Military Review

Russian bases around the world will be a response to US policy

100
Before the First World War, the West made mankind happy with the "gunboat policy", that is, the policy of blackmail from the standpoint of the most advanced at that time weapons - gunboat. They were driven to the shores of countries that refused to accept the then Western values ​​in order to give them a chance to choose peace. It was a kind of prelude to the First World War.




In other words, the "gunboat policy" was a way of bringing non-Western countries into colonial dependence on Western countries until the US Vietnam War. Today, the United States, in fact, is returning to this old colonial practice with the help of a new nuclear doctrine that permits the use of tactical nuclear weapons to protect US interests around the world.

Experts in the studios argue that the main thing in this doctrine is the theoretical "lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons," the so-called "de-escalation by escalation." Now the United States allows itself to use nuclear weapons, with a capacity of only a few Hiroshim, to protect their interests and supposedly their satellites around the world, de-escalating "bad" local conflicts and wars with nuclear weapons.

Prior to that, Washington planned to use nuclear weapons only in the event of an external attack on the United States or on its military allies. The Russian nuclear doctrine speaks of protecting Russia in the event of a threat to its existence. The Chinese nuclear doctrine comes from the same. Feel the novelty of American nuclear strategy. Where is the "gunboat policy" here?

We pose the question differently: who is the new nuclear doctrine of the United States to frighten? Far from Russia, as by tradition, many, including experts, think. And not China. These countries have their own “nuclear gunboats” in sufficient numbers to frighten America itself. Washington will frighten non-fully non-nuclear countries, as well as its vassals and poluvassals, with nuclear weapons, so that they do not even think to threaten “American interests” by changing the “correct” political and economic orientation. Since in the usual "gunboats" potential victims have already pulled up to the American level.

The events of recent years show that in the Middle East and the Far East, the United States is no longer able to “bomb into the world” with conventional weapons, and they are everywhere stuck. By provoking the “bad wars” that the United States can do very well (take the same war with ISIS or with Syria Bashar al-Assad?), According to the new nuclear doctrine, the US can use small nuclear munitions in them for de-escalation.

In fact, this is the old “politics of the gunboats” in the new edition, or the policy of “nuclear gunboats”, and it may become the prelude of a nuclear world war. There is a complete analogy. In other words, the United States is moving to a new phase of colonization of the world through the threat and use of nuclear weapons. What follows from this, what can it do already tomorrow, what our experts do not say?

First, the new US nuclear doctrine resolves nuclear strikes on North Korea and on Ukraine in order to extinguish “hot spots” there, and Russia and China should not, as it were, use US nuclear weapons in response, because their territory is not directly affected.

In general, the new US nuclear doctrine allows the use of nuclear weapons anywhere, if the United States considers that the conflict situation arises somewhere is not resolved in their interests. Imagine that American interests will be threatened in Europe, for example, in France and Germany, anti-American governments will come to power, and weapons riots will begin there. Will Russia “fit in” for France and Germany if the USA uses small nuclear weapons to de-escalate the riots?

After all, there can be no guarantee that even the main American satellites will forever be dependent on America, therefore, just in case, they are already being preemptively accused of their possible change of course, allegedly undermining their “democracy”, although it is not clear how.

In general, it is strange that the US satellites, in fact - the colonies, believe that they are under the protection of the United States. What do they think? Do they seriously think that the United States will risk a war of annihilation with Russia and China for the sake of keeping the local “sixes” in power in their colonies? If they suddenly stagger?

It is easier for the United States to de-escalate them under some kind of “false flag” so that they don’t go to anyone at all, as the new US nuclear doctrine suggests. By the way, the USA has repeatedly done this with its satellites, they have just surrendered many of their long-standing “sixes” in North Africa and the Middle East to the alleged “chaos of color revolutions”.

The greatest threat to Washington’s nuclear doctrine is probably North Korea, whose nuclear potential is very small, and gives rise to “de-escalation by escalation.” Of course, Russia, China and South Korea are close by with Japan, but on the other hand, now everyone and everything is close by, and the world, and most importantly, Russia and China, should be taught the new nuclear world order.

By the way, Syria is protected by Russian military bases better than North Korea with its nuclear potential. It can be expected that huge demand in the world will soon appear on the Russian and Chinese military bases, and they will still have to pay extra for their deployment.
Author:
100 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 1 March 2018 06: 34
    +6
    huge demand for Russian and Chinese military bases will appear soon
    strange conclusion, Russia is not enough for everyone!
    1. Victor Kamenev
      1 March 2018 09: 34
      +11
      Russia will earn money on it, no matter how strange it looks today. In Syria, our bases are placed free of charge, the Syrians are very happy about this, they cannot pay, but Russia strategically needs these bases to intimidate the US NNXX fleet, which is deprived of a convenient platform in the Mediterranean for Russian rocket attacks. Read Jacob Kedmi.
      1. askme
        askme 1 March 2018 11: 33
        +6
        Generally adequate article. But all over the world, we ourselves do not need bases. Five to ten is enough. Two-three in Latin America, two-three in Africa, one two in Oceania. This will allow us to control the global military situation on the Planet. Have reference points for the presence of the Navy and the Russian Air Forces around the world, control space globally, without "holes".
        1. alekdim
          alekdim 1 March 2018 20: 13
          +2
          It’s nice to join Cuba as well.
          1. gladcu2
            gladcu2 1 March 2018 20: 58
            0
            Cuba is already a Chinese zone of responsibility.
            1. Tatyana
              Tatyana 5 March 2018 19: 08
              0
              Interesting article!
              Victor Kamenev
              In general, it is strange that US satellites, in fact - colonies, believe that they are under US protection. What do they think?
              And to me, now, against this background of their interest, what is Kazakhstan thinking with its Nazarbayev? And why is Kazakhstan stepping on the same "rake" that the US stellites?
              Namely. Is it worth waiting for the US naval base in the Caspian and why is all this for Kazakhstan?

              Why Kazakhstan needs a US military base. Published: February 6 2018
        2. Senior manager
          Senior manager 3 March 2018 11: 14
          +2
          Adolf Aloizovich lost his war, one of the reasons is extended communications. The FSA military budget is huge, but a lot of money goes to logistics. There are many points around the world. Overseas, heifer is half, and the ruble is transported. But to ask the Cubans, apparently necessary, it hurts a convenient place.
      2. Nyrobsky
        Nyrobsky 1 March 2018 23: 42
        +4
        Quote: Victor Kamenev
        Russia will earn money on it, no matter how strange it looks today. In Syria, our bases are placed free of charge, the Syrians are very happy about this, they cannot pay, but Russia strategically needs these bases to intimidate the US NNXX fleet, which is deprived of a convenient platform in the Mediterranean for Russian rocket attacks. Read Jacob Kedmi.
        No, not an option. Any base outside of Russia is a matter of logistics, provision, protection, etc., which entails serious financial costs, even if partially reimbursed by the countries of the “job seekers”. Some time ago, during a press conference, foreign foreign magazines asked GDP about whether Russia plans to return to Cuba, to Vietnam and generally build its bases in other regions, to which GDP responded with a smile: “Why? Who do we need? and so get it. " Surely he meant what he spoke of today in his message.
      3. iouris
        iouris 2 March 2018 01: 24
        +1
        Quote: Victor Kamenev
        Russia will earn money on this

        What year?
    2. siberalt
      siberalt 1 March 2018 10: 16
      +3
      Strange position. What could be the politics of gunboats in the 21st century if all world trade is linked together? Communication is already on other principles. As for military bases scattered around the world, it no longer corresponds to the current situation on the world market. About this same Trump spoke. And he is right about that. Well, if someone is the main business, then the current situation may persist for a long time.
      1. Victor Kamenev
        1 March 2018 10: 34
        +5
        Let's talk about the strangeness of American destroyers who regularly enter the Black Sea, with tomahawks, which can also be in nuclear equipment, and can generally go anywhere where there is sea water ...
        1. siberalt
          siberalt 1 March 2018 10: 36
          +2
          Conversations about oddities are best done in a psychiatric hospital. So, thank you. lol
          1. siberalt
            siberalt 1 March 2018 10: 43
            0
            Victor, I’ve been familiar with your articles since the days of the site, however. You have ideas, but they’re not up to the level of analytics. Just a little, but not enough. There is no justification of the essence of the questions raised by you. Just a little, but not enough. Work on it. As they say, less is better, but better. Good luck! hi
            1. Victor Kamenev
              1 March 2018 11: 11
              +4
              I want to see your "analytics", I really want to ...
              1. siberalt
                siberalt 1 March 2018 20: 47
                0
                Victor, for analytics, first you need to learn a lot from this and have reliable information. Is it really that hard to understand? And everything else - banal, concluding "homemade", probably for self-affirmation. Everyone has his own hobby. So what's wrong? And the fact that you enter into discussions with members of the forum is a big plus for you. Go ahead, dear! For only the one who walks will overcome the path. hi
                Come in PM, if there is something to grind.
          2. meandr51
            meandr51 1 March 2018 20: 36
            0
            You have very precisely defined the place of discussions with the leadership of the US Navy,
      2. Mikhail3
        Mikhail3 1 March 2018 16: 45
        +3
        Quote: siberalt
        Communication is already on other principles

        Which "others"? Are we banging?
        Quote: siberalt
        Is world trade linked together?

        In the sense of? The world has become cramped, yes. But doing without any country is now easier than ever. Modular production allows this in a matter of months.
        And about the global market ... The market is divided. The planet is over. And the main trader needs new markets! And where to get them? An attempt to destroy European wealth so that they were bought for a new one, somehow failed. How to expand, where, how?
        This question has always been decided by the war. Savings burned, a new start. So everything is logical with the author.
        1. gladcu2
          gladcu2 1 March 2018 21: 01
          0
          The market is a tool for pumping money from the majority to the minority.

          Already pumped everything. For lives have come.
          1. Pax tecum
            Pax tecum 2 March 2018 06: 01
            +1
            In the context of the topic, so to speak. An entertaining article yesterday was: "Lavrov: We are ready for war"
            https://topcor.ru/328-ssha-gotovyatsya-steret-ros
            siyu-s-lica-zemli.html
            Read, you will not regret it. Here is a small excerpt from the article:
            "... It is necessary to draw the right conclusions and make the right decisions. Time to start build a powerful industry and a self-sufficient economy, which will not be afraid of any sanctions. It's time to build a country in which you want to live. It is time to start defending national interests by all available means, including military force. Let the West not love us, but respect and really be considered. "

            I finished this saying simply thoroughly! Finally it came to wretched!
            And, let me know what the hell and what have you been doing 20 in recent years ?! The time of Judas Yeltsin can not be taken into account, everything is clear there.
            As they say, without comment, think for yourself.
    3. Ilya Markelov
      Ilya Markelov 1 March 2018 20: 09
      +1
      Well, an attack on the military is equated with an attack on the state. Those. for example, Qatar, wanted to get out of American bondage, ask Russia to build a military base, pays for it and that's it, in fact it is invulnerable, because when it receives a nuclear strike from the USA, it gets the Russian base as well, which means Russia must retaliate. So the conclusions are very logical.
    4. Alexander.
      Alexander. 6 March 2018 15: 23
      0
      then we’ll be there where necessary, that’s enough
  2. vlad007
    vlad007 1 March 2018 06: 50
    +8
    By the way, Syria is better protected by Russian military bases than North Korea with its nuclear potential.

    Do not tell, the entire eastern coast of the Euphrates (Raqqa and around it) is not controlled by the Syrian government. We need to deal with internal problems, and not deploy bases around the world.
    1. Maki Avellevich
      Maki Avellevich 1 March 2018 08: 10
      +8
      Quote: vlad007
      We need to deal with internal problems, and not deploy bases around the world.


      solving domestic problems is often solved outside the country. however, in order to project interests abroad with the help of military bases or other instruments, it is necessary to have a powerful economic base.
      if there is, then please, the large geopolitical arena is open to the willing and the willing.
    2. Finches
      Finches 1 March 2018 09: 04
      +3
      There, Damascus is not all controlled by the Government ... laughing I apologize to the author hi but everything is too primitive somehow ...!
    3. Victor Kamenev
      1 March 2018 09: 39
      +6
      You laugh, we are talking about the impossibility of a US nuclear strike on Syria, as it will affect our bases by damaging factors. Assad still does not fully control the country, but thanks to our bases and videoconferencing, he strengthened his power, which was recently predicted a quick death. Domestic problems are not a reason to abandon foreign policy, otherwise the US will also deal with our internal problems.
      1. vlad007
        vlad007 1 March 2018 12: 04
        +1
        Quote: Victor Kamenev
        You laugh, we are talking about the impossibility of a US nuclear strike on Syria, since it will affect our bases with damaging factors.

        But non-nuclear strikes do not scare you? Let them bomb, US (those who are sitting at the base) is not scared!
        1. zhekazs
          zhekazs 1 March 2018 23: 12
          +2
          Quote: vlad007
          But non-nuclear strikes do not scare you? Let them bomb, US (those who are sitting at the base) is not scared!

          Do you think the General Staff does not understand this and did not calculate it? Why then did the calibers from the Caspian launch? - Therefore, no one has the idea to bomb Khmeimim or Tartus.
      2. Dude
        Dude 1 March 2018 20: 27
        -1
        I’m afraid that the presence of our military bases in Syria, that somewhere else, except for the territory of Russia itself, will not stop America from either a covenant or a nuclear attack, if it makes such a decision. To the extremes, they will be warned on the interstate channels to take away their legs. See the example of Shayrat.
        In order for the very presence of a military base to be a guarantee against an attack on neighboring territory, confidence in an inevitable and cruel answer is necessary, without regard to the figure of the attacker.
        I, alas, have no confidence that the top leadership of our country will have enough political will for such an answer. Rather, we will again hear from television screens the mantra about the inadmissibility of drawing us into the Third World War, the need for an asymmetric response, and other HPPs. sad
      3. udincev
        udincev 1 March 2018 20: 30
        0
        I agree with you. Only correction:
        Quote: Victor Kamenev
        otherwise the USA will also deal with our internal problems
        ... will continue to deal with our internal problems. Rather, they will continue to generate internal problems for us.
  3. cedar
    cedar 1 March 2018 06: 52
    +2
    "... It can be expected that huge demand in the world will soon appear for Russian and Chinese military bases, and more will be paid for their deployment."

    Given the rapid development of uninhabited technologies, which are increasingly subject to the army, navy and aviation, is a very real thing in the near, digital future ...
    1. Victor Kamenev
      1 March 2018 09: 41
      +1
      Yes, the VKS is now vigorously developing unmanned vehicles, there was such information.
  4. Greenwood
    Greenwood 1 March 2018 06: 53
    +9
    By the way, Syria is better protected by Russian military bases
    That's noticeable. Either the American commandos are wielding, then the Turkish troops in Afrin, then the Israeli aircraft are bombing. Well, where is this security?
    1. Victor Kamenev
      1 March 2018 09: 42
      +4
      Everything is relative, compare security with two years ago.
      1. Dude
        Dude 1 March 2018 20: 35
        -1
        Security is either there or not. So far, judging by the fact that the United States with its acquaintances in Syria allow themselves, there is no need to talk about any security, alas. We do not give a final break the country, and that bread request
    2. udincev
      udincev 1 March 2018 20: 40
      0
      Quote: Greenwood
      Well, where is this security?
      ... and yet, contrary to the rampant desire of the United States and the "progressive world community," Assad did not leave (not destroyed), but for now, nevermind. It's a shame humane and progressive, of course, but you have to be content ...
  5. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 1 March 2018 07: 27
    +1
    huge demand in the world will soon appear for Russian and Chinese military bases, and more will be paid for their deployment
    The promise is certainly good, but not for today.
    1. Victor Kamenev
      1 March 2018 09: 43
      +1
      About tomorrow, we do not think?
  6. Professor
    Professor 1 March 2018 08: 33
    +6
    By the way, Syria is better protected by Russian military bases than North Korea with its nuclear potential.

    Is Syria protected by Russian military bases? Hm? From the north in Syria, the Turks are the host country of NATO. From the east, Americans and their allies are doing what they want. For example, they turn into a load of 200 ichtments. In the southwest, Israel periodically bombed. For many years, militias have been sitting in the suburbs of Damascus. What is the protection, CEP?

    It can be expected that huge demand in the world will soon appear for Russian and Chinese military bases, and more will be paid for their deployment.

    But this is something new. The author would teach the materiel. Placing a military base costs a lot of money ACCOMMODATING to the side.
    1. Victor Kamenev
      1 March 2018 09: 45
      +2
      We explain to those who are weak, that the hosting side will pay for its nuclear safety from the United States. As for the Russian bases in Syria - Jacob Kedmi will help you
      1. Professor
        Professor 1 March 2018 10: 39
        +5
        Quote: Victor Kamenev
        We explain to those who are weak, that the hosting side will pay for its nuclear safety from the United States. As for the Russian bases in Syria - Jacob Kedmi will help you

        The author of the Nobel Prize in Economics for the invention of a new model for the deployment of military bases. Prior to this invention, it was not the receiving party that paid for the deployment of the bases, but the hosting. By the way, in Syria, it pays for the Russian base ... Russia. Russia, Karl. fellow

        PS
        The USA has about 500 bases around the world. To an American taxpayer it costs $ 21-22 billion a year. Paragraph.
        http://www.talkmedianews.com/world-news/2017/05/0
        1 / wake-costs-benefits-us-overseas-bases /
        1. Professor
          Professor 1 March 2018 10: 50
          +5
          PPP
          And here, one economist calculated that AMERICAN to the taxpayer American bases cost $ 250 billion annually.
          http://fpif.org/the_cost_of_the_global_us_militar
          y_presence /
          The final bill: The United States spends approximately $ 250 billion annually to maintain troops, equipment, fleets, and bases overseas.
          1. Ehanatone
            Ehanatone 1 March 2018 21: 34
            -1
            Type Proffessoru
            You know how to read - your friends, the pi'ndos, declared that now they can throw vigorous loaves wherever they go, when they want to, just to avoid inadvertently going to Russia or China - now they have such a doctrine ...
          2. Hottabych
            Hottabych 2 March 2018 23: 32
            0
            Quote: Professor
            AMERICAN TAX PAYER

            Some kind of proverbial word ... winked
            Now in every corner of the world they know that it is not the people of America who keep the state budget, but the vassal countries that use the dollar.
        2. Victor Kamenev
          1 March 2018 11: 13
          +1
          And how much will Russia pay Syria for its bases? - we are waiting with this terrible figure ...
          1. Professor
            Professor 1 March 2018 12: 23
            +5
            Quote: Victor Kamenev
            And how much will Russia pay Syria for its bases? - we are waiting with this terrible figure ...

            You official number 0.0 or not official in 58 billion rubles. only in the first year? Can we add here a debt forgiven Syria by Russia in $ 9.8 billion? That is, not Syria pays Russia for a military base in Syria, but vice versa. Where is your logic?
            1. Hottabych
              Hottabych 2 March 2018 23: 35
              0
              Russia is investing in Syria, among other things, to expel the States from there. Which, in turn, brazenly dig oil and pass it off as revolutionary shale!
    2. Genadiy
      Genadiy 1 March 2018 22: 40
      0
      And why are you so sure that there will be many who want to host Russian bases?
  7. groks
    groks 1 March 2018 08: 43
    +6
    Why write this? We do not have money for bases around the world. We have no influence on the planting of these bases. Yes, we do not have so much technology.
    Bases in Syria do not interfere with either the USA or the rest frolic on its territory. Yes, and it seems that in Syria there is only a service point, not a base.
    1. Victor Kamenev
      1 March 2018 09: 47
      +2
      Once again about the main thing: we will be invited and paid by these bases for nuclear safety from the USA.
      1. groks
        groks 1 March 2018 10: 23
        +6
        By this logic, the USA should already lie in radioactive ruins. For Syria. This is not there. Conclusion - the author is a storyteller.
      2. Abalon
        Abalon 1 March 2018 10: 30
        +6
        Comrade Kamenev, as a person from a parallel world, they explain to you in Russian that the creation and maintenance of a base costs a lot of money. Even Russia cannot afford it. So why do you think that the poor Nicaragua has money for this? Nicaragua, this is an example.
        1. Victor Kamenev
          1 March 2018 11: 15
          +1
          Nicaragua, as a colony of the United States, does not need a Russian base, as well as other similar colonies: they do not cry their heads off their hair! ..
          1. Abalon
            Abalon 1 March 2018 13: 05
            +2
            Nicaragua, which recognized the annexation of Crimea, the US colony ??? Do you even live in any reality ???
  8. Greenwood
    Greenwood 1 March 2018 08: 55
    +6
    Kamenev's articles are generally extravaganza. Moreover, no matter what topic he writes on, whether it be the next diframbs to Solntselik or descriptions of Russia's foreign policy “victories”. Every time I read them, I can’t understand in what parallel world the author lives. I would like to advise him to finally remove the pink glasses from his eyes and stop giving out wishful thinking.
    1. Victor Kamenev
      1 March 2018 09: 50
      +2
      The answer is from parallel worlds: I correctly predicted brexit, when Cameron just gave a hint about him and like you "rose-colored glasses" shouted that this could not be because there could not be such a thing in a democracy. Yandex to help you.
      1. Abalon
        Abalon 1 March 2018 10: 34
        +2
        You, comrade Kamenev predicted that Ukraine would start a war 7.11. Your forecast came true? Yandex to help you))). Yes, and a lot of what you predicted. Did your forecasts come true? Google to help you)))
        1. Victor Kamenev
          1 March 2018 11: 20
          +2
          By the way, everything came true. Creeping offensive APU zhabimi jumps, with the "liberation" of gray villages when it was? That's about ... Of course, the United States wants another, Petya throws them in this, and received an ultimatum from the Atlantic Council. Petya, after all, cannot do everything, even though the commander-in-chief, this is the problem of the Americans and their Svidomo slaves.
          1. Abalon
            Abalon 1 March 2018 13: 00
            +1
            I wanted to quote from your opus. And then I thought, why? What is the point of arguing with a person who lives in his parallel world.
  9. Proton
    Proton 1 March 2018 09: 30
    +5
    What will these bases be filled with? Two three planes and five tanks? And the supply?request bases, before sculpting them, you need a powerful fleet, both air and ocean.
  10. Galleon
    Galleon 1 March 2018 09: 37
    +5
    Stupid article. We will not even take the monetary issue into account: communications with these bases must be reliably covered. The enemy has 21 air forces for this: 320 thousand people and more than 4 thousand aircraft, 156 UAVs. How much do we have?
    The base should be a self-sufficient and powerful military formation. An example, even Incirlik: the 39th US Air Force wing, from 1500 to 5000 people. According to some reports, 50 pieces of B-61 bombs, hydrogen, - from 0,3 to 170 kilotons. 25 underground storage facilities. For ammunition. For aviation protective caponiers at least 60. Do you have to compare with Khmeimim?
    All this talk about bases, about aircraft carriers ... To carry away those who are fond of?)))
    1. Victor Kamenev
      1 March 2018 10: 27
      +1
      But how smart you are! Presented a picture of the instant placement of bases of the Russian Federation around the world, and were horrified! It's about the process, you are our weak, about the trends. Speaking of trends: many analysts believe that the United States has already lost Turkey, in general, or is losing, in connection with the purchase of our With 400 by Erdogan and the assassination of Western intelligence services by Erdogan. I know? There is also a tendency to evict US bases from other countries, even perestroika in the USA itself is possible, such regrettable are your business ...
      1. Galleon
        Galleon 1 March 2018 11: 15
        +5
        Well, how smart I am, so ..., went for a walk. You are really smart - you already live in the future, have moved there with your mind. In this future, Turkey expelled the United States from Incirlik and joined the EAEU; the United States elected Gorbachev as president. Who else drove the United States? ...
        Or maybe drop everything and move to you? Of course, the mind will have to be left here, but as far as it would be easier and more pleasant. But alas ...
  11. xtur
    xtur 1 March 2018 09: 40
    +2
    in order to have bases around the world huge financial resources are needed, which is not, and not to be expected

    And yes, North Korea is protected by its weapons in the best way, in contrast to the opinion of the author, and yet it will become the center of unification of the two Koreas.
    1. Victor Kamenev
      1 March 2018 10: 29
      +1
      If we live, we shall see, in brexite too, many doubted.
      1. xtur
        xtur 1 March 2018 20: 40
        0
        > Wait and see

        this we will not see for sure - the maintenance of a large number of bases is too expensive even for the United States, more than half of their current budget is spent on maintaining the bases, without leaving the proper amount of resources for rearmament.

        The approach will be clearly asymmetric, some limited number of Russian-funded bases in the most appropriate places, and the rest on the balance of the host country, in exchange for something else. Or simply guaranteed access to some ports and airports in exchange for some goodies - something like now with Vietnam, Egypt ... This option assumes very good transport opportunities - 100 An-124 is quite suitable for this
  12. dgonni
    dgonni 1 March 2018 10: 15
    +3
    Bullshit.
    1. Victor Kamenev
      1 March 2018 10: 30
      +2
      Feels like, came the Bandera mare ...
  13. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion 1 March 2018 11: 32
    +3
    Quote: Locos
    Comrade Kamenev, as a person from a parallel world, they explain to you in Russian that the creation and maintenance of a base costs a lot of money. Even Russia cannot afford it. So why do you think that the poor Nicaragua has money for this? Nicaragua, this is an example.


    This is the case if the lease is concerned. It can be billions of dollars for one base and can be virtually free. For example, for the WINDOW in Nurek, Russia pays Tajikistan a few cents a year, for some objects in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, Russia does not pay anything, accommodation in Armenia, in Abzazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria are also free, in Syria we are free of charge, I don’t know for Belarus, we pay 6-7 million dollars a year to Kazakhstan, at the moment Egypt is restoring the former Soviet base in Sidi-Barrani, since 19, Russian VKS should be housed there. Until now, we will not pay and how much. And if you take Lebanon, for example, it is not against Russian bases on its territory, but it requires 2 billion dollars a year. Of course, it will most likely be sent away. Kamrani is already almost the same PMTO as in Tartus, it is regularly noted there, our tankers at the airport
  14. The comment was deleted.
  15. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion 1 March 2018 11: 39
    +1
    Quote: Locos
    Comrade Kamenev, as a person from a parallel world, they explain to you in Russian that the creation and maintenance of a base costs a lot of money. Even Russia cannot afford it. So why do you think that the poor Nicaragua has money for this? Nicaragua, this is an example.


    This is the case if the lease is concerned. It can be billions of dollars for one base and can be virtually free. For example, for the WINDOW in Nurek, Russia pays Tajikistan a few cents a year, for some objects in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, Russia does not pay anything, accommodation in Armenia, in Abzazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria are also free, in Syria we are free of charge, I don’t know for Belarus, we pay 6-7 million dollars a year to Kazakhstan, at the moment Egypt is restoring the former Soviet base in Sidi-Barrani, since 19, Russian VKS should be housed there. Until now, we will not pay and how much. And if you take Lebanon, for example, it is not against Russian bases on its territory, but it requires 2 billion dollars a year. Of course, it will most likely be sent away. Kamrani is already almost the same PMTO as in Tartus, our warships are regularly marked there, our tankers at the airport, the lease is actually free, so we wrote off their debts. It's all about renting, if it is high Okay, then the bases are very expensive, everything else in terms of the contents of the base doesn’t cost much compared to renting. Americans spend a lot of money on their bases, but how they spend it, they give interest-bearing loans and are placed at their expense. which, in principle, is also not too expensive for them.
    1. Twodi
      Twodi 1 March 2018 21: 02
      0
      The United States still has not paid the Poles loot for the missile defense base, and in December, the deadline is to pay to the budget of the European Union. I wonder what they will say in December when they realize that the United States deceived them))))
  16. 16112014nk
    16112014nk 1 March 2018 12: 14
    +1
    "... they will still pay extra for their placement."
    In the meantime, Russia has eliminated all Soviet bases (well, except for Tartus) and is only writing off all its debts. And for Baikonur - and she pays.
    1. Galleon
      Galleon 1 March 2018 13: 14
      0
      The fact is that a base and a base point are different military terms. The base includes storages of fuel, ammunition and ship repair capacity, up to dock work. The base point is to pour fresh water on to eat-wash and load some grub. In fact, we never had any full-fledged bases abroad, including Camran. I know about the latter firsthand, I’ve been repeatedly.
  17. Radikal
    Radikal 1 March 2018 12: 34
    +3
    Russian bases around the world will be a response to US policy
    Sure, not a problem! True, this will require money, but it seems that the author of the article has it, since he makes such an categorical statement. He probably defeated corruption, returned stolen money from abroad, as well as our assets invested in American candy wrappers, and here in Russia he imposed a luxury tax, canceled "golden parachutes", made the salaries of deputies at a little more than the minimum wage, generally held a series of events that will make it possible to realize his dream! He just didn’t think about one thing - in order to make this dream a reality in Russia, you must at least become the new Soviet Union! wassat
    1. belov2018
      belov2018 1 March 2018 20: 01
      +1
      And citizens in the new USSR eat olive oil and sprats in tomato.
  18. Simon
    Simon 1 March 2018 20: 05
    +1
    It can be expected that huge demand in the world will soon appear for Russian and Chinese military bases, and more will be paid for their deployment. My opinion is good. This greatly binds the actions of the Anglo-Saxons. wink
  19. Yuri Simonov
    Yuri Simonov 1 March 2018 20: 13
    0
    Interesting and useful to know! On the other hand, why does Russia need bases around the world if modern hypersonic Russian weapons reach any point on the planet fast enough ?!
  20. Ilya Markelov
    Ilya Markelov 1 March 2018 20: 14
    0
    On the one hand, yes, on the other - here we bombed the CIA base in Syria, put a lot of Americans and we had nothing for it, no hype in the press, everything was just hushed under the carpet. The same will be with the bases. And there’s a second point - only a surprise attack will be effective, that’s how they returned it with Crimea suddenly. If everyone knew 100% what Putin would do, nothing would have happened. So it is here, if the enemy expects a strike, is ready for it - there will be nothing good for anyone. Nuclear strikes must be delivered when no one is waiting for them and no one is ready, then they will be one shots.
  21. gladcu2
    gladcu2 1 March 2018 20: 21
    0
    The question was not posed correctly.

    No one is intimidated by the doctrine, and why this doctrine is intimidating.

    It is necessary to fight not with the investigation, namely with the bases, but with the causes.

    Why does this tension exist in the world?
    1. Twodi
      Twodi 1 March 2018 20: 58
      0
      Happy man, what's up in Canada? 2 years has not been, missed more than my girlfriend)))
  22. flicker
    flicker 1 March 2018 20: 23
    +3
    It can be expected that huge demand in the world will soon appear for Russian and Chinese military bases, and more will be paid for their deployment.
    And after the message to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation in general.
  23. Twodi
    Twodi 1 March 2018 20: 57
    +1
    Of course, everything that Putin showed is great. Even if 50% of this is true, then this is very good. But honestly, I looked at his speech and I had a feeling that we were slowly turning into North Korea ... Although we, in principle, were always with her, and we were called friends only under Yeltsin. But still sad ...
  24. siberalt
    siberalt 1 March 2018 21: 03
    0
    Quote: meandr51
    You have very precisely defined the place of discussions with the leadership of the US Navy,

    Clever of course. But why then a forum, if not for discussion? request
  25. staviator
    staviator 1 March 2018 21: 05
    +2
    By the way, Syria is better protected by Russian military bases than North Korea with its nuclear potential.

    This is probably why the Syrian troops are bombing anyone and sundry., And share it as anyone wants.
  26. The comment was deleted.
  27. Radikal
    Radikal 1 March 2018 21: 19
    0
    Quote: belov2018
    And citizens in the new USSR eat olive oil and sprats in tomato.

    I don’t know about you, but I often buy sprats in a tomato, and consume boiled potatoes and herbs. laughing You can see other addictions .... lol Well - they don’t argue about tastes ... wassat
  28. Radikal
    Radikal 1 March 2018 21: 19
    0
    Quote: staviator
    By the way, Syria is better protected by Russian military bases than North Korea with its nuclear potential.

    This is probably why the Syrian troops are bombing anyone and sundry., And share it as anyone wants.

    yes
  29. Radikal
    Radikal 1 March 2018 21: 22
    0
    Quote: flicker
    It can be expected that huge demand in the world will soon appear for Russian and Chinese military bases, and more will be paid for their deployment.
    And after the message to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation in general.

    Do you not know what? Already the line has lined up on Red Square from the heads of state who simply dream of our bases on their territory! wassat
  30. Thomas the Unbelieving
    Thomas the Unbelieving 1 March 2018 21: 43
    +1
    Scattering bases around the world is like fighting a fist with spread fingers. It’s better when in three days you can throw a half-million army with weapons anywhere in the world.
    In general, when it comes to American politics, I often recall the books of American writer Barbara Tuckman, which can be found in our electronic libraries. The story is like that. At one time, she wrote the book "August Guns" about the beginning of the First World War. Gave it to John F. Kennedy, who liked her so much that he bought several hundred copies at once and presented to all his friends. So they write that this played a big role in determining Kennedy's position during the Caribbean crisis.
    One of her latest works, which I highly recommend reading, is called "Ode to Political Madness." She begins with Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, the idiot who led to the collapse of his kingdom. It ends with Vietnam. Roosevelt and Ho Chi Minh City were very nice to each other, since Ho Chi Minh City and the Vietnamese people were grateful for the liberation from Japanese occupation. But after the death of Roosevelt, American presidents decided to fight the communists. Five American presidents tried to break the people of Vietnam and you know how it all ended. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of crazy people like that. There are they in Washington, there are in Kiev and other capitals. I am satisfied that our country is run by sober politicians who worry about their country and do not get into a fight unnecessarily. The real war is terrible trials and it was not in vain that Yevtushenko wrote about that. Do the Russians want war. Involuntarily you try to keep in memory only certain hours and days of that life. Putin is right: we have everything. do not bother us to live.
  31. PVL176
    PVL176 1 March 2018 23: 32
    +3
    What are the bases? What nonsense? The country is dying, the economy has fallen and cannot rise. Well, I still understand the Supreme, switching arrows to an external threat instead of the well-being of citizens is a sweet thing! But then why rub the glasses? Take care of internal affairs, finally!
    1. Nyrobsky
      Nyrobsky 2 March 2018 08: 59
      +1
      Quote: PVL176
      What are the bases? What nonsense? The country is dying, the economy has fallen and cannot rise. Well, I still understand the Supreme, switching arrows to an external threat instead of the well-being of citizens is a sweet thing! But then why rub the glasses? Take care of internal affairs, finally!
      Delirium fever !!! In terms of the extinction of the population, here you can look HERE!
      As for the economic decline, it is probably because of its fall that the S&P raised Russia's sovereign rating from the speculative level “BB +” to the investment level “BBB-”. The rating outlook was changed from "positive" to "stable". You can look HERE!
      Details: https://regnum.ru/news/2384995.html
      1. PVL176
        PVL176 2 March 2018 13: 17
        +2
        Even according to these data, the growth over 2 years is 600 thousand people. And the veracity of our statistics can be estimated by the example of VTsIOM. The increase (if any) is ensured by a migratory influx and an increase in the birth rate among migrants and among peoples with traditionally high birth rates, and these are not Russians. The population is aging rapidly. And about ratings, what can I say - it's just a political tool. In general, China has created its own rating agency and there are completely different ratings.
  32. Maalkavianin
    Maalkavianin 2 March 2018 07: 44
    0
    Well yes. Build military bases, and transfer people to Doshirak once a week on holidays.
  33. Oleg Tolstoy
    Oleg Tolstoy 2 March 2018 09: 17
    0
    Quote: Mikhail3
    Quote: siberalt
    Communication is already on other principles

    Which "others"? Are we banging?
    Quote: siberalt
    Is world trade linked together?

    In the sense of? The world has become cramped, yes. But doing without any country is now easier than ever. Modular production allows this in a matter of months.
    And about the global market ... The market is divided. The planet is over. And the main trader needs new markets! And where to get them? An attempt to destroy European wealth so that they were bought for a new one, somehow failed. How to expand, where, how?
    This question has always been decided by the war. Savings burned, a new start. So everything is logical with the author.


    But is it impossible to do without an accumulative economy and warming up of bubbles? I don’t understand these cockroaches at all .. Even at the space level of the “twin brothers” of the Rothschilds / Rockefellers what they do is a game of table lotto and cockroaches.

    in the 60s, our science fiction dreamed that mankind canalizes this senseless passionary energy by going to the Ocean and into the space of the salt system ... Are you stuck, scared?
  34. Oleg Tolstoy
    Oleg Tolstoy 2 March 2018 10: 31
    0
    Quote: xtur
    > Wait and see

    this we will not see for sure - the maintenance of a large number of bases is too expensive even for the United States, more than half of their current budget is spent on maintaining the bases, without leaving the proper amount of resources for rearmament.

    The approach will be clearly asymmetric, some limited number of Russian-funded bases in the most appropriate places, and the rest on the balance of the host country, in exchange for something else. Or simply guaranteed access to some ports and airports in exchange for some goodies - something like now with Vietnam, Egypt ... This option assumes very good transport opportunities - 100 An-124 is quite suitable for this


    And who will build the three divisions of the military-technical cooperation on the AN-124? Voronezh with an average salary of 17 thousand? Ulyanovsk, which produced them in sovereign time, dismantled the slipway. and this hour is only engaged in their repair, and is busy with MS-som, your brick "miracle superjet" and most importantly, the modernization of the entire fleet of IL-76 and IL-78
  35. Oleg Tolstoy
    Oleg Tolstoy 2 March 2018 10: 40
    0
    Quote: Thomas the Unbelieving
    Scattering bases around the world is like fighting a fist with spread fingers. It’s better when in three days you can throw a half-million army with weapons anywhere in the world.
    In general, when it comes to American politics, I often recall the books of American writer Barbara Tuckman, which can be found in our electronic libraries. The story is like that. At one time, she wrote the book "August Guns" about the beginning of the First World War. Gave it to John F. Kennedy, who liked her so much that he bought several hundred copies at once and presented to all his friends. So they write that this played a big role in determining Kennedy's position during the Caribbean crisis.
    One of her latest works, which I highly recommend reading, is called "Ode to Political Madness." She begins with Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, the idiot who led to the collapse of his kingdom. It ends with Vietnam. Roosevelt and Ho Chi Minh City were very nice to each other, since Ho Chi Minh City and the Vietnamese people were grateful for the liberation from Japanese occupation. But after the death of Roosevelt, American presidents decided to fight the communists. Five American presidents tried to break the people of Vietnam and you know how it all ended. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of crazy people like that. There are they in Washington, there are in Kiev and other capitals. I am satisfied that our country is run by sober politicians who worry about their country and do not get into a fight unnecessarily. The real war is terrible trials and it was not in vain that Yevtushenko wrote about that. Do the Russians want war. Involuntarily you try to keep in memory only certain hours and days of that life. Putin is right: we have everything. do not bother us to live.


    I will subscribe to every word. But, remembering the same Roosevelt and his "saying" about a fire hose to a neighbor .... Russia alone borders on the rest of the world and Russia does not end near Smolensk and Murmansk .. You can imagine yourself as a big and warm luminous ball, but warm boots Do not forget to buy for the winter! winked
  36. Valery Saitov
    Valery Saitov 2 March 2018 14: 49
    0
    ... soon there will be huge demand in the world)))
    Maybe it will appear in order not to purchase a lot of weapons, not to train and maintain an additional army. And so he invited for a fee and ... protect (at the same time and train the locals).
  37. Kolaaps
    Kolaaps 3 March 2018 12: 17
    0
    Bases are needed. Not for intimidation and not for show-offs. Supply and resources. It’s very sad when the supply of nutrient water for the VHF .... and to the house .... Then by mail well, ... do not forward .... Autonomy sharply increases (a missile on board more than 60 days .... well. Possible, well ... basically ... potentially fraught.)
    What can I say! Get out to the ground! Shake off my pants and piss into the global ocean without looking at the manometers .... See the city BUS .... Well, that's it ... Have a smoke? ... Everyone down !!!
  38. Plate
    Plate 3 March 2018 17: 36
    0
    In general, the new US nuclear doctrine allows the use of nuclear weapons anywhere, if the United States considers that the conflict situation arises somewhere is not resolved in their interests. Imagine that American interests will be threatened in Europe, for example, in France and Germany, anti-American governments will come to power, and weapons riots will begin there. Will Russia “fit in” for France and Germany if the USA uses small nuclear weapons to de-escalate the riots?

    And then suddenly the United States finds out that France also has “nuclear gunboats,” as the article put it. Although I’m sure they already know this very well and will not risk so much if the situation described in the article occurs.
  39. Anchonsha
    Anchonsha 3 March 2018 22: 27
    0
    There is no need to run ahead, now every Russian needs to do his job soundly and efficiently in order to accomplish what our president calls on to jerk up our economy. But we do not need to defend other states by force; they do not want this yet. Now, when their USA is driven into a corner, as is happening with the European Union, these unprepossessing officials will be replaced by patriots of European countries.
  40. Klaus
    Klaus 4 March 2018 13: 09
    0
    Drawing a conclusion from all of the above, I will try to summarize and ask some questions to the author.
    1. If it’s as simple as possible, then Victor offers our bases as outsourced private security services for everyone.
    2. As everyone rightly noted, the problem of logistics was not taken into account by the author, from the word at all.
    3. This implies a total misunderstanding of the ratio of benefits and costs in all areas
    4. All discussions on this subject can already be considered insignificant fantasies, because Putin has already voiced the idea of ​​our "response" to the Americans in the message.
    There is only one question for the author: who is Yakov Kedmi, and why, in your opinion, should we certainly read, listen and watch it?
  41. Olezhek
    Olezhek 4 March 2018 21: 38
    0
    Russian bases around the world will be a response to US policy


    No, it's beautiful of course ... but where does this come from and what actually confirms it? request
    Syria is not quite an example.
  42. Bell pepper
    Bell pepper 6 March 2018 03: 27
    0
    This is a huge cut and a mistake. Russia does not have the opportunity to defend MYSELF only against an attack by NATO forces that are in the EU, why do we need to spend valuable equipment and people resources on additional bases abroad ?????

    Yes, I know that you will say: "As it is, we eat Su 35, C 400, Zircons, Ratnik, Rychagi, Kraukha, Khibiny, etc., etc. etc."

    And I completely agree with you, BUT just count and THINK: how many Su 35 you have built and accepted weapons for, and how many NATO F 16, but NOT the common ones of the F 16, and upgrading from the AN / APG radar has an AFAR ?? ? (it's just a dumb example)
    How much battery do you have With 400 ?? And how many are located on the huge border of Russia?
    How many armata tanks do you have ?? And how much does the American upgrade Abramsi and NATOVtsi Leopardi ????

    NATO has 4th-generation combat aircraft, which are several times larger in operation than Russian 4th-generation aircraft. And they are better modernized and have better radars and REB systems.
    Yes, you have Su 30 and 35 and UNIQUE Khibiny (and this is repeatedly confirmed in real situations), but they are too few to give you any chance ....
    The only real excellence in Russia right now is the Strategic Missile Forces.
    And they, too, will not help in the event of an invasion, because the use of YBG has its consequences: a counter stroke.
    Just in! Full-format! Conflict you do not have enough modern weapons. For small local probably enough. And you must not forget that every local conflict also leads to the loss of technology and people (for example, Syria)

    I don’t want to be a critic, but in my opinion Russia should right now:

    1) In the near future to complete the conflict in Syria. (and strengthen their positions there (Khmeimim base, Tartus, etc.)
    2) Increase production! Promising! weapons and defense complexes
    3) To upgrade its facilities for the production of such.

    All the rest is extra costs, and increases the long-term risk of the impossibility for Russia to protect its own borders.