The Pentagon spoke about the strategies of the United States in the war with Russia and China

January 31 2018 55

The Deputy Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States, General Paul Selva, spoke about plans for a possible war with Russia and China.

Strategies that can bring success in US wars with Russia and China are very different from each other, and will require large resource costs, Selva said, Defense News reports.

The Pentagon spoke about the strategies of the United States in the war with Russia and China

Any battle with China, if it happens, will basically be a battle at sea and in the air

- said Selva. According to him, a potential conflict with China will most likely require a "significant contribution" of the Navy and Air Force, and the army and marines will provide support.

In turn, Russia will have to confront in the air and on the ground, said Selva. However, the general noted that Russia cannot be reached bypassing the Atlantic Ocean, which means that naval battles cannot be avoided.

According to Selva, despite the fact that Russia in the new US national defense strategy is called a “global” challenge, Washington has other threats. Among them, he called the DPRK and Iran, talking about how to combat these countries.

It is easy to plan a war with North Korea, the general said, since Pyongyang gets its weapons through deals with Russia and China. Iran, according to Selva, is a more difficult adversary due to its “geography”.

Recall that in December a new US national security strategy was published, containing a statement that Russia and China are challenging the power, influence and interests of the United States, reports Vzglyad.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Vitaly Anisimov

+9

31 January 2018 17: 06

One strategy to give up ..! You gentlemen have angered us ...
1. KVU-NSVD
  
  +4
  
  31 January 2018 17: 11
  
  require large resource costs, s
  The essence of the whole "strategy." Brevity is the sister of talent. "Give money" - I am more talented than the authors of the report
2. mihey
  
  +4
  
  31 January 2018 17: 13
  
  It’s in their “mind”
  In general, there’s some kind of nonsense: any war between Russia and the states is an exchange of nuclear weapons. The American layman, however, shatters such statements by his generals.
  Oops ... I forgot to put a plus sign on the symbol
  1. herruvim
    
    +3
    
    31 January 2018 17: 17
    
    If there is a war between the named countries, it will be the last war of civilization or the last in the history of planet Earth
    1. DMB_95
      
      +1
      
      31 January 2018 19: 18
      
      Quote: herruvim
      If there is a war between the named countries, it will be the last war of civilization or the last in the history of planet Earth
      
      And mattresses are worried about "high resource costs" .. People will not.
      1. Nyrobsky
        
        +2
        
        31 January 2018 22: 43
        
        Quote: DMB_95
        Quote: herruvim
        If there is a war between the named countries, it will be the last war of civilization or the last in the history of planet Earth
        
        And mattresses are worried about "high resource costs."
        
        Mattresses always consider conflicts from two perspectives - acceptable damage and unacceptable damage. The option of a showdown with Russia or China clearly promises unacceptable damage to them, so they will act within the framework of a strategy of economic strangulation. The option with the DPRK is tempting, but Kim Jong-un’s presence of nuclear weapons and high readiness to use them are also fraught with unacceptable damage. The option with Iran is inconvenient geographically, but safe from the point of view of receiving a response using nuclear weapons, and also allows you to hang the lion's share of the costs associated with material and human losses on your satellites like Saudi Arabia and junior trustees in the NATO bloc, which opens up opportunities for the United States unlimited supply of weapons and profit without major losses from the United States, which can be attributed to acceptable damage.
        Quote: DMB_95
        There will be no people.
        They simply write off human losses as “collateral” losses.
  2. Giant thought
    
    +1
    
    31 January 2018 17: 20
    
    In this case, the mattresses, like a fox under the grapes, see an eye, but they don’t have a tooth while their hands are short in relation to Russia, and then it will be even worse for them, and they understand this.
    1. Pirogov
      
      +3
      
      31 January 2018 17: 50
      
      Quote: Thought Giant
      In this case, the mattresses, like a fox under the grapes, see an eye, but they don’t have a tooth while their hands are short in relation to Russia, and then it will be even worse for them, and they understand this.
      
      Bulk and hedgehogs against him. It would not hurt to periodically loosen their teeth.
      1. Angel_and_Demon
        
        +3
        
        31 January 2018 20: 19
        
        Quote: Pirogov
        Bulk and hedgehogs against him. It would not hurt to periodically loosen their teeth.
        
        they just need to give important
    2. DMoroz
      
      0
      
      31 January 2018 18: 20
      
      sees an eye, but a tooth is not washing
      moreover, even the mind does not understand
      the general noted that Russia cannot be reached bypassing the Atlantic Ocean
      They decided to get through all of Europe, but he did not hear anything about the Bering Strait ... and Alaska does not seem to meritosia for him ... (while they are across the Atlantic, we are in Alaska and through Canada) ...
      1. raw174
        
        +1
        
        1 February 2018 06: 58
        
        Quote: DMoroz
        while they are across the Atlantic, we are in Alaska and across Canada
        
        They will come, but we are not at home, trample, but disperse)))
        Quote: DMoroz
        and Alaska does not seem to meritosia for him ...
        
        Apparently there is not enough infrastructure for the bridgehead, not to fight the battalion, but here all of Europe is in the allies, and the resources and people, everything is there. Nah, they won’t go from the sea, there’s not enough potential, the direction of the main blow to land. But we have nuclear weapons, and therefore we are sitting on the priest exactly.
  3. Scoun
    
    +6
    
    31 January 2018 18: 55
    
    Quote: mihey
    The American layman, however, shatters such statements by his generals.
    
    They are mowing, because bombs have not fallen on their homes, bridges, roads and factories for several centuries.
    This is their chicken, escaping from the chicken coop, flies and crap around the world, killing people.
    Tears of children, women, old people will come across them ...
3. Svarog
  
  +4
  
  31 January 2018 17: 13
  
  In the Pentagon, in my opinion, people who would be brought to Kashchenko as a whole .. They understand that their families will die in a nuclear fire?
  1. behemot
    
    +1
    
    31 January 2018 17: 30
    
    and they don’t care, Americans live on a separate planet. Hitler also followed the slaves and the earth. And these are the same.
    1. Svarog
      
      +3
      
      31 January 2018 17: 39
      
      Quote: behemot
      and they don’t care, Americans live on a separate planet. Hitler also followed the slaves and the earth. And these are the same.
      
      So then there was no nuclear weapons, and now .. I have no doubts about their psyche ...
  2. raw174
    
    +1
    
    1 February 2018 07: 00
    
    Quote: Svarog
    Do they understand that their families will die in a nuclear fire?
    
    They understand that families need more resources, and so it is said ... But they do not want to fight, at least with equal strength.
4. vlad66
  
  +14
  
  31 January 2018 17: 43
  Quote: MIKHAN
  One strategy to give up ..! You gentlemen have angered us ...
  
  Vitaly! You will accept capitulation personally Without leaving a combat sofa.
  1. Vitaly Anisimov
    
    0
    
    31 January 2018 19: 59
    
    Quote: vlad66
    Vitaly! You will accept capitulation personally
    
    No, alas, I’m unlikely to live to this Victory Day with tears in my eyes .. My sons and their generation will definitely do this and will remember me. I hope with a kind word.!
    I will do everything for this, which depends on me ..
    1. vlad66
      
      +6
      
      31 January 2018 20: 04
      
      Quote: MIKHAN
      No, alas, I’m unlikely to live until this Victory Day with tears in my eyes
      
      No, I need to live A man said a man did.
      1. Vitaly Anisimov
        
        0
        
        31 January 2018 20: 43
        
        Quote: vlad66
        Quote: MIKHAN
        No, alas, I’m unlikely to live until this Victory Day with tears in my eyes
        
        No, I need to live A man said a man did.
        
        As it already turns out ... But I want it like that! Beautiful and trembling throughout the body ..
        
        Oh, Russia, where is our distance ..
5. Baloo
  
  +2
  
  31 January 2018 22: 28
  Quote: MIKHAN
  One strategy to give up ..! You gentlemen have angered us ...
  
  No, they dream of fighting, not understanding how it will end in any scenario
6. vladimirZ
  
  0
  
  1 February 2018 05: 24
  
  One strategy to give up ..! You gentlemen have angered us ... - MIKHAN
  
  Hahaha.
  They made fun, MIKHAN!
  Gentlemen, comrades, well, you can’t be like softer, ... childishly naive. Leave cap-bailing. The United States, if not the world leader, and at least it should not be underestimated. Especially with our armed forces, designed only to fight terrorists, and with our raw materials economy, weakened by the liberal comprador policy of the defense industry, and a large group of the 5th column in state power.
  As for nuclear weapons, in the current conditions no one will use it, it’s more expensive for itself. Naive people, damn it.
  1. raw174
    
    +1
    
    1 February 2018 07: 14
    
    Quote: vladimirZ
    The United States, if not the world leader, and at least it should not be underestimated.
    
    Absolutely.
    Quote: vladimirZ
    Especially with our armed forces, designed only to fight terrorists
    
    I do not agree. I believe that our armed forces are able to withstand the army of almost any state at a decent level. To do this, there is much, means of command and control and destruction. Today, the Russian army is able to restrain almost all of Europe, without the use of nuclear weapons.
    Quote: vladimirZ
    As for nuclear weapons, in the current conditions no one will use it, it’s more expensive for itself.
    
    Why not? Firstly, I don’t think that in the event of a nuclear war it will be a continental shove into the potato field, but rather tactical mutual attacks on military facilities, with the goal of creating strategic superiority, which will increase if necessary. Secondly - as a weapon of last chance, when there is nothing to lose.
    1. vladimirZ
      
      0
      
      1 February 2018 07: 56
      
      I do not agree. I believe that our armed forces are able to withstand the army of almost any state at a decent level. - raw174
      
      How can the Russian Army, "reformed" organizationally into a brigade-battalion structure, seriously fight "with any enemy"? We only have 1500 flight personnel. There are no regiments, divisions capable of stopping in an organized and powerful way and further starting to smash the enemy. Yes there. Watch the video of Lieutenant General Sobolev V.I.
      1. raw174
        
        +1
        
        1 February 2018 08: 32
        
        Quote: vladimirZ
        Watch the video of Lieutenant General Sobolev V.I.
        
        Unfortunately at work there is no sound on the PC ... I'll take a look at home.
        Quote: vladimirZ
        How can the Russian Army, "reformed" organizationally into a brigade-battalion structure, seriously fight "with any enemy"?
        
        What's the problem?
        Quote: vladimirZ
        We only have 1500 flight personnel.
        
        So this figure means that there are about 500 aircraft that are empty because there is no one to fly on them? Or the current pilots cannot go on vacation, because there is no replacement?
        Quote: vladimirZ
        There are no regiments, divisions capable of stopping in an organized and powerful way and further starting to smash the enemy.
        
        I am not a supporter of the theory of repetition of the Second World War. There will be no wall-to-wall fights and trench warfare, primarily tactical missile attacks and sabotage operations, well, and punishment from the sky, in the form of unmanned and not very LA aircraft, their fight against air defense. As a climax, it is tactical and then strategic nuclear weapons.
        
        vladimirZ
        
        +1
        
        1 February 2018 09: 35
        
        I am not a supporter of the theory of repetition of the Second World War. There will be no wall-to-wall fights and trench warfare, primarily tactical missile attacks and sabotage operations, well, and punishment from the sky, in the form of unmanned and not very LA aircraft, their fight against air defense. - raw174
        
        Something similar happened in the history of military art. Do not remember? The doctrine of the Italian general D. Douai.
        "The essence of Douai’s views was that the decisive weapon of the war would be the air fleet. His first task would be to gain dominance in the air. After solving this task, Douay argued, the air fleet, having launched widespread offensive operations against the enemy’s vital centers, will so suppress the ability to resist enemy country, that further warfare will become impossible for her, and she will surrender. "- http://militera.lib.ru/science/npv/02.html
        Not justified. On the battlefield, final fixing him to the winner, the infantry was and will play the most important role, or rather, in its current form, infantry, correctly and skillfully organized, and supported by tanks, artillery, aviation, air defense and other types and types of troops.
        
        raw174
        
        +1
        
        1 February 2018 12: 09
        
        Quote: vladimirZ
        Do not remember? The doctrine of the Italian general D. Douai.
        
        To be honest, I heard it for the first time. Thank you for a good example.
        Quote: vladimirZ
        motorized infantry, properly and skillfully organized, and supported by tanks, artillery, aviation, air defense and other types and arms.
        
        Do you think we have a problem with this? I’m not a professional military man, I judge by open sources, and they broadcast to us about the creation of a command center for troops, about the coherence of all types and arms of the army, about full interaction through modern technologies.
        
        vladimirZ
        
        0
        
        1 February 2018 16: 25
        
        Do you think we have a problem with this? I'm not a professional military man, I judge by open sources, and they broadcast to us - raw174
        
        Watch the video of Lieutenant General Sobolev V.I. - He is a professional, as they say "there is nowhere higher."
        And I'm just a fan of military history, although once at the military department of the university, we studied such a subject, “History of military art,” and later served as an officer of the IAS Air Force.
        From my point of view, and I completely agree with General Sobolev, we have the Army "reformed" to fight terrorist organizations, we do not have an Army to deter a serious aggressor.
        I served in Transbaikalia, if you drive from Chita to Zabaikalsk, you can see dozens, if not hundreds, of abandoned military towns and garrisons, military airfields.
        He served in Borz, at the airport, in my time, there were 2 aviation regiments, then they added another helicopter regiment, not a single one today, an abandoned aerodrome with partially removed concrete slabs, a military residential town with a dozen also abandoned, looted multi-access five-story buildings, plus such barracks, boxes, etc.
        And so in most military garrisons of Transbaikalia and the Far East.
        In fact, the border with China is not protected by Russia. For example, in the eastern part of the Chita region, only the Borzoi motorized rifle brigade “reformed” from the tank “blue” division, as we called it, remained only in Borzoi. What can she protect if the Chinese trample? Never mind!
        Do you think better on the western border? Yes, the same thing. It’s only the last year or two, they have come to their senses, have again begun, it seems, to restore armies, divisions and regiments, but in single pieces. What can they do? Big doubt.
        
        lance
        
        0
        
        1 February 2018 17: 02
        
        there was time on the Chinese border there were 3 armies. tell them what to do there now? we have problems in the North Sea, Europe and Japan, and we wander partners, notice without quotes. think on and on why why near the DPRK almost all fighter aircraft and air defense are;
        
        vladimirZ
        
        +2
        
        1 February 2018 17: 27
        
        and we wander partners, mind you without quotes. think like that - lance
        
        Illiterate you reason. By the way, on the site it is customary to communicate with strangers on YOU.
        If you want to be a state partner, as you write, and maintain good relations with this partner, you must first rely on a strong Army so that this partner does not turn your hands in partnerships.
        If there is no strong Army capable of potentially restraining a partner’s neighbor, then he will begin to dictate tough partnership conditions for you, which now happens when China pushes its policy - “Russia has a lot of land, but few people inhabit and use it, China has little territory but a lot of people who have nowhere to put. "
        You don’t see this “partnership” policy in action, when entire regions of Transbaikalia and the Far East were given to China for a pittance “for 49 years of lease”, and hundreds of thousands of Chinese people in our territory and in our cities? Just try to call them to order and accomplish what we need, see how the “partner” China rises to their defense. Which by the way, and it was, if anyone remembers when, when overclocking the Cherkizon market in Moscow, they affected the interests of Chinese entrepreneurs.
        And now the flow of Chinese going to Lake Baikal, and buying land there to organize Chinese tourism there. And the so-called TORs, in which they can live, conduct economic activities, actually establish their own laws and elect power?
        Think about it, then you won’t talk about partners without quotes.
        And for example, the now-printed map of China, including the Far East, Transbaikalia, including Lake Baikal. Look at her, she is on the Internet.
        
        lance
        
        0
        
        1 February 2018 18: 46
        
        we don’t need to hold a 3 million army right now. your arguments about the dominance of China are foggy today, the PRC leaders are careful but smart. They are not brothers and not allies, but they perfectly understand the support of the Russian Federation on the world stage and IT will last at least 50 years. what else are young
New

0

31 January 2018 17: 10

Today is Paul Selva, tomorrow there may be Polina Selva, you’ll take them to hell with these modern representatives of Western civilization. And even to think over plans to counter the probable enemy of our military is probably somehow uncomfortable, because it’s not for the peasants to fight with the women.
BABAY22

0

31 January 2018 17: 14

What a meaningful speech. Perhaps Vasily Ivanovich with his potatoes nervously lit on the sidelines.
Dormidont

+5

31 January 2018 17: 14

In other words, the only guarantee of peace on the planet is the destruction of the United States.
bald

0

31 January 2018 17: 18

--- "In turn, Russia will have to confront in the air and on the ground, Selva believes" --- --- If you decide to fight by personnel, then you have to move the action to your territory - Alaska - we will start from it. But seriously? - what, you, live like a big go?
Zaurbek

0

31 January 2018 17: 24

Once the United States could wage two such wars simultaneously: both with China and the Russian Federation (non-nuclear)
1. You Vlad
  
  +2
  
  31 January 2018 17: 38
  
  Quote: Zaurbek
  Once the United States could wage two such wars simultaneously: both with China and the Russian Federation (non-nuclear)
  
  Only in your imagination! The USA is already at war with Russia, but this is invisible to you.
2. raw174
  
  +1
  
  1 February 2018 07: 19
  
  Quote: Zaurbek
  Once the United States could wage two such wars simultaneously: both with China and the Russian Federation (non-nuclear)
  
  It was a very long time ago when the trees were thicker and the grass was taller ... but the times are gone, the hegemon is weakened, yesterday's youths grew up and pulled themselves up, now what to remember ...
tosha.chuhontzev

0

31 January 2018 17: 34

Plain general chatter to increase the Pentagon's budget. I went fishing. This is the best way to clear the brain of information junk.
Simon

+2

31 January 2018 17: 50

You cannot reach Russia bypassing the Atlantic Ocean, which means that naval battles cannot be avoided. [--- And why do we need the Atlantic Ocean! We will approach the USA from the east side across the Pacific Ocean! Warriors! Here we are closer
1. andr327
  
  +5
  
  31 January 2018 18: 00
  
  and they across the Atlantic need to drive their European vassals forward to the east. It’s scary for ourselves.
Simon

+1

31 January 2018 17: 56

Quote: Zaurbek
Once the United States could wage two such wars simultaneously: both with China and the Russian Federation (non-nuclear)

Yes, their fleet, in general, was washed away from the Mediterranean when our ships appeared off the coast of Syria!
Simon

+1

31 January 2018 17: 59

Quote: behemot
and they don’t care, Americans live on a separate planet. Hitler also followed the slaves and the earth. And these are the same.

So they are waiting for the fate of Hitler!
Simon

+1

31 January 2018 18: 02

Quote: andr327
and they across the Atlantic need to drive their European vassals forward to the east. It’s scary for ourselves.

So, this is how much they will go!
Mountain shooter

0

31 January 2018 18: 27

They really think in terms of WWII. Carriers, convoys, the war with Russia at the land theater in Europe ... And we will watch how they sail across the ocean and their AUGs are approaching our shores: go. God forgive me ... Yes, let them jerk ... In any case, they will turn into an economic midget, and they will remember the hegemon!
And to fight with China at sea and in the air? Here in general - they, apparently, remembered the rebellion of the boxers?
How are the Marines frolic
prior

0

31 January 2018 18: 42

YES. There are many degenerals in America who rave about successes in the war with Russia.
Obviously, Korea and Vietnam became forgotten.
cedar

+1

31 January 2018 19: 15

Quote: Simon
You cannot reach Russia bypassing the Atlantic Ocean, which means that naval battles cannot be avoided. --- And why do we need the Atlantic Ocean! We will approach the USA from the east side across the Pacific Ocean! Warriors! Here we are closer

Bering Strait 86 km ...
razved

0

31 January 2018 19: 31

And why did they not say that any of these potential wars could be the LAST?
1. pafegosoff
  
  0
  
  31 January 2018 19: 38
  
  Because, as children close their eyes with their hands, they think that no one sees them. They, the Americans (and we have plenty of them, also think that God sees them only when they put a candle in the church ,,,
pafegosoff

0

31 January 2018 19: 36

Panikovsky’s Strategy: “Give the Millionaire, Give the Millionaire! Give the Millionaire ...”
flicker

+3

31 January 2018 20: 23

The strategies that can be successful in US wars with Russia and China are very different from each other, and require large resource costssaid Selva

I completely agree and support the general ... it’s time to shake the Fed’s owners, they won’t get away from them, they will print as much as the general says ... or they will lie down with their machine tool.
The Siberian barber

0

31 January 2018 21: 46

Strange dude, and the "strategy" he voiced is the same as him
In general, I wonder where on land, he was going to fight with Russia ?? Repeat WWII ??)) I think it’s not a "ride" anymore! ... And the bunker will save him, unlikely)) .. For there are "pencils", with boxes
Technikner

0

31 January 2018 22: 04

Yes, if you take only China, then if the people of China stand at the same time back to the USA and excuse me, they will turn toward the USA, sweep away everything in its path with a wave!
Vkd dvk

+1

1 February 2018 00: 25

There will be no sea battles. Everything in the ports will be burned in place. Those remaining and hiding in the open ocean will hang out there until their reserves are exhausted. Because there will be nowhere to moor. The surviving population will act in accordance with the instructions set forth by Hollywood in peacetime before the war - to rob the rest and hide in the cellars.
Mexican neighbors will guard their territory, protecting for their part the walls built by Trump and the company.
1. bk316
  
  +2
  
  1 February 2018 16: 48
  
  Mexican neighbors will guard their territory, protecting for their part the walls built by Trump and the company.
  
  So this is the real meaning of the wall. Bravo