans saw a threat in the deployment of Soviet missiles in the immediate vicinity of their territory. And it was McNamara who convinced Kennedy of the "permissible damage" in the event of a nuclear conflict with the Russians. And since then the Pentagon has not diminished its hot goals.
    1. bistrov.
      bistrov. 30 November 2017 09: 13 New
      +2
      Quote: Soho
      not because of the US invasion of the USSR or vice versa.

      Be accurate already. The deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba occurred in response to the deployment of US Air Force assets in Turkey, while the USSR did not have any means of fighting against them.
  4. andrewkor
    andrewkor 30 November 2017 08: 27 New
    0
    Our unfortunate Su-24 was shot down not by order of Erdagan, but by order of the Turkish Air Force commander, as it turned out to be the head of the conspiracy against Erdogan. The military coup literally broke out at that hour and Putin, literally at the last minute, saved Erdogan from death, warning about the conspiracy.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      30 November 2017 09: 22 New
      +6
      Quote: andrewkor
      The coup of the military literally broke out that hour

      Yeah. Nothing that the Su-25 was shot down on November 24, 2015, and the military coup was in July 2016? For you, only an hour has passed? :)))))))))
  5. Eurodav
    Eurodav 30 November 2017 09: 10 New
    +3
    And where does respected Andrei have such confidence then? And the fact that you "wrote in a previous article" with someone is the same only your opinion? But you argue with full confidence:
    "And although, as we wrote in a previous article, its nuclear arsenal is completely insufficient to wipe out Europe and the USA, or at least the USA alone ..."
    No matter how much is demonstrated and laid out for free access, Andrei from Chelyabinsk simply cannot know about all the possibilities of the Russian Federation in the prospect of a nuclear strike. This is my opinion, not imposed on anyone ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      30 November 2017 09: 18 New
      +3
      Quote: Evrodav
      And where does respected Andrei have such confidence then?

      Described in the previous article :)
      Quote: Evrodav
      No matter how much is demonstrated and laid out for free access, Andrei from Chelyabinsk simply cannot know about all the possibilities of the Russian Federation in the prospect of a nuclear strike.

      at least think about this - if you think that 1600 warheads can destroy both Europe and the USA, why did the USSR produce 46 of them? For the love of art? :)
      1. bistrov.
        bistrov. 30 November 2017 09: 50 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: Evrodav
        And where does respected Andrei have such confidence then?

        Described in the previous article :)
        Quote: Evrodav
        No matter how much is demonstrated and laid out for free access, Andrei from Chelyabinsk simply cannot know about all the possibilities of the Russian Federation in the prospect of a nuclear strike.

        at least think about this - if you think that 1600 warheads can destroy both Europe and the USA, why did the USSR produce 46 of them? For the love of art? :)

        Everything is being improved and developed. It was previously proved that only 50 American Titan-1 and Titan-2 missiles with megaton-class warheads (up to 9 megatons) could completely destroy the infrastructure of the USSR.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          30 November 2017 10: 22 New
          +1
          Quote: bistrov.
          It was previously proved that only 50 American Titan-1 and Titan-2 missiles with megaton-class warheads (up to 9 megatons) could completely destroy the infrastructure of the USSR.

          And who argued, if not secret? I don’t remember this particular case, but it would be interesting to know
  6. Fedor1
    Fedor1 30 November 2017 10: 02 New
    +2
    A harsh article, but there is also an option that you did not consider: NATO attacks us with non-nuclear forces, we respond (at best) with a nuclear strike against the United States, and they continue to capture Russia with conventional weapons (because they have plenty of them in numbers armies superiority) and of course they capture, they donate some cities with millionaires and even some European countries destroyed by our missiles, but Russia is no longer i.e. it is captured (the goal has been achieved), the population in a short time is reduced to 15 million (because such a number is easier to control and it will no longer be able to rebel and provide any resistance) of the labor force for mining into slaves. They themselves are moved to uncontaminated territory, while they still have unused nuclear weapons to blackmail other countries. And we, by their grace, provide the gracious life of the winners as slaves. Another reason why this scenario is likely, time is not working for us every day our situation is deteriorating, military budgets are incomparable, their missile defense is getting bigger, heavy military equipment is concentrated on the western borders, and sabotage and intelligence activity is increasing in our country, this is clearly seen from the situation in the country. They are armed with our money and are preparing for war with us, because in offshore, they have trillions of $ of our money that will come back to us only as missile warheads. Supplement or refute ;-)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      30 November 2017 10: 21 New
      +1
      Quote: Fedor1
      but there’s also an option that you didn’t consider: NATO attacks us with non-nuclear forces, we respond (at best) with a nuclear strike against the United States, and they continue to seize Russia with conventional weapons (

      Well, why - did not consider? The fact is that in the previous article I talked about the fact that even the nuclear apocalypse will not lead to the end and we will continue to finish the battle with conventional weapons and nuclear weapons. And here I am writing that a non-nuclear conflict is likely to develop into a nuclear one, but this, of course, does not mean that everything will end with the use of strategic nuclear forces
  7. Ural resident
    Ural resident 30 November 2017 10: 33 New
    +4
    Thank. Andrew. Keep writing articles. Your view is always interesting and unusual - and makes you think about those facts that are not always visible on the surface. Disputes are inevitable, but: "truth is born in disputes, be it wrong (quoted from the film" Stalker ")."
    They have already tortured simple cheers, patriotic articles, slogans that change according to market conditions and demand.
    You always have factual thinking and a very unusual analysis. We are waiting for a new one!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      30 November 2017 10: 47 New
      +1
      Thank you very much! drinks
  8. Humpty
    Humpty 30 November 2017 11: 36 New
    +1
    Quote: andrewkor
    , which is only worth the script of Alexander the 3rd preceding the conquest of Turkestan: "... In the name of expanding the borders of the Empire!"

    Tell me, dear man, what conquests in Turkestan did Alexander III anticipate? Successful and completely justified operations against the Kokand and Khiva khanates were carried out during the reign of Alexander the 3nd, with the tacit consent of Persia. At the same time, Russian troops, with rare exceptions, behaved extremely delicately towards the local population and the defeated khans, some of which later found political refuge in Russia from the rebels. A number of nationalities voluntarily transferred to Russia, so it was profitable and convenient for them. Something the Chinese slammed their ears, not before they were, they were too smoky in the 2th century.
  9. Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 30 November 2017 11: 49 New
    +1
    Initiating the enchanting srach for 400+ comments last time, the author decided, as I understand it, to consolidate his success. Well, to the best of my strength, I will support it.
    disappearingly small, far more likely to start a global nuclear war

    The author's ideas correspond to the realities of the 62nd year. After that Cuban history, the doctrine of responsiveness appeared and developed.
    . Is it possible that the Russian Federation will become an aggressor?

    It is widely believed that she is not the first year.
    . Historically, Russia has never sought

    Historically, the rulers of Russia have climbed into almost every European hub since the Seven Years War. Only in this way did they feel full. The war, or the threat of war, or the consequences of the war (occupation of European countries) by Russia has been detected for 250 years almost without interruption.
    . No Russian Tsar, Secretary General or President ever considered the conquest of Europe as a deed useful to Russia.

    The occupation of 8 European countries (I do not consider Yugoslavia) in the years 40-90 was, of course, not a useful act for Russia. But, unfortunately, the benefit to Russia has never been something important for its kings, secretaries and presidents.
    . the Russian people just do not need this

    The Russian people were asked once, on 12.11.1917/XNUMX/XNUMX. This venture did not pay off. Neither before nor after, the opinion of the so-called Russian people did not interest anyone.
    . Support Slavic societies outside of Russia (Slav brothers)

    Well, why are some Slavs? Offend Comrade Kuusinen.
    . who would like to conquer Europe. But at the same time, Russia is historically not very inclined to tolerate peoples bordering on it and openly hostile to it. Those conquered by Russia (Poland, Crimea), after which Russia tried to assimilate them,

    Yes, but there is some problem. After assimilation into Siberia or into the ditch of the next hostile people, which previously borders on Russia, the next bordering people also for some reason became openly hostile. Some kind of good luck with bordering nations.
    . In recent years, we have already seen several times how the Russian armed forces participate in operations outside the homeland, but the term “aggression” is hardly applicable here

    Seriously?
    . Saakashvili’s armed forces also dealt a blow to Russian peacekeepers, and Russian servicemen were killed.

    The alternative version, I remind you, was that the bandits started the war without shoulder straps and the bandits with shoulder straps continued.
    The e-identities represented at that time by Ms. Tagliavini and Mr. Sarkozy could not establish what happened there. On the other hand, knowing further events, figuring out who is who is much easier.
    . the entry of Crimea into the Russian Federation is completely legal from the point of view of international law

    Here, in part, I agree with a respected author. Since international law does not exist, it is difficult to violate it. There is a certain set of filkin letters, which the signatory parties observe, for now and as far as they consider necessary.
    . gave completely exhaustive explanations on all the nuances of the entry of Crimea into the Russian Federation from the point of view of international law

    So the professor, by and large, sets out precisely this point of view. Whether annexation violates international law or does not violate it depends solely on the will of the party arguing on this subject.
    Crimean history is a relatively close analogue of Kosovo, often reminded by the Russian Foreign Ministry and gossmi. The similarity is that part of the country was torn away from it after a lost war (which, of course, was not called a war). The difference is that in Kosovo, everyone, including Serbia, agreed with the result, but not in the Crimea.
    . Of course, the reunification of Crimea with the Russian Federation is completely legal

    Today, of course, tomorrow conditionally, this is a lively, dynamic business.
    The Russian Federation can and will defend its interests by armed force, even if this is in some way contrary to international law.

    Yeah. And then Neville Obama and even Angela Daladier realized that something had gone wrong.
    . The modern world wanted to spit on international law - if the laws could cry, the African deserts would become lakes of tears when the European coalition killed the statehood of Libya and the family of Muammar Gaddafi

    Colorfully said, but no. Deserts would become lakes much earlier. Africa generally would have long gone under water, like Atlantis.
    No need to be shy about this

    These words should be included in the Russian anthem, I think.
    considered such an answer inconsistently small and unworthy of the Russian Federation.

    I was always amazed at how many wonderful things there are for the Russian patriot in the world in the name of which Russian soldiers can and should be killed.
    Hitler suggested that the destruction of the last remaining powerful nation on the continent, such as the USSR, would help him achieve peace with Great Britain, since in the person of the USSR it would lose the last possible ally in Europe.

    I heard a lot of versions of the beginning of the German-Soviet part of WWII, but this one is not there yet.
    True, in this case, with a great deal of probability, Alexander himself would have experienced an “apoplexy hit with a snuffbox on the head” that befell his father, Paul I.

    For some reason, the author believes that Paul I did not suit the English ambassador alone.
    But even if he hadn’t come, the whole logic of Napoleon’s reign led to the fact that he absolutely did not need any militarily strong neighbors.

    France, like Germany, at some point became a bicycle. Do not stop or fall. And for Napoleon, and for Hitler, this was a considerable surprise.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 30 November 2017 11: 50 New
      +1
      a necessary prerequisite for a global European invasion of the Russian Federation is a militarily strongest power capable of consolidating Europe

      A necessary prerequisite for any aggressive war is the coming to power of people who want to switch the agenda from internal to external. Either the polymers inside the country were drained, or the great mission is itching, or both. Unfortunately, there are a lot of troubles with polymers all over the world.
      fundamental differences from NATO, even if only

      The fundamental difference is that all NATO countries are democratic, and the ruling coalition in the key ones is very weak (except for France). To arrange a total war in this situation is difficult.
      why start all this?

      The key question. There is no need to fight the long-won war again.
      maybe it makes sense to abandon nuclear weapons in general? In no case

      It's true. NF is an odds equalizer for the weak side. The strong side flashed this business in the 40s, and now it has degraded to the point that even Kim can’t figure it out.
      The US and NATO can take the risk and still carry out an invasion of the Russian Federation under only one condition

      Never, much less an "invasion." Relatively small countries will be enough for the new Monica Lewinsky. If they decide to extinguish, they will extinguish Russia by other measures. And in any case, such nonsense as the life of a couple of thousand or a couple of million Ukrainians is not a reason to start doing something with Russia.
      "Disarming strike"? Not funny, the flying time of cruise missiles to the missile silos of Siberia

      2 thousand km from the Arctic Ocean. And why "winged"?
      our ruling elite will prefer to surrender their own country, saving their lives and accumulations in offshore companies.

      Why "pass"? Long ago passed. Selling the Motherland is the only reason to become the "power top".
      Oddly enough, the reason for this is the extremely short-sighted policy of the USA and NATO.

      Alas, she is not at all. It would be-they took up Russia even after 080808.
      How did the leaders of the states that had been invaded by the armies of the West ended their life? They lived the rest of their days enjoying life in villas by the sea, spending billions earned by “honest labor”? Not at all.

      Differently finished. And what does the position of the head of state? There are, for example, snuff boxes.
      But does anyone really think that the crowd of our opposition, give her power, will show more mercy?

      Oh, and who is our opposition member?
      Needless to say, much can be expected from a person placed in such conditions, but surrender never.

      Oh, does Mikhalsergeich know? By the way, what is a "loss in the war" when they take matters seriously.
      Is a situation possible in which the powers that possess the most powerful nuclear potentials of the planet come into conflict without using nuclear weapons?

      Of course. From Korea with all the stops.
      Even losing in Korea

      Sorry?
      and Vietnam, the Americans did not use atomic bombs

      And where to throw them at Woodstock?
      a couple of cities at the discretion of the Queen will be obliterated

      Fortunately, there are no full-fledged Russian patriots even in the Medvedev government, not like Thatcher.
      The Russian Federation announces an operation to force the Turks to peace and burns a military base with cruise missiles, from where interceptors flew.

      After that, the Turks minus the base in Syria and the Black Sea Fleet. After that, probably a snuffbox. The man from whom the Germans do not buy hydrocarbons will not have a day as the president of Russia, at least, as it is now seen.
      some make serious efforts to increase the degree of Russophobia in countries bordering the Russian Federation. Here is to remember the same Ukraine

      A huge number of people. On Russian TV, for example, only such work.
      The United States carried out a massive transfer of its armed forces to Europe,

      Nice try, but no. All that is needed has long been transferred from the back to the United States. If the Americans really decide to intervene, the accounts of the Ministry of Finance, the Central Bank and state banks will be frozen. This is for a start. Try to attach aircraft carriers to this option.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        30 November 2017 12: 16 New
        +3
        Well, the answer is big, the thoughts are interesting in something, in some ways not. In many places, such as
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        It is widely believed that she is not the first year.

        There is a frank pulling an owl on the globe. Well, here it is
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Historically, the rulers of Russia have climbed into almost every European hub since the Seven Years War. Only in this way did they feel full. The war, or the threat of war, or the consequences of the war (occupation of European countries) by Russia has been detected for 250 years almost without interruption.

        generally nonsense. You are not a stupid and not exalted person, but if you, having studied history, have come to this opinion, I can only shrug request
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        The occupation of 8 European countries (I do not consider Yugoslavia) in the years 40-90 was, of course, not a useful act for Russia.

        But about this it’s already interesting :))) Would the genie be kind enough to list what kind of 8 Euros we ate in 1940-90? Or were there any other years? Before the birth of Christ, or after?
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        I was always amazed at how many wonderful things there are for the Russian patriot in the world in the name of which Russian soldiers can and should be killed.

        The killing of a Russian soldier is such a “wonderful” thing. In fact, the military of a foreign country is inviolable.
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        I heard a lot of versions of the beginning of the German-Soviet part of WWII, but this one is not there yet.

        What, even the six-volume Churchill did not master? :)
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 30 November 2017 13: 52 New
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          there is a frank pulling an owl on the globe

          Nonsense. Who is the aggressor and who is the victim is a question of interpretation. In the 39th I remind you, Poland attacked Germany, England and France - Germany, Finland - the USSR. In 2014, Russia, you will not believe, the United States attacked by removing the Ukrainian president. On TV, it seems, it was widely covered.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          generally nonsense

          Again, a question of interpretation. You Suvorov in the Alps fulfilled allied obligations, I do not. Your activity of Russia within the framework of the Holy Alliance is "allied", Czechoslovakia reminds me 68. You perceive the ravings of the times of Alexander 3 about the way to Constantinople through Berlin and Vienna as a public discussion, I am a waste of completely state militarism. Do you consider the Comintern as a non-governmental organization, closed by Stalin in the 43rd, (oops, it is non-state) I - as a hybrid war of the USSR against the capstran countries, which in the 43rd, naturally, did not go away. Your rising from Russia’s knees began in Georgia, and in my country in Transnistria, that is, in some respects, it has not ended since the days of the USSR.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Would the genie be nice to list

          It's not hard. The USSR included Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, certain regions of the former Poland, present Romania and Finland. I do not consider East Prussia, it is “honestly” conquered. If you want analogies, then the "referenda" in the Baltic states strongly resembled the Crimean one, the story with Romania - Georgia. In the latter case, Romanians beat off, EMNIP, Ribbentrop, Georgians - Sarkozy. In the first case, the United States did not recognize either this or that "referendum."
          The USSR was occupied by Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, the east of Germany, he did not count. Fraternal assistance to the Hungarian and Czechoslovak peoples in difficult times does not, in my opinion, leave room for interpretation of these relations.
          Below, they blamed on the omerizans. The question of who occupied whom and who defended it from occupation was decided quite definitely not even on November 9.11.89, 13.08.61, when the wall was broken, but on August XNUMX, XNUMX, when it began to be built.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The killing of a Russian soldier is such a “wonderful” thing.

          Need to kill more, do you think? How many hostages did the Turks have at the base in Tartus? See if the mustachioed is pissed or not pissed, is the kid not a kid? And if the kid - write them all off?
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          even six-volume Churchill not mastered?

          A grandfather about what specific war he wrote? Germany with the UK? And how could Barbarossa be regarded in such an interpretation?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            30 November 2017 14: 28 New
            +1
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Nonsense. Who is the aggressor and who is the victim is a question of interpretation. In the 39th I remind you, Poland attacked Germany, England and France - Germany, Finland - the USSR.

            Well, in that sense - yes, the Russian Federation is certainly an aggressor. But in the sense that Germany attacked Poland, England and France entered into it for allied obligations and that the USSR attacked Finland, the Russian Federation is not an aggressor :)))
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Again, a question of interpretation. You Suvorov in the Alps fulfilled allied obligations, I do not.

            And what do you think he did there? Conquered Europe? :))) About the rest ...
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            You are the ravings of the times of Alexander 3 about the path to Constantinople through Berlin and Vienna, we perceive as a public discussion, I as the waste of completely state militarism.

            Oh yeah. To blame the tsar, during the reign of which Russia did not wage a single war, and therefore deserved the title of Peacemaker in the history of state militarism — that’s strong :))))
            In general, I don’t even know what to say.
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            The structure of the USSR included Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia

            Are these now European countries? :)))))))))) Oh ...
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            If you want analogies, then the "referenda" in the Baltics strongly resembled Crimean

            Not at all.
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            The USSR was occupied by Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, the east of Germany, he did not count. Fraternal assistance to the Hungarian and Czechoslovak peoples in difficult times does not, in my opinion, leave room for interpretation of these relations.

            Charming :)))) I dare to recall that occupation (from the Latin occupatio - “capture, occupation”) in the general case is the occupation by the armed forces of a state of territory that does not belong to it, which is not accompanied by the acquisition of sovereignty over it and is carried out in the absence of the will of the state possessing sovereignty over a given territory. How to stick this to the countries you have listed - kill me cat backwards, if I know.
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Need to kill more, do you think?

            This is the road to nowhere. You make one common mistake. Everything that you said fully applies to Turkey. The killing of our pilot could (and should have) led to the death of the Turkish military, but they did it, but we didn’t. Well, who framed his left cheek sooner or later would very much rake on the right
            A grandfather about what specific war he wrote? Germany with the UK? And how could Barbarossa be regarded in such an interpretation?

            So, after all, they didn’t read it ... I strongly recommend it. Discover a lot of new things. And so - yes, the book is not called "The War of Great Britain against Germany" but "The Second World War", i.e. Churchill considers it all there, with the prerequisites of occurrence.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 30 November 2017 16: 04 New
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              that the USSR attacked Finland, the Russian Federation is not an aggressor :)))

              Seriously? But didn’t Tskhinvali whitewash shelling cannons? Could mix up, I'm sorry.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And what do you think he did there?

              I don’t even know ... Fought with the forbidden in Russia LIH Napoleon on the far approaches? (Why, by the way, did the Corsican Russian woman suddenly dislike him?). Exchanged Russian blood for geopolitical chatter?
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              because he deserves the title of Peacemaker in history

              Still "in the people" wrote))). By the way, did WWI go this way?
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Are these now European countries?

              Worse, not now, but in the 39th year. By the way, you said something about hostile peoples there. Why are they so hungry, we do not even consider them for the peoples, so Russophobes are stray.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              How to stick it to the countries you have listed

              Elementary. It is enough to consider ISIS banned in Russia by the Communist Party banned earlier in Russia, and then consider any agreements with its structures of leaders of popular democracies as ordinary treason. In Hungary, by the way, this is how the events of the 56th were interpreted as part of the judicial investigation in the 90s
              Few people are ready to argue that the government of Manzhou Guo, for example, was friends with Japan in the interests of Manchuria, and therefore the presence of the Japanese army there was by no means an occupation. Although if you approach the issue strictly formally, like your German professor, then everything is so.
              By the way, about popular democracy. She appeared in these countries before the Red Army, later, or during? And ended up like entering Abramsov right away?
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Not at all.

              They don’t remind you of this, but remind me. Including departure to the camps of those who voted incorrectly, although more selectively than in past years.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              This is the road to nowhere. You make one common mistake.

              No, it’s you who are making a banal mistake, believing that the path “let's kill our enemies more than they will kill us” can be successful. The crashed pilot, I recall, bombed the Syrian miners and tractor drivers, peacefully procured in the Turkish military. Suppose, Ukrainians bombing the heroes of New Russia would land over the Rostov Region. That would probably be somewhat risky.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              highly recommend.

              Thank. Do you accept Churchill's interpretations without reservation only at the outbreak of war, or in post-war affairs, too?
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                30 November 2017 18: 48 New
                +1
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Seriously? But didn’t Tskhinvali whitewash shelling cannons? Could mix up, I'm sorry.

                In my reality - Georgians, but in yours?
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                I don’t even know ... Fought ISIS Napoleon, banned in Russia, at distant approaches? (Why, by the way, did the Corsican Russian woman suddenly dislike him?). Exchanged Russian blood for geopolitical chatter?

                If you can’t decide what you did, decide what he did NOT do there. Suvorov did NOT conquer Europe there :))))
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Worse, not now, but in the 39th year. By the way, you said something about hostile peoples there. Why are they so hungry, we do not even consider them for the peoples, so Russophobes are stray.

                This is the property of the Livonian Order, inherited by Sweden, which, alas, lost to the Russians in the war :)
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Elementary. It is enough to consider ISIS forbidden in Russia by the Communist Party banned earlier in Russia

                I won’t drink so much :)))
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Few are willing to argue that the government of Manzhou Guo

                I understand, spaceships in the vastness of the universe and all that, but bad luck - you didn’t occupy the USSR countries that you recommended :) Well, he didn’t keep military contingents there contrary to the desire of a legitimate government
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                No, it’s you who are making a banal mistake, believing that the path “let's kill our enemies more than they will kill us” can be successful.

                The Turks went successfully. What other evidence is needed?
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Thank. And you accept Churchill’s interpretations without reservation only at the outbreak of war

                I accept them not without reservation, but note that these are two different things. And I do not agree with him in everything. But completely ignoring the words of the iron hog is not even funny
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 30 November 2017 20: 48 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Georgians are my reality

                  Oops, pichalka
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Suvorov did NOT conquer Europe there

                  Yes you, my friend, a maximalist. You must Reich from ocean to ocean. It’s enough for me that the Alps are not in Russia.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  This is the property of the Livonian Order, inherited by Sweden.

                  I am almost sure that neither Sweden nor the Livonian Order had any relation to the loss of statehood of these peoples during WWII.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Well, he didn’t keep military contingents there contrary to the desire of a legitimate government

                  You see, you, in the spirit of a German uncle, rely on the formal part of the question - the lack of precedents when the government of the country, dissatisfied with the Red Army, and the Red Army proper, coexisted on the same territory. Since Churchill was remembered, tell, if not difficult, about the negotiations with Stalin over non-communist ministers in the Polish government. Why is this, in general, the composition of the Polish government can be the subject of Anglo-Soviet negotiations.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  The Turks went successfully. What other evidence is needed?

                  Mustachioed minus 2 thousand people. in Tortus and 5 thousand grouping in the middle-earth. Losses among the Turks do not interest me. You probably expect big losses, I doubt it. Farther?
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  I accept them not without reservation, but note, these are two different things.

                  Only Baronoss can consider Barbarossa part of the conflict with Britain.
    2. Soho
      Soho 30 November 2017 12: 20 New
      +2
      Cherry Nine Today,
      The occupation of 8 European countries (I do not consider Yugoslavia) in the years 40-90 was, of course, not a useful act for Russia.

      How useful is the continued occupation of Germany by the United States of America for the people of these very United States? ....
  10. CTABEP
    CTABEP 30 November 2017 11: 59 New
    +1
    Thanks to the author, interesting reasoning, I agree in almost everything. We are waiting for the third part, and then about the aircraft carriers there really is not a word :)
  11. brats
    brats 30 November 2017 12: 06 New
    0
    Suspend, and in a good case, completely put out the incitement to please bankers, may be understood that the war is not between the USSR and the USA, but the war of the Jews for the right to remain a guard in a concentration camp.
  12. brats
    brats 30 November 2017 12: 21 New
    0
    Liberal ideologists are carefully hiding from us, blabbering with secondary "justice", threats and a full arsenal of fraudulent means, including substitutions at the highest managerial priorities, the presence of ultra-efficient cosmological universals:
    The continental nature likelihood of Russia has tremendous potential for converting cosmic energies, which reliably eliminates the need for the Fed's computer zeroes, for the manifestation of which it is SUFFICIENT to clear the structurally parametric model of a harmonious social state structure from harming distortions.
  13. Valery Saitov
    Valery Saitov 30 November 2017 12: 25 New
    0
    It was just that the Russians were looking for the sea in the east and ... found, and along the way annexed many nationalities (and they were not opposed), they reached Alaska. And who prevented the Chinese or Europeans (especially the Britons) from capturing or exploring Siberia from the east ? It's cold however.
    1. parma
      parma 30 November 2017 12: 55 New
      0
      What about geography? So the European powers had such a mountain of colonies that they could not digest to the end. Look, when did the process of settling the western coast of the USA and the colonization of Australia / Asia, in whose possession was Siberia and the Far East? China was not up to it, by the standards of that time (and even now) it is not the smallest country, moreover, it is constantly shaken by internal confusion (in Europe such countries can be called Germany and Italy). The Japanese generally sat on their islands, also biting each other. But at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century (or rather, before the end of WWII), all these “homemakers” actively made up for the “lost” conquest of their neighbors (except for China, they played the role of the victims, but now they look at everyone with hungry eyes)
      As for the fact that many peoples of Siberia were not against joining, they were not particularly numerous and warlike (in comparison with the tribes of both America, such as the Aztecs and Apaches)
  14. Foreman49
    Foreman49 30 November 2017 12: 36 New
    +1
    NATO is a socio-economic bloc that has overthrown the USSR. Putin’s Russia will also be knocked down with the help of burning alcohol, zero GDP growth, millions of hectares of arable land, offshore power and socio-economic discrimination of the Russian people (the foundation of Russia).
    1. brats
      brats 30 November 2017 14: 13 New
      0
      The continental nature likelihood of Russia has tremendous potential for converting cosmic energies, which reliably eliminates the need for the Fed's computer zeroes, for the manifestation of which it is SUFFICIENT to clear the structurally parametric model of a harmonious social state structure from harming distortions.
    2. Soho
      Soho 1 December 2017 06: 11 New
      +1
      NATO is a socio-economic bloc that has overthrown the USSR. Will knock down Putin's Russia with the help of scorched alcohol ...

      judging by the contents of the post, you have already become the first victim of this "weapon" of NATO laughing
  15. exo
    exo 30 November 2017 12: 43 New
    +1
    Very believable scenarios. If the Russian Federation is drawn into a new war, it will be done by vassals, such as Poland and Ukraine. Or the Baltic states. I think, without even notifying their "senior" comrades. They will have to disentangle already brewed porridge.
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. Agasfer vecnyzhid
    Agasfer vecnyzhid 30 November 2017 13: 35 New
    +1
    An excellent analytical review of the likely scenarios of the modern armed conflict between Russia and the NATO bloc. At the same time, a historical escort without too much verbosity outlined the grounds for Russia’s distrust of Western hegimony. In addition to this review or a separate review, one could consider the likelihood of a military conflict as the ending of the active phases of the cold and hybrid wars, resulting in analogues of the orange revolutions in the Ukrainian scenario or in Catalonia.
  18. av58
    av58 30 November 2017 13: 45 New
    0
    The "borders" of Ukraine are generally doubtful as such. After 1991, Ukraine did not submit an application for recognition to the UN; the declaration that present-day Ukraine is the successor of the Ukrainian Republic of 1918 deprives it of its rights in the territory and in the west (included in Poland, Hungary and Romania), and in the east - into the territory of the Donetsk-Kryvyi Rih Republic, which included the territory including Dnipropetrovsk (Yekaterinoslav), Kherson, Odessa and Nikolaev.
    As for the possible outcome of a possible war between Russia and NATO, the least results are associated with a simple arithmetic calculation of material and human resources. The proof of this is the Second World War, and before that, our Civil War and intervention.
  19. Graz
    Graz 30 November 2017 14: 03 New
    0
    verbiage dofiga, thumb down
  20. svntn
    svntn 30 November 2017 14: 40 New
    0
    "Just the Russians were looking for the sea in the east and ... found, and along the way annexed many nationalities (and they were not against it), they reached Alaska."
    Well, if we take into account that Tartaria, as the progenitor of the Russian Empire, extended to Eurasia and North America, then the initially aggressive immigrants from the British Isles did not destroy the Indians but the Slavs, and the Indians are the same small nations as the Chukchi and the like. They cleared to Alaska, and bought the remainder from the new Moscow vassals, and even then did not pay ...
  21. Town Hall
    Town Hall 30 November 2017 15: 01 New
    +1
    "....Under no circumstances would the new Ukrainian government give Crimeans the right to self-determination ..."



    Are you sure that you are able to clearly formulate and interpret such concepts as PEOPLE, NATION? ....
  22. andrej-shironov
    andrej-shironov 30 November 2017 15: 09 New
    0
    Oh Andrey, Andrey! The level of analytics is, of course, over the top, as is the desire to lure without relying on facts, but in any case, thanks for the work. And this is the most accurate in the article:
    It is possible to reproach the leadership of the Russian Federation with anything (whether it is justified or not — another question), but no one has ever refused him the instinct of self-preservation. And what should this very instinct suggest? How did the leaders of the states that invaded the armies of the West end their lives? They spent the rest of their days enjoying life in villas by the sea, spending billions earned by "honest labor"? By no means.
    We are all sitting here advocating patriotism, service to the motherland, the cohesion of the people and other nonsense. But the authorities and the President in particular, really act instinctively. And there is no question of any service to the Motherland, much less the defense of the people! From the word "absolutely"! Power has become a thing in itself and the interests of the people do not interest it. The main thing for her is to save herself.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      30 November 2017 16: 16 New
      +1
      Quote: andrej-shironov
      The level of analytics is, of course, overwhelming, as is the desire to lure without relying on facts

      ?? :))))) And what facts do you want to rely on? :))))
      1. andrej-shironov
        andrej-shironov 30 November 2017 18: 02 New
        0
        smile Andrei, do not be offended, but the facts are zero, some assumptions: but, if so ... Do you want to write another reason for involving Russia in the war with NATO? Well, for example, the United Kingdom, under pressure from the United States, is annexing part of the sweat and blood earned by our oligarchs in its offshore. Do you think a local conflict could happen?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          30 November 2017 18: 20 New
          +1
          Quote: andrej-shironov
          Andrew, do not be offended, but the facts are zero, some assumptions

          Yes, I’m not offended, I just ask - this is your task - to estimate the possible causes of a large-scale non-nuclear conflict between NATO and the Russian Federation. I relied on the factology of recent conflicts and gave them a legal assessment. What will you do?
          Quote: andrej-shironov
          Do you want to write another reason for involving Russia in the war with NATO? Well, for example, the United Kingdom, under pressure from the United States, is annexing part of the sweat and blood earned by our oligarchs in its offshore. Do you think a local conflict could happen?

          Can not:)))
          1. andrej-shironov
            andrej-shironov 30 November 2017 18: 35 New
            0
            smile Thank you for not being offended. In my amateurish opinion, if there is a conflict then it will arise on the territory of a third state, let's say Azerbaijan wink Initially, he will not at all resemble a "bonfire", so, a certain pushing with his elbows is no more. However, there are those who wish and will throw firewood into this "bonfire". And here it starts.
            Regarding the factology of recent local military conflicts, I think that they are not applicable. You see, by and large, these facts are not suitable, because there has not yet been a conflict between the two nuclear powers. I won’t write you a phrase that has gotten sore, about the fact that generals are preparing for past wars — you know it without me. Believe me, everything will be wrong and at the same time as it has already happened more than once in history.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              30 November 2017 18: 57 New
              +1
              Well, okay, in any case, it was nice to exchange points of view, even if they did not come to a consensus drinks
              1. andrej-shironov
                andrej-shironov 30 November 2017 18: 59 New
                +1
                drinks Andrei agrees, especially since we are also namesake.
          2. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 1 December 2017 01: 11 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Can not:)))

            They write that American Russophobes want to bait almost 50 thousand of the best people in the country for embezzlement and money laundering. If true, it can turn out incredibly interesting.
  23. Tektor
    Tektor 30 November 2017 15: 25 New
    0
    Now we are witnessing such victorious tactics that can for a long time conceal the beginning of hostilities and the source, the initiator of these actions. For example, a blow from under the water ... Who struck? A blow from the territory of a Papuan who has no armed forces. Vanuatu, for example. Or the blow is directed past, but at the last moment - it changes the aiming point (like missiles fly to Greenland, and then turn to England). He who manages to remain under the cover of the unknown longer will leave with the least losses. KVM. Also an attack disguised as a natural disaster.
  24. Mikhail Zubkov
    Mikhail Zubkov 30 November 2017 15: 28 New
    +3
    Bullshit and amateur nonsense - I affirm this as a graduate of the international law faculty of MGIMO of the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1974 and part-time postgraduate studies in the department of international law of MGIMO, an international lawyer with 40 years of experience in the profession, including work in the Legal Treaty Department (now it is the Department ) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, in the embassies of the USSR in the USA and Poland, in the Department (on the right of management) of international legal cooperation of the Judicial Department under the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. So I advise Lech from Chelyaba not to spoil this MILITARY resource with ANYTHING speculation on the allegedly "formal right and lawfulness" of the US and Western attacks on the Russian Federation on the subject of Crimea and Ukraine. There is HISTORICAL LAW in the territory that this state has owned for more than 100 years. This is in addition to the UN Charter with its recognition of the rights of nations and peoples to self-determination - these LEGAL arguments of the Russian Federation are already known to everyone, including JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IN THE UN INTERNATIONAL COURT. HISTORICAL RIGHTS IN THE TERRITORY Russia can rightfully declare not only with respect to Crimea, but also with respect to ALL territories that it has owned for more than 100 years, including Alaska and the Baltic states. AND NOT ONLY THESE TERRITORIES. And he has the right to dispute ANY legal acts that violate her HISTORICAL RIGHT TO OWN THE TERRITORIES, INCLUDED IN THE COMPOSITION OF THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE FOR MORE THAN 100 YEARS. Well, and with regard to the "armed invasion" of the Russian Federation in Crimea, it is time to pass a Russian law on the criminal punishment of ANY GAD or ANY Viper, who dares to approve this nonsense in public or in print.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      30 November 2017 15: 48 New
      +1
      Quote: Mikhail Zubkov
      So I advise Lech from Chelyaba not to spoil this MILITARY resource with ANYTHING

      It's a pity that
      graduate of the international law faculty of MGIMO, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR in 1974 and part-time postgraduate studies in the department of international law, MGIMO, international lawyer with 40 years of experience in the profession, including work in the Treaty and Law Department

      I don’t know that “Andrey” and “Lech” are different names :))))
      Quote: Mikhail Zubkov
      There is HISTORICAL LAW in the territory that this state has owned for more than 100 years.

      Wow:)))
      Quote: Mikhail Zubkov
      HISTORICAL RIGHTS IN THE TERRITORY Russia can rightfully declare not only with respect to Crimea, but also with respect to ALL territories that it has owned for more than 100 years, including Alaska and the Baltic states.

      Particularly pleased with Alaska, which, as you know, was sold to America in 1867. One hundred years since its sale expired in 1967, but apparently the rules of addition and subtraction do not apply to graduates of MGIMO.
      Quote: Mikhail Zubkov
      Well, and with regard to the "armed invasion" of the Russian Federation in Crimea, it is time to pass a Russian law on the criminal punishment of ANY GAD or ANY Viper, who dares to approve this nonsense in public or in print.

      And here I recognize the graduate of MGIMO, bravo! laughing Slightly not to my liking - expression in the spirit of late communism and to ban in criminal procedure.
      And yes, for a second, the blocking of the military units of the Armed Forces and administrative buildings is what would it be? :)))
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 30 November 2017 16: 27 New
      +1
      Quote: Mikhail Zubkov
      graduated from the international law faculty of MGIMO of the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1974 and part-time postgraduate studies in the department of international law of MGIMO, an international lawyer with 40 years of experience in the profession, including work in the Treaty and Law Department (now the Department) of the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in the embassies of the USSR USA and Poland, in the Department (on the right of management) of international legal cooperation of the Judicial Department under the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

      Well, this is damn bad news for all the organizations mentioned.
    3. KonOnOff
      KonOnOff 30 November 2017 16: 41 New
      0
      Wow You would not have to command the legal department, but a battery of regimental 152 mm artillery! wink

      Although, you would immediately tear out the “quick fire” from the combat instruction and eat it in the dry gun, and the page with “volley fire” would be nailed to each calculation commander’s forehead ... Exclusively - “volley”! good
  25. 1536
    1536 30 November 2017 15: 34 New
    0
    It is necessary to stop all insinuations in the Crimea! God and the will of the inhabitants of Crimea saved the peninsula from American occupation, turning it into a "second Kosovo", from the war and genocide of the Russian people. The referendum held in Crimea was legal, and the expression of will free. The results of the referendum in Crimea cannot be subject to any contestation by anyone and never.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      30 November 2017 15: 55 New
      +1
      And no one disputes them. The only question is the troops that appeared on Ukrainian territory before the referendum
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 30 November 2017 16: 46 New
        0
        Quote: 1536
        turning it into a "second Kosovo",

        Just the second Kosovo proposes to consider him the Russian Foreign Ministry.
        Quote: 1536
        saved the peninsula from American occupation

        Dream. It’s not so easy to take into the American occupation.
        Quote: 1536
        saved from the genocide of the Russian people

        How many Russian people have been nakenacid where they couldn’t save, I don’t know, in the Dnieper, or even Lviv?

        Quote: 1536
        The referendum held in Crimea was legal, and the expression of will free.

        You see, Russophobes claim that this booth has the same attitude to the referendum as, I don’t know, the presidential elections in Russia to the elections.
  26. Recoil
    Recoil 30 November 2017 15: 43 New
    +1
    Comrades, I respect your desire to speak out on the question "our Armata is the best tank in the world." But I draw your attention to the fact that the author does not write about this.
    Some kind of stream of consciousness, verbiage impassable around 3 theses with cyclical repetitions of two thoughts. The last 2 paragraphs contain a conclusion that contradicts the first 2 paragraphs.
    The author has multiplied himself by zero.
  27. Alexander Samara
    Alexander Samara 30 November 2017 16: 07 New
    0
    Due to the geographical size of Russia, there can be no talk of any conquest. All NATO resources will be enough only to bite off a piece of the European part, and try to establish control there.
  28. sgrabik
    sgrabik 30 November 2017 16: 38 New
    0
    The unconstitutional coup d'etat that took place in Ukraine and all those people who illegally came to power as a result of this coup must also be outlawed, however, all Western countries surprisingly amicably declare that everything that happened in Ukraine is all supposedly legal and it’s legitimate, but in the Crimea it doesn’t, but the West is manifesting double standards in this, we have not violated international laws, officially held an open referendum in Crimea as stipulated by international law, the people of Crimea made their rightful choice without any pressure and pressure from outside, and in Ukraine nothing of the kind was done, the incumbent President Yanukovych and the legitimate Government of Ukraine were overthrown by force in violation of the Constitution of Ukraine, and who after all this violated the law, the answer to this question is obvious.
  29. brats
    brats 30 November 2017 17: 13 New
    0
    Jews diligently foment war between the USSR and the USA, for the right of Jews to remain a prison guard in a concentration camp.
  30. K-50
    K-50 30 November 2017 17: 23 New
    0
    I do not quite agree, not with all the arguments.
    Russia did not want and could not stop trading with England at that time, it could not support Napoleon’s continental blockade

    And how could Russia break this continental blockade without having a merchant fleet? belay
    Russia traded shipment at own expense and in any way could not interfere with Galsky cockerels. request
    Hitler suggested that the destruction of the last remaining powerful nation on the continent, such as the USSR, would help him achieve peace with Britain

    Generally nonsense. yes
    "We will beat one neighbor to make peace with another"?
    The Nazis followed the land for their estates and for the slaves who would work on these estates. To reconcile with England, they did not at all need to clean up the territory, which they did by all means. They needed a "libensraum" - living space, and not an excuse for a world with "lemongrass".
    Moreover, this living space was needed not by itself, but for further expansion to the Southeast and Asia,
    1. KonOnOff
      KonOnOff 30 November 2017 18: 00 New
      0
      Quote: K-50
      Moreover, this living space was needed not by itself, but for further expansion to the Southeast and Asia,


      In fairness, it must be said that Hitler had such a plan from the very beginning - exit through North Africa and Palestine to Iran, and then to Asia and India. It was not for nothing that they cultivated the ideas of the “true Aryans” ... But it was just England that least of all wanted her vital colonies to be in German possessions. Therefore, for example, I believe in the version that it was England that set Germany against the USSR, using sophisticated methods of diplomacy, military intelligence and misinformation, so that all the steam of the German car went off the whistle in the USSR. Germany did not need slaves, but resources and Asian oil for industry and the army. The idea of ​​"living space" appeared later as an excuse and motivation for moving to Eastern Europe and to Rusland.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      30 November 2017 18: 29 New
      +1
      Quote: K-50
      And how could Russia break this continental blockade without having a merchant fleet?

      So, as she violated it - carrying out transportation by British ships :)))
      Quote: K-50
      Generally nonsense.

      Well what can I say? Learn the story, your mother.
      Quote: K-50
      We will beat one neighbor to make peace with another "?

      Exactly. England always traveled on continental allies, if there were none, then ...
      Hitler very much hoped that England would sign the peace after the fall of France. I didn’t sign it. This was EXTREMELY upsetting Berlin, after which the Führer rushed to look for the prerequisites that would help him sign this world (see the famous letter to Mussolini)
      1. K-50
        K-50 30 November 2017 18: 43 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        So, as she violated it - carrying out transportation by British ships :)))

        So then all the countries from which the brazen people exported various goods violated this blockade, But the attack was on RUSSIA. Despite the fact that French was the language of the aristocracy. So the matter was not the contradictions between the countries, but in the ambitions of one person - Buanaparte.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          30 November 2017 18: 56 New
          +1
          Quote: K-50
          So then all the countries from which the brazen people exported various goods violated this blockade,

          No)))) The whole question is that Napoleon categorically forbade trading with England, with organizational conclusions until the ruling dynasty was removed. He could not kill smuggling, but Europe did not officially trade with England
          All this is very well stated by Tarle "Napoleon" I highly recommend hi
  31. KonOnOff
    KonOnOff 30 November 2017 17: 35 New
    +2
    Quote: Cherry Nine

    Dream. It’s not so easy to take into the American occupation.

    And they did not need the occupation of the whole Crimea. I needed a naval base. In the same Sevastopol. All those who disagree would be rotted in the dungeons of the SBU. And the perimeter base would be guarded by the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Many US military bases in this form exist in many countries. Amerzky warriors, who sometimes live there for years, have never even left the perimeter ...

    Quote: Cherry Nine

    How many Russian people have been nakenacid where they couldn’t save, I don’t know, in the Dnieper, or even Lviv?

    And what is not enough? Or infringement of rights and forced assimilation, eradication of the Russian language and instilling from school through fictional stories a sense of inferiority, eternal shame and guilt for grandfathers and great-grandfathers - is this not mental genocide? That few Russians disappeared and were crushed in all the former republics of the USSR? Will you, like the Baltic Russian, try to say the opposite?

    Quote: Cherry Nine

    Quote: 1536
    The referendum held in Crimea was legal, and the expression of will free.

    You see, Russophobes claim that this booth has the same attitude to the referendum as, I don’t know, the presidential elections in Russia to the elections.


    I wonder how many minutes you would have spent with whole teeth in the Crimea, if someone in the square were told that their choice is a "booth"?
    -------------------
    Personally, I believe that Crimea is a matter of "national interests" and "national security," as the United States likes to say about it. Dot! Therefore, Russia should have spoken about this clearly and clearly from the very beginning. "If someone does not understand something, everyone will go to the garden!" And this junta of Kiev in no case could not be recognized at the state level! It was necessary to call a spade a spade - a junta that came to power as a result of an armed coup. It was necessary to shut off the gas pipelines immediately. What do you think, how long would Potroshenko’s pack last in Kiev after that? I think that the combined special forces from all over Europe would have demolished this kodla within three days - Russia would not even have to participate ...
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 30 November 2017 22: 05 New
      +1
      Quote: KonOnOff
      I needed a naval base

      If you type NATO on Wikipedia, you will find out that this organization includes 3 Black Sea countries. By the way, what the hell is this base in the closed sea for the Americans?
      Quote: KonOnOff
      eradication of the Russian language and instilling from school through the lessons of a fictitious history a sense of inferiority, eternal shame and guilt for grandfathers and great-grandfathers

      The basis for a military invasion by Russia may be the wrong school curriculum? Approximately this is stated by openly hostile peoples, the very ones.
      Quote: KonOnOff
      Will you, like the Baltic Russian, try to say the opposite?

      You, Baltic Russian, where are you now? Victim of mental genocide, did I understand the problem correctly?
      Quote: KonOnOff
      I wonder how many minutes you would have spent with whole teeth in the Crimea, if someone in the square were told that their choice is a "booth"?

      What are you leading to? What were the opponents of the squad beaten up with? That is, the famous train with pravosekami went there to stop beating citizens? Oops
      Quote: KonOnOff
      national security, "as they say in the United States.

      And who was last included in the US?
      Quote: KonOnOff
      It was necessary to shut off the gas pipelines immediately

      Gas pipelines to Germany?
      Quote: KonOnOff
      I think that special forces from all over Europe would have demolished

      You are right, that would make our German friends move their ass. Alas, it is impossible to demolish kodlu, but the situation for Russia would be much more definite. ORDLO would not be for sure, Crimea is possible.
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 30 November 2017 22: 07 New
      +1
      Quote: KonOnOff
      I needed a naval base

      If you type NATO on Wikipedia, you will find out that this organization includes 3 Black Sea countries. By the way, what the hell is this base in the closed sea for the Americans?
      Quote: KonOnOff
      eradication of the Russian language and instilling from school through the lessons of a fictitious history a sense of inferiority, eternal shame and guilt for grandfathers and great-grandfathers

      The basis for a military invasion by Russia may be the wrong school curriculum? Approximately this is stated by openly hostile peoples, the very ones.
      Quote: KonOnOff
      Will you, like the Baltic Russian, try to say the opposite?

      You, Baltic Russian, where are you now? Victim of mental genocide, did I understand the problem correctly?
      Quote: KonOnOff
      I wonder how many minutes you would have spent with whole teeth in the Crimea, if someone in the square were told that their choice is a "booth"?

      What are you leading to? What were the opponents of the squad beaten up with? That is, the famous train with pravosekami went there to stop beating citizens? Oops
      Quote: KonOnOff
      national security, "as they say in the United States.

      And who was last included in the US?
      Quote: KonOnOff
      It was necessary to shut off the gas pipelines immediately

      Gas pipelines to Germany?
      Quote: KonOnOff
      I think that special forces from all over Europe would have demolished

      You are right, that would make our German friends move their ass. Alas, it is impossible to demolish kodlu, but the situation for Russia would be much more definite. ORDLO would not be for sure, Crimea is possible.
  32. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 30 November 2017 18: 17 New
    +1
    Shalenky, they attacked the author! He expresses his point of view on the alleged course of events. There is such a thing as a "causal relationship." Therefore, the author in the context of the topic he is considering (the justification for the presence of aircraft carriers in the world) quite logically searches for the answer to the question he raises. Wait until the end of the cycle and then you can rip and throw who is right and who is not, what may and may not.
    The stated thoughts are quite clear to me.
    If someone does not agree, then according to the expression “I disagree, object, offer, offer, do,” I can only advise myself to sit down and express my thoughts with proof of causal relationships of certain scenarios.
    Nikolaevich, good Quite reasonable arguments, if we take into account the personal point of view and the availability of the materials used.

    still knows more than you do, which means that your opinion will in any case remain a personal opinion, not the truth wink
    I will wait for the continuation, because in order to say something concrete, you need to see the whole picture.
    PS People often criticize inattentively reading material smile I sin, but at least I admit my mistakes lol
    Best regards hi
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      30 November 2017 18: 54 New
      +2
      Greetings, dear Rurikovich!
      Quote: Rurikovich
      still knows more than you do, which means that your opinion will in any case remain a personal opinion, not the truth

      That's for sure :)))) But sometimes I want to express this opinion - that's how it is in the article. And to talk. I am not inclined to imagine myself as the ultimate truth in such matters. laughing drinks
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 30 November 2017 19: 38 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But sometimes I want to express this very opinion - that's how the article

        You do it wink drinks
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I am not inclined to imagine myself as the ultimate truth in such matters.

        This is me, by the way, in order to show that you are still an ordinary person with your right to express your vision of some issues of the modern world order yes For what respect (sorry for the insufferable flood) hi And the fact that the desire to express one’s opinion so harmoniously in the article is very commendable, although to the overwhelming majority to this level, as a copper basin before retirement. Which is reflected in the comments wink
        So continue in the same style. You are one of the few authors who is really interesting to read and with whom you can quite humanly and within the framework of what is permitted by moral principles and knowledge drinks
  33. Vadim Sh.
    Vadim Sh. 30 November 2017 20: 06 New
    0
    Very interesting !!!!! What is not the author of the article, then a great strategist and military analyst, for the next paper marauding - NATO will not dare to attack the first for several reasons:
    - to them (NATO countries) with the exception of rogues like Poland, the Baltic states have something to lose, but these Russophobic countries will not jerk, because BIG guys will not subscribe for them.
    - there is such a concept of morale - they don’t have it completely, but they don’t have to talk about the USA at all, Russia is not the Ivory Coast with spears and axes and the answer will be scary.
    - and in case of conflict, each country will try to protect itself, not mongrel.
    - but with all this, one must be prepared for everything so as not to repeat 1941.
  34. Yugra
    Yugra 30 November 2017 20: 35 New
    0
    A muddy, long-playing little article. From empty to empty ...
  35. doktorkurgan
    doktorkurgan 30 November 2017 21: 51 New
    +1
    In principle, one can trace the evolution of the American nuclear strategy from the moment of acquiring nuclear weapons:
    initially - the doctrine of "massive retaliation", in response to a hypothetical invasion of Europe (a possible scenario, in particular, was a hypothetical attempt by the USSR and the ATS to invade Yugoslavia), then when the USSR accumulated a certain stock of nuclear weapons and acquired ICBMs (i.e. The probability of receiving an “answer” has become more real) the doctrine of “flexible response” has appeared - targeted nuclear strikes on military and strategic infrastructure facilities in combination with the widespread use of nuclear weapons.
    Now, KVM, the situation is reversed, and now we are already hinting at a possible “flexible response”. In these situations, tactical nuclear weapons attacks on military facilities and munitions of troops in Poland, KMK, are demonstratively likely (in the case of a hypothetical conflict with NATO).
    PS: in terms of huddle on this topic, Anisimov recently completed the trilogy "Abrams in Khimki" came out ... In general, of course, in places strongly plays along with Westerners, KMK, but very badly.
    1. g1washntwn
      g1washntwn 1 December 2017 10: 02 New
      0
      Initially - Unthinkable (non-nuclear version) and Totality (the first mass use of nuclear weapons) in 1945. The supposedly defensive Dropshot was developed only at the end of 1949.
  36. shuravi
    shuravi 30 November 2017 23: 27 New
    0
    I found my old post on one of the forums. Almost guessed. smile

  37. Nemesis
    Nemesis 1 December 2017 00: 57 New
    0
    Well, why ... Those who want to surrender Russia to NATO and the Basmachis have an example of a sweet life beyond the hill, in the form of Judas Gorbachev ...
  38. g1washntwn
    g1washntwn 1 December 2017 09: 54 New
    0
    disappearingly small, far more likely to start a global nuclear war

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    The author's ideas correspond to the realities of the 62nd year. After that Cuban history, the doctrine of responsiveness appeared and developed.

    The author missed an extremely unpleasant moment that the Americans are also developing a “limited application” of nuclear weapons, where the boundary between global and local is not visible at all.

    . Is it possible that the Russian Federation will become an aggressor?

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    It is widely believed that she is not the first year.

    Widely distributedIs such an opinion, including by you. These few letters determine the meaning.

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Yes, but there is some problem. After assimilation into Siberia or into the ditch of the next hostile people, which previously borders on Russia, the next bordering people also for some reason became openly hostile. Some kind of good luck with bordering nations.

    Putin’s joke about the borders of the Russian Federation is probably also incomprehensible to you. And about the safety buffer of the stratagem too. And finally, it’s not on their own that these new border nations became hostile to the Russians, because someone (let’s not point a finger at the “partners”) has been tweaking them all the time.

    . In recent years, we have already seen several times how the Russian armed forces participate in operations outside the homeland, but the term “aggression” is hardly applicable here

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Seriously?

    Argue sarcasm. Where, in what conflicts, what norms are violated, etc. it is the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.

    . Saakashvili’s armed forces also dealt a blow to Russian peacekeepers, and Russian servicemen were killed.

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    The alternative version, I remind you, was that the bandits started the war without shoulder straps and the bandits with shoulder straps continued.
    skip On the other hand, knowing further events, figuring out who is who is much easier.

    Is the alternative version confirmed by facts? The future and the present do not determine the past (this is about your phrase "knowing further events ..."), the past is already determined by what happened and recorded by the completed action.

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    I was always amazed at how many wonderful things there are for the Russian patriot in the world in the name of which Russian soldiers can and should be killed.

    If a patriot is not ready to give his life for his country, then he is not a patriot, but a "cardboard fool" and his homeland is limited by the area of ​​the sofa.

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    France, like Germany, at some point became a bicycle. Do not stop or fall.

    The reason is not in movement, but in the limited movement vector, expansion they could only afford to the East, since other directions were unattainable. Figuratively, if an expansive policy, like a magic pot with a freebie porridge, cannot be stopped (words are forgotten, and a freebie like bleach for cottage cheese) - a spilled product moves along the path of least resistance (as it seems to them) - and they are very offended when all this “porridge” "Russians (not by nation, but by spirit) hardly, but rake back to Europe.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 1 December 2017 13: 54 New
      +1
      Quote: g1washntwn
      Widely distributed

      Yeah. At present, the participation of the RF Armed Forces in the Ukrainian conflict is a generally recognized (but not legally established) fact. It is debated whether it was episodic (Debaltseve, Mariupol) or permanent, as well as in what status the "vacationers" and the equipment used by them are there. In the Crimea, it is recognized by the President of the Russian Federation. In terms of the Ordlo, it is likely to become a legal fact after the Boeing investigation goes to court. If the court is unfavorable for Russia (and there is little doubt about it), the topic of war crimes will be open for the coming decades.
      Quote: g1washntwn
      And finally, it’s not on their own that these new border nations became hostile to the Russians

      What are they?
      Quote: g1washntwn
      after all, someone (we will not point our finger at the “partners”) is always waking up.

      Are you not talking about V.R.Soloviev?
      Quote: g1washntwn
      Where, in what conflicts, what norms are violated, etc. it is the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.

      In Ukraine, higher. In Georgia, there was no external assessment of the actions of the parties (and apparently will not). But the result of the actions of the "peacekeepers" - the actual withdrawal of South Ossetia from Georgia - is known.
      Quote: g1washntwn
      If a patriot is not ready to give his life for his country, then he is not a patriot, but a "cardboard fool" and his homeland is limited by the area of ​​the sofa.

      I absolutely do not mind if you give its life for the motherland. In relation to the conflict with Turkey, you can come to the embassy (Moscow, metro station Smolenskaya, 7th Rostovsky Lane, 12), douse yourself with gasoline and ROSKOMNADZOR. If the author of the article does this, I will probably experience some frustration, but with respect I will accept his decision.

      Unfortunately, I see a desire to give for my homeland others of life. I take this as propaganda of cannibalism.
      Quote: g1washntwn
      splashing product moves along the path of least resistance

      About Russians it’s not quite right, but the point is - expansion tends to get out of hand - you got it right. Therefore, to this extent I do not like the author’s idea of ​​“punishing” the Turks by military methods.
      1. g1washntwn
        g1washntwn 4 December 2017 10: 02 New
        0
        I understand your point of view, but you are absolutely unconvincing, don’t bring facts and slander the same thing from empty to empty. From which I conclude that there is no point in discussing with a person who does not recognize the order of dispute. You are a propagandist, my friend, by virtue of our own errors or on payment, we will leave it on your conscience.

        ps according to the rules of botany and trolling, you can, of course, insert your last word, but it doesn’t cancel it in bold.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 4 December 2017 23: 33 New
          0
          Quote: g1washntwn
          do not recognize the dispute

          Bunny !!!!
          Quote: g1washntwn
          do not bring facts

          Catch, my friend. Crimea, the way home.
          https://youtu.be/t42-71RpRgI?t=2h6m39s
          Go.
  39. missuris
    missuris 1 December 2017 16: 51 New
    0
    kek) Europe the USSR was never needed, but tai captured central Europe to Berlin))
  40. Alexey Sobolev
    Alexey Sobolev 1 December 2017 17: 20 New
    0
    ... And now the armed forces of the Russian Federation absolutely illegally invade the territory of a foreign state and ... ensure the absolutely legal rights of the citizens living there. And then Crimea, .....

    As far as I understand, everything depends on the number of possible Russian troops that could have been in the territory of Crimea according to the agreement with Kiev ... It seems that the figure was 20 thousand people. That is, if this number is not exceeded, then what is the illegality?
  41. TOR2
    TOR2 1 December 2017 21: 35 New
    0
    The United States and NATO can take the risk and still carry out an invasion of the Russian Federation only on one condition - if their leadership is absolutely certain that Russia will not use its nuclear arsenal. And where can such confidence come from? She has nowhere to take.

    To any of their provocations, and other nasty things, they do not expect an answer from us. If in front of them they paint pictures of what this can turn out to be, then as a rule a set pops up here - this cannot be, they don’t have such weapons, they will not risk it, this is all nonsense. This is where confidence comes from. And at one point, one of them decides to try.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 December 2017 21: 22 New
      +1
      Quote: TOR2
      And at one point, one of them decides to try.

      That is precisely why I am writing articles about what will happen if this scenario is nevertheless implemented.
  42. Antares
    Antares 2 December 2017 00: 06 New
    +1
    Oh honestly, I did not expect to see Andrei in the authors .. but I bet
    Thus, we can state: Russia has never been (and never will be) a country that would like to conquer Europe

    Well, the whole of Europe was not necessary, but the parts ..
    However, the Republic of Ingushetia repeatedly launched the first war and not at all defensive. From the middle of the 16th century to the present, Moscow-Russia has participated in at least 75 different wars, conflicts and military operations. It turns out one war for about 7-8 years on average ...
    So, wars like the Northern one (and Europe and Russia are the main organizer of the coalition and few could force it to fulfill its allied obligations due to the fact that the other allies failed) cannot be considered "defensive." They wanted “Window to Europe” to wait for Sweden's weaknesses (and it really weakened), well, they did not calculate their strength and Karl’s agility.
    The war against the French began precisely RI. It doesn’t matter that Austria needed help there (it's her own fault). The Patriotic War was preceded by a whole series of battles where Napoleon defeated the Austrians and Russians (unfortunately, Suvorov did not have time to fight with a quick young man)
    In general, the myth that Russia or the Russians never started wars and did not conduct offensives has long been refuted many times. Even the size of the state itself makes it clear that it could not do without weapons.
    Well, or the fact that the smuggling of English goods went through Spain, and not through RI. Although Napoleon was at war in Spain, the same picture there was in RI.
    Andrei wanted to embrace a lot, but this is too much in one article.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 December 2017 20: 54 New
      +1
      Quote: Antares
      Oh honestly, I did not expect to see Andrei in the authors ..

      I have all the articles divided into 2 categories - historical, where I really strive for maximum reliability and polemical, where I also strive for reliability, but do not have the necessary competence :))) So I make mistakes more often than usual
      Quote: Antares
      RI started the war against the French

      This is not true, because the consequences of those wars were completely settled between Russia and France (under Paul)
      Quote: Antares
      In general, the myth that Russia or the Russians never started wars and did not conduct offensives has long been refuted many times.

      The only question is that I do not postulate this myth. :))) I just claimed that Russia did not seek to conquer Europe. It is strange that you do not see the difference
  43. VladGashek
    VladGashek 2 December 2017 19: 38 New
    0
    The thesis about the vanishingly low probability of a non-nuclear conflict between NATO and the Russian Federation is quite consistent with the rationalist position of Western Europe. But sometimes it happens that the tail turns the dog ", that is, Central European countries with their inexplicable Russophobia can become the shooters of the conflict. The states will definitely prove to be in it. In this situation, the menacing position in the West is most justified while respecting the positions of the Young Europeans, they are already lost for Russia, it is possible to coexist with them, but not be friends and cuddle in the eternal unity of the Slavs. Regarding the conflicts between NATO and the Russian Federation in other regions, this is in fact an impossible situation. The Russian Federation can compete with the United States, whose support can be expected from our former ATS associates. Western Europe has its own interest in Russia - cooperation that is beneficial for itself. Conflicts over Crimea or the North Caucasus unrecognized republics are now groundless. Russia, I don’t think it went to fight for the Donbass or Transnistria: there are neither the historical longings of the Russians, nor the economic benefits of the Russian elites (neither oligarchic, nor statist).
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 2 December 2017 21: 39 New
      0
      Quote: Vladgashek
      Central European countries with their inexplicable Russophobia

      Quote: Vladgashek
      unexplained

      Where do such uncomplicated people come from?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        2 December 2017 22: 40 New
        +1
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Where do such uncomplicated people come from?

        Well, as I understand it, where muddy come from is no secret to you :)
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 3 December 2017 00: 20 New
          +1
          You see, I, as it is easy to see, follow the news and achievements of Russophobia.
          http://m.government.ru/news/30231/
          See Zeman's first replica.
          Quote: Vladgashek
          unexplained

          At the same time, I have to note that Russophobia is now mainly occupied by military-historical clowns, like current Polish figures. True, full-fledged Russophobia, the scale of the same Churchill, now can not be found.
  44. Alexey Antonov
    Alexey Antonov 10 December 2017 12: 51 New
    +1
    I recommend reading Sergei Anisimov’s trilogy "Abrams in Khimki", especially the last part - "The anger of a patient person."
  45. 3danimal
    3danimal 25 December 2017 19: 36 New
    0
    Quote: The same Lech
    As for the military conflict with NATO and the United States in particular ... looking at the current situation on the eve of the Olympics and presidential elections in RUSSIA, the Anglo-Saxons will bet on the information war and the fifth column in RUSSIA.

    Look here. Western countries recall that the Russian Federation signed a memorandum (it seems 1993), which guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine, which, in turn, handed over to Russia nuclear weapons on duty and storage.
    It is interesting that the USA VERY tried to convince the leaders of the former republics to do this (for reasons of nuclear safety). From the same considerations, I think they are not interested in the chaos and collapse of the Russian Federation (then nuclear weapons will "spread" around the world, according to their logic).
    So, as if I didn’t want to, but it is NECESSARY to fulfill international treaties. Otherwise, your word is worth nothing. The annexation (or annexation to whom it suits) of Crimea was recognized only by Zimbabwe and Server Korea, complete outcasts. None of the former republics (I'm not talking about the Baltic States) recognized, not even Belarus.
    As a result, we got a loss-making region for decades (more funds are allocated than for Chechnya), any company operating in it is subject to sanctions. Serious, obviously, since Sberbank did not come there and is not going to. But you could simply recognize the independence of the Crimea, for it residents would equally willingly vote in a referendum with one question. And give the herbivore Obama the opportunity to limit himself only to rhetoric. But no, this is too complicated a "multi-step" for the small combinators, who have stayed in power.
    A separate topic about the South-East of Ukraine - what about the locals? People’s life turned into HELL. The episode in Odessa fades next to what has been happening there for the third year.
    Further. I am sure the bet is made on 2 types of sanctions. Sectoral sanctions, for example, oilfield services (buried with us in the early to mid-00s), gas production technologies on the northern shelf, without which their possession Gazprom indefinitely refuses to develop these fields.
    And personal sanctions, depriving billionaires from the environment of our life-long president (it is time to officially consolidate their status) the opportunity to enter fashionable countries and access to money withdrawn there and purchased real estate (which in itself is not bad). The problem is that we already pay their losses: the AP very quickly passed a law in the Duma on the exemption of tax victims, and the president signed it just as quickly. I am sure that their subsequent losses will also be transferred to our shoulders. Roughly in February, they will begin to block funds withdrawn in the United States (and then in Europe) and, according to preliminary estimates, the amount is at least 1 trillion. $.
    Pulls for a robbery of the millennium, do not you? Therefore, our authorities can only try to scare the West with the “red button”, or use North Korea as a proxy. And Europe is already on the path to a significant reduction in Gazprom’s market share (at the expense of other suppliers), and it is unlikely to be returned. The Chinese are
    good businessmen, they will buy from us, but at “fair” prices from their point of view.
    P.S. Some near-power journalists have already voiced the idea that, they say, there is no need to follow the path of escalation of tension, just buy back "our" assets for 2 trillion. $, provide security guarantees and the possibility of legalization in the West, and "we" will leave the country and people alone and dump.
  46. 3danimal
    3danimal 25 December 2017 19: 59 New
    0
    Quote: Rurikovich
    still knows more than you do, which means that your opinion will in any case remain a personal opinion, not the truth

    I am sure they also said those who doubted the need for the Republic of Ingushetia to get into the WWII. You have a portrait of the house (in your office), itself, does not hang? )))
    It is a big mistake to exaggerate the ability to go public administration (in order to get higher, the main thing is their careerism and ability to curry favor) and the awareness of officials. In the vast majority, everything is at an average level. A striking example - GDP shows Stone a video taken from an American helicopter as evidence of the effectiveness of Russian technology. )
  47. X
    X Y Z 6 March 2018 13: 15 New
    0
    Great Britain, after the capture of the Falkland Islands by Argentina, could very well send the Resolution or Revenge to the Atlantic, shuffle the Polaris with a nuclear warhead across Argentina (away from the US so as not to have problems with the hegemon)


    She could have gone further, but launching missiles with nuclear warheads without the permission of the "hegemon" is impossible. Author teach materiel!