Borisov compared the effectiveness of the defense budgets of Russia and the United States


On Saturday, January 11, at the Hero of Russia Siberian Federal University, General V.P. Dubynin, Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Yuri Borisov gave a lecture for cadets of the military training center. In his speech, he raised questions regarding the combat effectiveness of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.


In particular, he noted that Russia, having a defense budget of 12-14 times lower than that of the United States and NATO, and being in sixth place in the world in its absolute volume, has a high defense capability. This allows us to maintain parity, guaranteeing the country's security.

For comparison, the Deputy Prime Minister cited data on military budgets. For example, this year the United States plans to spend $ 750 billion on defense, and the entire North Atlantic Alliance - 1 trillion. Borisov notes that in Russia this figure is 12-14 times lower.

The Deputy Prime Minister also referred to the data of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) on defense spending of various countries of the world for 2018. Last year, they amounted to 61,4 billion dollars for Russia, while the United States spent 649 billion on defense. In absolute terms, the military budgets of Russia and Saudi Arabia are comparable, which last year spent $ 67,6 billion for defense purposes.
Photos used:
http://kremlin.ru/
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

66 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. rocket757 12 January 2020 11: 10 New
    • 7
    • 7
    0
    Obvious, I hope, incredible!
    Russia can destroy any enemy, but this will not be an acceptable victory!
    Do not aggravate the situation to the extreme line! If you have to step over, it will not be good for ANYONE!
    THIS IS AN OBVIOUS FACT; you should not make it out of the probable real.
    1. Spartanez300 12 January 2020 11: 11 New
      • 7
      • 6
      +1
      And what about the USA, don’t invest such grandmas in the military budget, they print these bucks as I don’t want to spend candy wrappers.
      1. rocket757 12 January 2020 11: 16 New
        • 7
        • 3
        +4
        Stripes, skillfully, maneuver their military investments in real profit. This cannot be taken away from them.
        1. NEXUS 12 January 2020 15: 08 New
          • 4
          • 2
          +2
          Quote: rocket757
          Stripes, skillfully, maneuver their military investments in real profit. This cannot be taken away from them.

          Are you sure that even the wars that they unleashed in the BV brought them a profit commensurate with the cost of all this? The United States left World War II, becoming rich, but ... half the world fought there and all the most developed economies in the world. Now, in order for the United States to get rich again, and so to speak in plus, we need a global war, not local clashes. But the problem is that now we have a strategic nuclear forces, which are guaranteed to be able to destroy the profit of the mattresses and the USA, as a state as a whole.
          US Army as a malignant tumor on the budget body. It is growing, it requires more costs, effort and time. A too bloated army, not at war, at all times was not profitable, because it eats a lot of state resources, money, etc. In ancient times, armies were assembled precisely when they fought, and in peace (relatively) time, not a single ruler maintained an army according to the Schaub-O principle.
          1. voyaka uh 12 January 2020 22: 20 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            "The US Army as a malignant tumor on the budget" ////
            ----
            Right! But this is - any army is so.
            Question: how much is the military budget
            percent of GDP. The United States has 4%. This is a lot, but not very much. Tolerant.
            Russia has as much. China has less, Israel has more.
            In terms of the number of troops, the American army is small.
            One million troops in all. For a country of 330 million - quite a bit.
            1. Liam 12 January 2020 22: 35 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Russia has as much

              Add these more
              Russia: almost 17% of the budget for 2019 is classified


              Where and what more than 3 trillion rubles will go to is unknown
              MOSCOW - The draft federal budget of the Russian Federation for 2019 includes more than 3 trillion rubles for secret and top secret expenses.

              This amounts to almost 17% of all expenditures foreseen for the next year, and equal to 2,9% of GDP
              .
            2. NEXUS 13 January 2020 01: 56 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: voyaka uh
              One million troops in all.

              I’m sure to surprise you, but it doesn’t matter how many US troops there are, since there are always armies of the Anglo-Saxon Union, as well as armies that are at their full disposal. Such as the armies of Germany, France, Belgium and so on ... And if necessary, they will recruit Mexicans, Indians, Puerto Ricans for the promise to give a green car.
              1. voyaka uh 13 January 2020 10: 10 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                "I will probably surprise you, but it doesn’t matter how many US troops there are" ////
                ----
                Usually, in the experience of two Iraqi wars, at least the Americans
                3/4 load in combat.
                Only the British are really actively fighting, although their ground forces are tiny.
                And Canadians with Australians send small forces.
                The Dutch fought well in Afghanistan. In the second Iraqi, the Poles distinguished themselves.
                But anyway, America contributes 80 percent.
      2. Amin_vivec 12 January 2020 11: 47 New
        • 6
        • 2
        +4
        I remember the year 2000 and M. Leontiev on the first channel said that the dollar will soon be kirdyk ... Soon it did not happen ...
        And now, when the countries' ZRVs cease to be dollar-denominated, something begins to appear - and therefore let it be printed. An arms race is being planned, and at the same time, Russia is nominally in the lead in this race - is it not for that it is being conceived to provoke the Yankees to print more?
    2. bouncyhunter 12 January 2020 11: 16 New
      • 11
      • 5
      +6
      Vitya hi
      A fly swatter for 20 rubles destroys 200 flies (in skilled hands). Ultrasonic "fighter flies" for 20000 rubles destroys 201 flies. Is the hint clear? wink
      1. rocket757 12 January 2020 11: 23 New
        • 5
        • 4
        +1
        hello Pasha soldier
        The paradox / joke is that they manage to suck in their allies with their super- super fly swatter! This is an obvious fact.
        Not all of course, a significant part of the costs falls on their budget, public debt, but they successfully forgive their debts and do not worry much.
        If possible, transfer their debts to especially .... the afflicted! In this they are young! Although this is a situation, there are people who want to buy their copper penny, for their hard-earned gold !!! The power of "conviction" or stupidity, go figure it out! Just contact the fact.
        1. bouncyhunter 12 January 2020 11: 34 New
          • 6
          • 3
          +3
          Quote: rocket757
          The power of "conviction" or stupidity, go figure it out

          And what to understand? Whose words are:
          "A kind word with a colt in his hand is more convincing than just a kind word."
          yes
          1. rocket757 12 January 2020 11: 38 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            Quote: bouncyhunter
            "A kind word with a colt in his hand is more convincing than just a kind word."

            Wow !!! Under Trump, this is like a motto in all their affairs / deeds. Do we not know this!
            1. bouncyhunter 12 January 2020 11: 42 New
              • 5
              • 4
              +1
              That's for sure .
              I am Orthodox, but I adhere to this principle:
              "Dali on the right cheek - take a gun off the wall and shoot him in the face!" soldier
              1. rocket757 12 January 2020 11: 48 New
                • 3
                • 2
                +1
                I have nothing to do with religion, but faith is all different.
                And the correct, reasonable principles, wherever they were written, proclaimed, can only help us! We take and use ... i.e. they didn’t teach us to turn the second cheek.
        2. Kuroneko 12 January 2020 11: 42 New
          • 3
          • 3
          0
          Not to the Allies, but to the slaves, this is the first, and the second - not and the slaves imagined themselves, so their sanctions, sanctions! And then they were completely overgrown, buying not from a "shining city on a hill", but from some vile Russian and a dozen or less aggressive Mordor.
          1. rocket757 12 January 2020 11: 51 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Kuroneko
            Not to allies, but to slaves,

            Well, shozh you are so about the "haberdashery"! Well, they are around such a "cardinal" such cool "round dance" arrange. "Lovely EXPENSIVE" to look at it!
      2. Nikolay Ivanov_5 12 January 2020 12: 40 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: bouncyhunter
        Vitya hi
        A fly swatter for 20 rubles destroys 200 flies (in skilled hands). Ultrasonic "fighter flies" for 20000 rubles destroys 201 flies. Is the hint clear? wink


        Skilful hands are needed for a fly swatter for 20 rubles, but nothing is needed for a fly fighter.
        1. bouncyhunter 12 January 2020 12: 42 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: Nikolai Ivanov_5
          nothing is needed for the fighter flies

          Besides its price. wink
    3. Doctor 12 January 2020 11: 37 New
      • 5
      • 7
      -2
      And to whom are your lamentations addressed?
  2. WILL 12 January 2020 11: 10 New
    • 14
    • 6
    +8
    A somewhat strange article ... showed the size of MO pocket money, without analyzing their costs. request
    What is the conclusion?
    Thanks to the USSR for the creation of the Nuclear Triad, the main guarantee of Our Security. Well, and a special thank you - for the advance guard that entered the combat duty, it’s somehow calmer with them ...
    1. bouncyhunter 12 January 2020 11: 46 New
      • 6
      • 3
      +3
      hi
      Quote: ANIMAL
      somehow calmer with them ...

      Calmer - yes. But one should not calm down. Calmness is the first step towards inevitability. wink
    2. Kuroneko 12 January 2020 11: 49 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Quote: ANIMAL
      without analyzing their costs.

      The analysis is as it is, in general, and everywhere. Money spent on Nonsense (excluding rearmament). Just by virtue of a more modest budget, just these 12-14 times we have less of them flowing away. Well, the military lobby in the Russian Federation is much weaker, and does not dictate its own policy in parliament.
      The ass itself is with the fleet. But there, for a long time, I do not want to paint all this “beauty” there.
    3. Altona 12 January 2020 11: 55 New
      • 7
      • 4
      +3
      Quote: ANIMAL
      A somewhat strange article ... showed the size of MO pocket money, without analyzing their costs.

      ---------------------------------
      Yes, they did not reveal them in any way. But Borisov, perhaps the only competent in this regard, he can show them in any perspective, technical, material support and other indicators. We only know about the US military budget that the lion’s part is spent on providing military personnel and maintaining the equipment fleet in good condition, and how this is not enough, as the share of ships and equipment remains unreached. And the latest technology increases spending on maintenance at times, so we see a constant return to the old technology in the form of F-15, F / A-18, the modernization of the Abrams. I’m not sure that the situation with our budget is much better, because we see how they strive to “master the financing” in terms of “new weapons”.
    4. orionvitt 12 January 2020 12: 30 New
      • 6
      • 4
      +2
      Quote: ANIMAL
      Thanks to the USSR for the creation of the Nuclear Triad, the main guarantee of Our Security

      USSR, as soon as 30 years no. In addition to creating a nuclear triad, it is necessary to constantly maintain, modernize and update, otherwise the price is worthless. It’s only “literate forelocks” in Ukraine who are getting richer in Duma that, if they hadn’t given up nuclear weapons, then “now they would have shown the mother Kuzkin to the achressor”. Nuclear weapons, in and of themselves, require enormous resources, both financial and intellectual. Not to mention media. And in itself, a nuclear charge, without maintenance and without the necessary infrastructure, eventually turns into a "luminous piece of iron." Even conventional ammunition, not so high-tech, has the ability to "foul".
      1. WILL 12 January 2020 12: 33 New
        • 4
        • 3
        +1
        Do you feel the difference between the concepts: Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Triad?
        1. orionvitt 12 January 2020 12: 53 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          I understand perfectly. "Nuclear weapon" is a spatial term, and the Nuclear triad is a complex of weapons. And you understand that nuclear weapons and all types of carriers are interconnected. Both technically, politically, and, what can I say, financially. One without the other cannot exist in principle.
          1. WILL 12 January 2020 13: 19 New
            • 4
            • 3
            +1
            Well ... and what Country (Triad) created it?
            1. orionvitt 12 January 2020 14: 33 New
              • 2
              • 2
              0
              Quote: ANIMAL
              Well ... and what Country (Triad) created it?

              Well, well .... and which country (the Triad) has preserved it. To create, yes, it is magnificent, for which our fathers and grandfathers have great respect. But when ever created, you still need to be able to save and preferably multiply. (especially in our turbulent times).
              1. WILL 12 January 2020 14: 43 New
                • 3
                • 2
                +1
                Now back to my first comment!
                Quote: ANIMAL

                Thanks to the USSR for the creation of the Nuclear Triad, the main guarantee of Our Security.
                Well, and a special thank you - for the advance guard that entered the combat duty, it’s somehow calmer with them ...

                What exactly did not suit you in it, the creation of the Vanguard, this is not the modernization and maintenance of the Nuclear Triad created by the USSR? And why is your speech about
                Quote: orionvitt

                USSR, as soon as 30 years no. In addition to creating a nuclear triad, it is necessary to constantly maintain, modernize and update, otherwise the price is worthless. It’s only “literate forelocks” in Ukraine who are getting richer in Duma that, if they hadn’t given up nuclear weapons, then “now they would have shown the mother Kuzkin to the achressor”. Nuclear weapons, in and of themselves, require enormous resources, both financial and intellectual. Not to mention media. And in itself, a nuclear charge, without maintenance and without the necessary infrastructure, eventually turns into a "luminous piece of iron." Even conventional ammunition, not so high-tech, has the ability to "foul".

                After which, in other words, you repeated mine?
                Quote: orionvitt

                Well, well .... and which country (the Triad) has preserved it. To create, yes, it is magnificent, for which our fathers and grandfathers have great respect. But when ever created, you still need to be able to save and preferably multiply. (especially in our turbulent times).

                request
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. Pereira 12 January 2020 11: 12 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    Borisov notes that in Russia this figure is 12-14 times lower.

    If we had the same printing press, businessmen would have mastered more.
  5. Terenin 12 January 2020 11: 19 New
    • 10
    • 7
    +3
    Borisov: This allows us to maintain parity, guaranteeing the country's security.

    If our country still exists, then Deputy Prime Minister winked tells the truth
  6. Private-K 12 January 2020 11: 22 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    It is a pity that there are no special publications detailing the reasons for the extreme inefficiency of NATO military budgets.
    It remains only to guess where, what and how.
    1. Spartanez300 12 January 2020 11: 34 New
      • 8
      • 2
      +6
      On average, in recent years, the domestic Ministry of Defense spent about 60% of the budget on the purchase of military equipment (larger amounts during the state arms program and smaller in current years, until the launch of the new GPV from 2023 to 2033), but the Pentagon could allocate only 6− 7% under Obama, and about 13% now. All other US funds are spent on the maintenance of the incredibly inflated occupation infrastructure, compensation for the corruption component, the race with Russia and China and other “weights”. The Second World War ended 74 years ago, the Korean War 66 years, the Vietnamese 45 years, and the Cold War 28 years ago, but the United States still maintains about 800 military bases outside its territory. 172 of them are located in “liberated” Germany, 113 in “sovereign” Japan, 83 in “right” South Korea, and hundreds more garrisons are scattered across 80 countries from Australia to Colombia. As a result of a number of reasons, the American military-industrial complex, even consuming 36% of all world spending on armaments, remains ineffective in comparison with the Russian one, and the more Moscow becomes more active in the world arena, the more difficult is the most powerful propaganda machine on the plan to retouch this reality.
      1. Private-K 12 January 2020 11: 51 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Spartanez300
        The Pentagon could allocate for this only 6-7% under Obama, and about 13% now. All other US funds are spent on maintaining the incredibly inflated occupation infrastructure, compensation for the corruption component, the race with Russia and China, and other “weights”.

        Nevertheless, it seems to me that the main articles of "inefficient consumption" are:
        a) the corruption component (in R&D, in the procurement of arms and military equipment, in the logistics department, in the maintenance of bases and other objects)
        b) spending on non-military programs (this is more typical for Europeans).
        Bases and other objects ... I think there really can be a fat file. For example, Americans formally abandoned (do not use constantly, but keep, as it were, a reserve) many bases and facilities in the Pacific Ocean and in other regions. But within the framework of budget financing, interested influential persons can "spend" quite a lot of money on their "maintenance".
        And in Europe, many military-budget programs of the KIO do not apply to the armed forces in any way. Well, for example, "a humanitarian program to develop and instill tolerance among military personnel." It is carried out on the basis of outsourcing. Lecturers from a specialized organization conduct many lectures, moreover, each lecture is paid very heavily - for example, in the amount of the monthly salary of the captain-commander of the battery. Not well, but what? Pays - military budget. And such and similar programs - overdohua.
      2. voyaka uh 12 January 2020 22: 27 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        "All other US funds are spent incredibly on maintenance
        bloated occupation infrastructure "////
        ---
        No. On the salaries of soldiers and officers and pensions to them.
        A small percentage of the military budget is spent on all kinds of military bases and other things.
        Their army is all contracted. They pay a lot, pensions are also substantial.
        This is where the breakthrough of money is spent.
    2. Adam Khomich 12 January 2020 12: 58 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      The freshest example. The United States has pushed Abramsa to the Young Europeans, but there is no infrastructure for them. Narrow paths - under a passenger car, this colossus cannot squeeze through bridges or under bridges. So what? They began to expand, deepen, strengthen. And this is at a cost how to rebuild!
  7. Ros 56 12 January 2020 11: 26 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Spit on the effectiveness of striped, the more spenders the better. We need to increase the efficiency of using our funds, and not hide in our pockets.
  8. Ravil_Asnafovich 12 January 2020 11: 43 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    All this is good, but how much was stolen specifically, and the half-received military equipment, etc.? Probably only for a spaceport for another twenty years will the investigation go?
  9. Adimius38 12 January 2020 11: 48 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    Well, if you compare the territory of Saudi Arabia and Russia, it turns out that in absolute terms, Russia's military budget is like a glass of seeds for the army. With a budget at the Russian level, Saudi Arabia having a territory 8 times smaller than the territory of the Russian Federation is a cut above the Russian Federation in terms of saturating its army with modern military developments. With us on such a budget, all deliveries are piece. Although we have good technology and a Soviet backlog. Comparing in quantitative terms is simply stupid, because we can’t master even a dozen new tanks for our army. Of course, we have thousands of tanks, but they are Soviet))) Many fans love to compare the number of tanks, guns, etc., but only few people take into account the fact that this is a Soviet-made technique and the majority of it is obsolete and at least needs to be keeping the pants at least in modernization, but we don’t have enough money to carry out a full modernization, for example, of the same T-72 tank. Therefore, with such a budget, we will not even surpass the Saudis. What can we say about the United States, where $ 750 billion for the army is a leap forward in terms of not only the release of iron (modern aviation) ships, etc., but also in terms of scientific and technological progress, unique new technologies. Of course, everything depends on the economy, so it’s difficult here to scold the amount of our military budget, given our economic “development” or not development with those people who are doing it now, given the level of corruption and failed economic reforms.
  10. knn54 12 January 2020 11: 52 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    An unimportant fact is modernization, the development of new weapons systems, research, etc. - everything is state-owned and therefore much cheaper. This applies to China.
  11. iouris 12 January 2020 11: 54 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    And compared in volume? But about 10% of the military budget is R&D. The Pentagon spends more on research and development than the official military budget of the Russian Federation. And where is science more advanced?
    1. Adam Khomich 12 January 2020 12: 52 New
      • 1
      • 5
      -4
      What is science like? Are you talking about English scientists? The United States stole or bought everyone and everything. Now it’s impossible to steal, and only their iPhones are riveted, films are shot, and heifers are squeezed. They have no R&D, then a dead end. Eight out of 10 aircraft carriers at the docks are under repair. There is a lot of old junk, so Trump is trying to get all the grunts from his budgets to give him 4% of GDP for poverty.
  12. A hundred 12 January 2020 11: 57 New
    • 9
    • 7
    +2
    All need to change the General Staff, the Government and vertically ..! Chatterboxes alone settled in the top ..
    Medals and orders and most importantly the Stars of Heroes, as after the Second World War in the 45th ..
    Someone plows for their homeland, Fatherland, but these are accountable and receive awards .. Oh mother Russia! soldier
    1. bouncyhunter 12 January 2020 12: 36 New
      • 5
      • 4
      +1
      "Every day a country fights
      To whom - to hell, to whom - orders "
      (c) Lube
      1. A hundred 12 January 2020 12: 46 New
        • 5
        • 5
        0
        Quote: bouncyhunter
        "Every day a country fights
        To whom - to hell, to whom - orders "
        (c) Lube

        That's right, Pasha .. !!!! Evil is not enough, but what to do?
        Still need to protect the homeland hi And damn us not a brother ..
        1. bouncyhunter 12 January 2020 12: 50 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          Quote: Hundred
          Evil is not enough, but what to do?

          Like what ? Preserve evil in banks; open as necessary. wink
          1. A hundred 12 January 2020 13: 27 New
            • 3
            • 4
            -1
            Quote: bouncyhunter
            Quote: Hundred
            Evil is not enough, but what to do?

            Like what ? Preserve evil in banks; open as necessary. wink

            And that’s exactly what Pasha’s doing when he’s intolerable .. The brains are washed well .. And when they’re completely exhausted, I open the “can of stewed meat” angry
            Helps wake up and perk up !!! (I figuratively) ..
            But the young people here are easily amenable to propaganda and brainwashing .. hi
            I’m living for the sake of it. I swallow pills hehe
  13. midshipman 12 January 2020 11: 59 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    I have been working in this field since 1963. Was Ch. Designer of many ATS. Serially ensured their production. But everything is in the past. At present, we need to outline a prospect that will allow us to be the first in the impact of military high-tech missiles. Remember 1972, Egypt. We were so ahead of everyone that only a special case forced our country to leave that region. Read my article in VO Creative Travel
  14. bobba94 12 January 2020 12: 21 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    We talked with a friend on this subject and he, an ironic man, advised me to find on the Internet information about the salary of the local warrant officer (we have an ensign), about the salary of our colonel and compare. My friend also advised me to find information about the cost of the M10 nut somewhere in Dallas and the cost of the same nut in Lipetsk and also compare. A friend laughs and says - you’ll compare, then you will understand why they have military spending 10 times more than ours.
    1. Adimius38 12 January 2020 15: 26 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Well, with nuts it’s clear)) but to think if they make nuts at a price like ours, then the costs will be the same, it’s fundamentally wrong too))) The fact is that they are capable of mass production of military equipment and any other weapons and they produce in bulk, which we can’t do, and even with our cheap M10 nut, we don’t have money. I will say more, make them the price of the M10 nut as ours and they will throw the whole world with their tanks, airplanes and ships.
  15. 75 Sergey 12 January 2020 12: 31 New
    • 2
    • 5
    -3
    It is necessary to find pluses in the minuses!
    Our motto is ssy, all God's dew!
    Two negatives make an affirmative!
    He knows!
    Do not believe your eyes, but believe his conscience!
    Taburetkin’s case continues!
  16. Adam Khomich 12 January 2020 12: 44 New
    • 4
    • 6
    -2
    If the United States takes away their propaganda machine (newspapers, radio, TV, Hollywood), then they will stretch out a year of strength! The hegemon is blown away. The Persians bombed the other day. And last year, Eun sent to a known address. Pichalka.
    1. Altona 12 January 2020 12: 58 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Quote: Adam Khomich
      The hegemon is blown away. The Persians bombed the other day. And last year, Eun sent to a known address.

      --------------------------------------------
      Well, we only did not buy tomatoes for six months. Pichalka. Although the murder of the pilot and ambassador could well be answered, and not to the hegemon, but only to Turkey.
      1. Adam Khomich 12 January 2020 14: 59 New
        • 0
        • 3
        -3
        If we take into account the internal situation in Ankara on the eve of this tragedy (an attempt to overthrow Erdogan and participate in our salvation of ours), a provocation is quite visible! The victim is not in vain! Do you propose starting a war with Turkey?
        1. Altona 12 January 2020 17: 12 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: Adam Khomich
          If we take into account the internal situation in Ankara on the eve of this tragedy (an attempt to overthrow Erdogan and participate in our salvation of ours)

          --------------------------------
          It was just General Suleymani and his special forces who took part in our salvation, and not Erdogan that you remembered. And Turkey would have held out against us for a long time when its vaunted Leopards-2-4 burned like matches. There would still be no large-scale war, so your purely propaganda mantra does not work. You propose to kill our servicemen and authorized persons with impunity, and you consider such victims to be completely justified. “If only there was no war” and let them do what they want, even they will climb into their pockets. And the “victim is not in vain”, of course, the valve of the Turkish stream was turned. For the sake of gas, you can at least put someone on the altar.
          PS They were afraid of the notorious 5 paragraph of the NATO Charter, but it has not been working for a long time. Nobody wants to subscribe to World War III in a hot version. The assassination of General Suleimani first showed how the US allies reacted. With deaf discontent.
  17. Adam Khomich 12 January 2020 13: 12 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    While Sergei Kuzhugetovich Shoigu tears his hair in opposition to the aggressive plans of the United States and NATO, trying to give a decent answer to the Americans for their wayward behavior, we will look at the beautiful half of his ministry.
    "Generals", "Marshals" and all for a sight for sore eyes, you will simply envy. A whole harem of beautiful women with high titles, hung with state awards, like a Christmas tree with garlands. Where did they come from, how did they deserve such an honor and how much does the MO budget cost?
  18. Horon 12 January 2020 13: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The difference in budgets can also be big, because someone has an offensive development strategy, and someone has a defensive one. The Americans are building their strategy to expand their influence, Russia is still on the defensive.
    1. Adimius38 12 January 2020 16: 58 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      nonsense is everything, defensive offensive dust in the eyes. The army either exists or does not exist. Either there is something to fight or nothing. In this case, the United States has the most powerful army in the world, of course we will not compare nuclear weapons here. But what other country can boast of such an attack surface fleet with the exact number of strike ships of frigates, destroyers, cruisers, I am silent about aircraft carriers, auxiliary fleet, landing ships ... no. The same China, although it is trying to catch up with the United States in ships, but they do not care as much as cancer to Paris before the technologies that the states have accumulated over many decades in the field of shipbuilding. If we even talk about a defensive strategy, we don’t even have enough money for it, for example, we cannot build a powerful defense in the Chinese direction.
      1. Altona 12 January 2020 17: 15 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        Quote: Adimius38
        In this case, the United States has the most powerful army in the world.

        -----------------------------
        Even the United States can’t put up a powerful ground group against Iran, although it nominally has 3 million bayonets. It’s just that the logistics training will be so expensive and even in open areas that Iran will calmly destroy it before the X hour, while it is deploying.
        1. Adimius38 12 January 2020 17: 55 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Well, why is the US all the more land war)) or you think fools are in the US) and as for Iran, they will triumph over it without even stepping on their land, having complete superiority in technology and weapons
          1. Altona 12 January 2020 17: 57 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            Quote: Adimius38
            Well, why the United States this war is all the more land)) or you think fools are sitting in the United States)

            -------------------------
            I already wrote about this. Look at my comments, it says "enough media pressure."
        2. voyaka uh 12 January 2020 22: 30 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          "although nominally it has 3 million bayonets" ///
          ---
          The entire US army - all-all-all - one million people.
      2. Horon 13 January 2020 09: 15 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Contradict yourself:
        nonsense is everything, defensive offensive dust in the eyes

        then:
        what other country can boast such an attack surface fleet with the exact number of strike ships of frigates, destroyers, cruisers, I am silent about aircraft carriers, auxiliary fleet, landing ships

        This is the offensive development strategy of the army, here we must also add the presence of military bases around the world. All this costs money, and not small.
        A defensive strategy is the development of the army without claiming to expand the zone of influence. Spending in this case is much lower, the efficiency of spending is higher.
  19. gig090 12 January 2020 19: 19 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    In particular, he noted that Russia, having a defense budget of 12-14 times lower than that of the United States and NATO, and being in sixth place in the world in its absolute volume, has a high defense capability. This allows us to maintain parity, guaranteeing the country's security.

    Let's look objectively, the parity with us now is not from the fact that we have geniuses in leadership. And from the fact that most of the weapons, and this is 60-70 percent, consists of weapons that were built in Soviet Russia (strategic nuclear forces, fleet, aviation, tanks, etc.). Take it away and all our weapons in the army will be reduced by 70%. So thanks to the USSR, their weapons still protect our peace and quiet. And if weapons were being built in the USSR at the same pace as now, we would have been destroyed long ago.
    1. Adimius38 12 January 2020 23: 28 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      everything is true, I wrote about the same thing and they like to make comparisons in the number of tanks and cannons, but it’s only silent that these tanks and cannons were made in the bulk of the USSR and you’re right if we remove all this from our army, then for a big war we we will remain naked ... And really thank the USSR to those people for that Soviet military-industrial complex thanks to which we still have an army. That's how the military-industrial complex worked under the Soviets of Mig-23 years of production 1969 - 1985-the number of machines 3 (fighter modifications) 630 MiG-769UB, that is, 23 machines in 4399 years or 16 aircraft of this model only per year is impressive in my opinion.