Military Review

What can it be? Conventional war scenarios

37

Article “What can she be? Nuclear War Scenarios " we examined the likely scenarios of nuclear conflicts involving the Russian Federation. However, the likelihood of Russia's involvement in military conflicts using only conventional weapons... Moreover, it can be argued that after the end of the Second World War and the appearance of nuclear weapons (NW), the USSR and then the Russian Federation were practically continuously engaged in hostilities at one point or another on Earth. The war in Korea, the war in Vietnam, numerous conflicts on the African continent, the war in Afghanistan, and finally the fighting in Syria.


Conventional wars


Whatever you call the military participation of the Russian Federation (peacekeeping mission, police operation, humanitarian aid, the introduction of a limited contingent), in fact, this means only one thing: a war using conventional weapons. The presence of nuclear weapons does not exclude conventional wars. And not only offensive, but also defensive. An example is the border conflict on Damansky Island, when China, not too strong in military terms (at that time), decided to attack the Soviet Union, a superpower that was practically at the peak of its power. And although the conflict did not receive a military continuation after the tough response from the USSR, an attempt was made, and China eventually got what it wanted.


Damansky Island (now Zhenbao Island) on the map and in the photo, as well as Grad multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), ready to strike at the Chinese troops

Compared to a nuclear war, a conventional conflict has a much lower "entry threshold". Often times, states do not hesitate to use military force even against an admittedly stronger enemy. Argentina did not hesitate to make an attempt to take the Falkland Islands from Great Britain, Georgia did not hesitate to shoot Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, “friendly” Turkey shot down a Russian plane after allegedly violating its border.

In fact, the Soviet Union and its successor, the Russian Federation, can hardly be considered innocent sheep. We have actively intervened in military conflicts in other countries, defending our interests, and we must do this in the future if we do not want the country's interests to be limited only by our own territory, which will gradually decrease as it is torn off piece by piece.

If for nuclear conflicts only scenarios of only a defensive war (including a preventive scenario) will most likely be realized, then in the case of a conventional war, the same scenario can be considered both from the point of view of defense and attack, when there is no justification for the use of military force. a threat to national security, and the political or economic interests of the Russian Federation.

Let us consider in what types of military conflicts using only conventional weapons the Russian Federation can be involved.

Possible scenarios for conventional war


Let's make a reservation right away that we are not considering a "hybrid war", when Russia is accused of forcibly annexing Crimea, at least for the reason that there were no de facto hostilities. It is more appropriate to call such actions a special operation. We also do not consider various cyber attacks, hostile financial and sanctions actions. We take only what is a classic war with the use of weapons and weapons.

1. An airborne operation, in which the invasion of ground forces is carried out with the support of aviation with the simultaneous delivery of strikes by aviation and high-precision weapons (WTO) to the entire depth of the territory.


The air-ground operation is inherently similar to the hostilities of the Second World War, adjusted for modern weapons

Sometimes a distinction is made between ground-air and air-ground operations, indicating the priority of one or another type of troops. As an example, we can cite, respectively, the Second World War, in which aviation played a supporting role in relation to ground forces, and the war in Iraq, in which aviation played the main role, and the importance of ground forces was minimal. According to the author, the so-called air-ground operation is possible only with a significant qualitative and quantitative superiority of one enemy over the other, and in fact it is more of an air-space operation with insignificant participation of ground forces. If the capabilities of the opponents are comparable (even if one of the opponents has some advantage), then with the existing number of combat aircraft, the opposing sides will quickly knock out a significant part of the combat aircraft from each other, after which the main burdens of the war will fall on the ground forces.

2. Aerospace / air-sea operation - delivering strikes with long-range precision weapons from land, sea and air platforms.


Existing and promising means of aerospace attack

3. War of low intensity: counter-terrorist, counter-guerrilla fighting.


A war that began as a counter-terrorist operation can become a serious threat to the security and territorial integrity of a state

4. War "by someone else's hands", when the armed forces of the opposing sides are not directly involved in the conflict, limited to the supply of weapons and information support.

As in the case of nuclear war, scenarios can flow from one to the other. For example, aggression, which begins as a destabilization of the situation in one of the regions of the Russian Federation, can later be used to justify the delivery of WTO strikes. And if successful, it will be developed as a full-fledged ground-air operation. Likewise, a war "by someone else's hands" can develop into a full-fledged clash.

Different scenarios of conventional conflicts require different types of weapons. For example, weapons designed to counter an aerospace attack or the implementation of such an attack are practically unsuitable for waging low-intensity wars and are of limited use for a "classic" ground-air operation.

As an example, we can cite strategic bombers, capable of carrying a significant ammunition stock of high-precision weapons capable of effectively destroying the enemy's infrastructure, but practically useless against irregular formations and of limited use in ground-air operations. Conversely, attack helicopters are extremely effective against terrorist groups and in conducting ground-air operations, but are unsuitable for delivering deep attacks on enemy infrastructure.


Strategic bomber and attack helicopter - weapons of different types of military conflicts

How can events develop?


Scenario # 1 (ground-air operation).

As we said in the previous material, a situation in which NATO troops will begin a full-scale ground-air operation against Russia is very unlikely. This is facilitated by both the disunity of the bloc countries and their ever greater orientation towards conducting aerospace operations.

The only country whose ground troops and armed forces are generally capable of trying Russia “to the teeth” on its territory is China. Some may argue that it is wrong to view the PRC as a potential adversary, since we must rally in the face of the US threat. But история teaches that even the strongest alliances fell apart, and yesterday's friends became enemies.

Based on this, the only criterion for assessing the threat can only be the real capabilities of the armed forces (AF) and the military-industrial complex (MIC) of the state in question. By analogy with the well-established term realpolitik, the assessment of potential adversaries only in terms of the capabilities of their armed forces and military-industrial complex can be characterized as real analytics.

Let's return to the PRC. The story that took place on Damansky Island shows that China may well attack Russia if it thinks it can get what it wants. The technical equipment of the PRC Armed Forces is constantly improving, its human resources are practically unlimited. In the event of an attack by the RF Armed Forces, it will be necessary to transfer a huge number of units and military equipment in order to try to equalize forces with the PRC.

What can it be? Conventional war scenarios

China's alleged territorial claims

The only way to stop the PRC's ground invasion is to use tactical nuclear weapons (TNW), but we did not use them earlier on Damansky Island. China can choose the tactics of "small steps": in a short period of time to seize a limited area of ​​the territory, then stop moving forward, gain a foothold and come up with a proposal to move to negotiations on changing the border. There will be historical evidence, the pill will be sweetened with some investment, and so on and so forth.

If China does cross a certain threshold, and we use TNW, then we return to the scenario of a limited nuclear war, which may well develop into a global one.

Of the other contenders for organizing a ground-air invasion of Russia, one can consider Japan with their claim to the islands of the Kuril ridge, but, despite the strengthening of the Japanese self-defense forces, they may be enough to capture, but not enough to hold the captured islands. In addition, the specificity of Japan implies minimal ground invasion. Rather, the conflict will take place within the framework of an aerospace / air-maritime operation, which we will discuss in the corresponding section.


Disputed islands of the Kuril ridge

The situation is similar with Turkey. Theoretically, the scenario of a Turkish landing on the Crimean coast can be considered, but in fact, Turkey has practically no chances of successfully carrying out such an operation, and Russia has much higher chances of colliding with Turkey on the territory of other countries.

A potential chance for a ground-air conflict between the Russian Federation and Turkey may arise due to the heightened imperial ambitions of the latter. In particular, quite recently Turkey actively pushed Azerbaijan to war with Armenia, promising military assistance not only with weapons, but also sending troops.

Keeping in mind the atrocities committed by Turkey against the Armenians, one can only guess what kind of humanitarian catastrophe this would lead to. In this case, Russia can decide to use military force and conduct a full-scale ground-air operation. Given the presence of a powerful Armenian diaspora, the United States can turn a blind eye to this, especially since the war between Russia and Turkey will only benefit them. And Georgia is unlikely to be happy about a full-scale military conflict next to its territory, with the prospect of strengthening Islamic Azerbaijan and the permanent presence of the Turkish armed forces, which means that it may well allow Russian troops to transit through its territory, despite our contradictions.


The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan could potentially escalate into a full-scale war between Russia and Turkey

Also, an offensive air operation of the Russian Federation can take place in the format of preventive defense, for example, in the case of the deployment of the United States on the territory of the former Soviet republics of nuclear weapons, which can be used to inflict sudden disarming strike... In particular, Poland has repeatedly stated its desire to deploy nuclear weapons on its territory. It is not excluded that the Baltic countries may follow its example.

The countries of "old" Europe are not very eager to become target number 1 for the Russian Strategic Missile Forces, there are even calls to remove nuclear weapons from Germany, and the radicalization of Turkey and the unpredictability of its policy may force the United States to remove nuclear weapons from its territory. In this case, the deployment of nuclear weapons on the territory of Poland and the Baltic countries can become a profitable solution for the United States and extremely unpleasant for the Russian Federation, which will require us to either a full-fledged ground invasion of these countries, or a massive strike with precision weapons, and even the use of nuclear weapons.

Scenario # 2 (aerospace / aeronautical operation).

As we said in the previous article, only the United States has the ability to conduct a full-scale aerospace / air-sea operation. No other country in the world or a group of countries has a comparable number of precision weapons and their carriers, such effective intelligence and communications systems. Based on this, in the event of a massive use of precision weapons by the United States, Russia is likely to respond with tactical nuclear strikes according to scenario # 2, discussed in the previous article.

It is necessary to understand that in the foreseeable future Russia is incapable of causing unacceptable damage with precision weapons to countries like the United States or China.

Potentially, Russia is quite capable of conducting an aerospace / air-naval operation against Japan in the event of its attack on the Kuril Islands. Japan has a complex infrastructure in a confined space. The destruction of key points of its infrastructure can lead to stagnation of the country's economy, stoppage of industry, termination of the functioning of life support systems, which together will lead to the conclusion of a peace treaty between Russia and Japan and its abandonment of claims to the islands of the Kuril ridge.


High population density and urbanization makes Japan's infrastructure vulnerable to the massive use of precision weapons

Another point of contact between Russia and Turkey may arise in more remote regions, for example, in Syria or Libya. Recently, Turkey is more and more actively pursuing an aggressive foreign policy, increasing the number of military bases abroad and does not hesitate to use military force. Often, its interests overlap with those of Russia, as is the case in Syria. Despite mutual assurances of friendship and cooperation, the Turks did not hesitate to shoot down a Russian plane, and the reaction of the Russian authorities to this incident, to put it mildly, does not inspire optimism.


Turkish military presence in the world

Nevertheless, if the Turkish side does cross the borders, for example, by attacking a Russian military base in Syria, then the optimal response would be to conduct an aerospace / air-maritime operation, the purpose of which would be destruction of the Turkish leadership, causing maximum damage to infrastructure, industry and the military.

How realistic is the RF Armed Forces to inflict unacceptable damage to countries like Japan or Turkey using only high-precision non-nuclear weapons? At the moment, the nomenclature and number of WTOs available to the RF Armed Forces may not be enough to carry out such operations, but the opportunity to change this exists by creating strategic conventional forces, which we considered in a series of articles: Strategic conventional weapon. Damage, Strategic conventional forces: carriers and weapons, Reusable rockets: an economical solution for a quick global strike, Planning hypersonic warheads: projects and prospects.

Speaking about conducting an aerospace / air-sea operation, it is necessary to take into account two criteria: the size of the adversary country - in fact, its margin of safety, and the level of technological development of the adversary - the ability to inflict critical damage on it with the available amount of WTO. As we said above, the United States and China are too large in size, huge infrastructure and industry, as well as significant opportunities for its restoration in the event of the destruction of the WTO.

Russia, according to the author, is somewhere on the border of stability in relation to the massive use of the WTO. On the one hand, the country's size and powerful industry, on the other hand, modern infrastructure vulnerable to attacks and a cold climate. During World War II, most of the residential buildings were equipped with stove heating. Nowadays, the percentage of houses with autonomous heating is minimal, and in the event of WTO attacks on infrastructure, "General Frost" may already be on the side of the United States, since the population of the Russian Federation will simply freeze out without heating.


At least three months a year in the European part of the territory of the Russian Federation there is a subzero temperature, and in most other regions the situation is even more complicated

Scenario # 3 (low intensity war).

This type of military conflict inflicted the greatest losses on the USSR and Russia after World War II. Of course, first of all, we are talking about military operations in Afghanistan and Chechnya. And if the losses during the war in Chechnya can be justified by the weakness and indecision of the state power of the Russian Federation at that time, the war in Afghanistan was fought with the full might of the armed forces of the USSR, and nevertheless, the losses in manpower, equipment and reputation of the Soviet troops were significant.

Can conflicts similar to the war in Chechnya arise now on the territory of the Russian Federation? It is quite possible that in the event of a weakening of state power, our "partners" will contribute to the formation of separatist and terrorist organizations in different regions of the Russian Federation. Everything can start as "color revolutions" with the prospect of escalating into a civil war. Any civil war turns into a wound that does not heal for a long time on the body of a country, so the danger of such conflicts cannot be underestimated. In addition, they may well be used as a justification for direct military intervention - humanitarian intervention.

On the other hand, Russia itself can find "adventures" for itself. Of course, we are talking about the military conflict in Syria. Having started as a rather victorious campaign, the basis of which was the air support of the Syrian army, by now the war in Syria is increasingly beginning to resemble that in Afghanistan, although the scale of the losses is still incomparable.


Russian military bases in Syria

The United States fell into the same trap when it launched its crusade against terrorism after the tragedy of September 11, 2001 and sent troops into Afghanistan. Initially, the United States fought only through air strikes and the use of special forces, but then, as the deployment of ground units, the US Armed Forces began to suffer losses on an ever larger scale.


The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 marked the beginning of the introduction of the US Armed Forces into Afghanistan

All this negative experience of the USA and the USSR / RF suggests that it is far from the best solution to wage conflicts on foreign territory, especially with the use of ground forces.

Scenario # 4. (war "by someone else's hands").

War by proxy. In these types of conflict, our "partners", especially the UK, have become particularly adept. Set Turkey or Germany against Russia / USSR, organize mutual extermination of African states, support both sides of the conflict, receiving economic benefits and waiting until both opponents are weakened.

During the Cold War, the USSR also fought by proxy. The Vietnam War is a successful example. The armed forces of a small country were able to resist the superpower thanks to the technical and organizational assistance of the USSR. Of course, not only advisers and instructors took part in the Vietnam War, but also fighter pilots, calculations of anti-aircraft missile systems, but de jure there were no Soviet fighters and specialists in Vietnam.

The participation of the USSR in the conflicts in the Middle East was less successful: the numerous military conflicts between Israel and the Arab states most often led to the defeat of the latter. It is unlikely that Soviet weapons and military advisers have become worse, rather, the allies of the USSR were not very good in military affairs.

An example of waging war with someone else's hands is Georgia's attack on Russian peacekeepers. It is unlikely that Georgia would have decided on such an action without the support of the United States, and they trained the Georgian army quite intensively. Show Russia weakness or delay in the 08.08.08 war, and the resulting slap in the face could become a catalyst for similar processes in other countries of the former Soviet Union.


If Georgia had time to block the Roki tunnel in the 08.08.08 war, and the conduct of the peace enforcement operation by the Russian troops could be significantly complicated

Perhaps the policy of waging war "by someone else's hands" would have shown itself in the best possible way in Syria, and even if it failed, it would not have had such informational and political consequences that could now arise in the event of the withdrawal of the Russian armed forces from there.

In the short term, thanks to the emergence of new weapons, the format of war "by someone else's hands" can become much more effective, but what kind of weapon it can be and what the tactics of its use will be will be discussed in another article.
Author:
Photos used:
apparat.cc, pantv.livejournal.com, mil.ru, goodfon.ru, complacential63.rssing.com, RIA Novosti, rusmonitor.com, Federal News Agency, weatheronline.co.uk
Articles from this series:
Power conversion
Strategic conventional weapon. Damage
Nuclear submarines - carriers of cruise missiles: reality and prospects
Strategic conventional forces: carriers and weapons
Reusable rockets: an economical solution for a quick global strike
Planning hypersonic warheads: projects and prospects
VIP terror as a way to stop the war. Weapons for the destruction of leaders of hostile states
What can it be? Nuclear war scenarios
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Bashkirkhan
    Bashkirkhan 12 August 2020 06: 42 New
    10
    "Keeping in mind the atrocities committed by Turkey against the Armenians, one can only guess what kind of humanitarian catastrophe this would lead. In this case, Russia may decide to use military force and conduct a full-scale ground-air operation. Given the presence of a powerful Armenian diaspora, the United States may close eyes on this, especially since the war between Russia and Turkey will only benefit them. And Georgia is unlikely to be happy "

    Why should Russia somehow react if the Armenians themselves fail? They, in my opinion, are easier to merge. They are beggars like church mice and there is nothing to take from them. They also turned out to be no ally and do not render us any serious assistance. Some expenses on them, and no profit. Withdraw troops and forget about them, let them scoop out from where they drove themselves with their multi-vector.
    1. Civil
      Civil 12 August 2020 12: 28 New
      +2
      In the meantime ... they are choking us with sanctions, that is, remembering the expression "War is a concentrated expression of the economy," the country's leadership is also waging a war against us, this war, judging by the Federal State Statistics Service, the ruble exchange rate and popular discontent, is slowly losing.
      What are the outputs:
      1. Attacking the United States without destroying the globe will not work.
      2. China refused to provide economic assistance, even got naughty with banks and threw up the problem with the coronavirus.
      3. The EU is also an ideological ally of NATO.
      4. Negotiations are not acceptable, the Russians are not giving up.
      5. Another implementation of the ideas of the Juche and Ceausescu about national self-sufficiency and isolation.
      6. So slow and fight. Gradually losing ground. An illustrative example of Roskosmos ... slowly faded away as the resource of the USSR depleted.
      1. Operator
        Operator 12 August 2020 12: 51 New
        +1
        Strangle the coronavirus - isn't it? bully
    2. IS-80_RVGK2
      IS-80_RVGK2 14 August 2020 08: 19 New
      0
      On the other hand, we don't fucking need to increase Turkey's influence in the Caucasus.
  2. Basil50
    Basil50 12 August 2020 06: 48 New
    15
    Something reminded of how they talked in the past about duels and methods of murder in these very duels. They paid particular attention to weapons that were * decent * to kill in a duel.
    However, museums are full of dueling swords now with a blade lengthening due to the hilt, now with a spring crossbow, now with a hidden firearm, and even Shakespeare mentions the poisoning of the blade. And all this under reasoning about the honor of the nobility, then about * the innate nobility * of Europe. And there are so many tricks with dueling pistols.
    ALEXANDER SERGEEVICH PUSHKIN was killed simply wearing a cuirass and then announced that - * the bullet was rejected by the button *. And nothing, the noble seconds pretended to believe in the impenetrability of the button.
    Here on VO they described how they killed MIKHAIL YURIEVICH LERMONTOV with a shot from the side, and again the noble honor allowed * not to notice * this. Even the honor of the nobility did not suffer.
    This is because in Europe they wanted to spit on all sorts of conventions. If they are confident of impunity, they will destroy US by all available means. It is not for nothing that, in addition to nuclear weapons, they are developing combat chemistry and bacteriological weapons.
    1. pmkemcity
      pmkemcity 12 August 2020 07: 03 New
      +1
      The author at the beginning of the article would not be a bad idea to define the word "conventional". Why are these tricky terms? We are not in Soloviev's studio. War is war! It cannot be "conventional".
      Conventional war (from the English conventional - ordinary, traditional; generally accepted; habitual) - an armed conflict between two or more states, waged in accordance with the norms of international law. Where have you seen this?
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 12 August 2020 07: 31 New
        +3
        You were in a hurry and did not read to the end. Conventional war is a war without the use of weapons of mass destruction. The definition is well known.
        1. pmkemcity
          pmkemcity 12 August 2020 08: 55 New
          +7
          Quote: Undecim
          You were in a hurry and did not read to the end. Conventional war is a war without the use of weapons of mass destruction. The definition is well known.

          I don't accept criticism. There is no war by rules. And I am not against "war without the use of weapons of mass destruction", I am against borrowing in Russian without understanding the etymology.
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 12 August 2020 12: 08 New
            0
            You just break away from Wikipedia, in which for some reason they dragged "according to the rules", than plunged you into a state of cognitive dissonance.
            “By the rules” refers to legal aspects and ethics.
            Conventional war is a simple war without the use of weapons of mass destruction. And according to the rules it will be conducted or without rules - a separate topic. Don't read Wikipedia.
  3. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 12 August 2020 08: 17 New
    +3
    "Our kind Mars with a commendable zeal
    prepares a new slaughterhouse plan.
    That surely will be a revelation
    for everyone who is not a layman in this.
    I only cherish one dream
    so she can come quickly!
    Well, in the meantime, I am sweeter than everyone
    that unforgettable war! "

    (Georges Brassans, "La guerre de 1914-1918", translated by Mark Freudkin)
  4. Octopus
    Octopus 12 August 2020 08: 18 New
    +2
    I didn't get it. What about INTO text?

    I see only retelling of famous fairy tales. Where are the scenarios?
  5. Per se.
    Per se. 12 August 2020 08: 38 New
    +6
    War by proxy. In these types of conflict, our "partners", especially the UK, have become particularly adept.
    When discussing what a war can be, first of all it is necessary to understand who needs it, who benefits from it.
    Wars for the sake of plunder and taxation have remained in the past. The wars for the colonies, in the division of the world, remained in the past. In the past, the First World War, the main war for the world throne of capitalism. In the past, the Second World War, where the Anglo-Saxons, who had become entrenched in leadership, had to fight a new pole of power, not under their control - socialism, the USSR. Here, here they made anti-USSR out of defeated Germany, anti-communism out of Nazism, and Hitler, a big fan of England, who managed to crush almost the whole world, became in fact the one who led and fulfilled the "order" for the destruction and weakening of the first socialist country.

    With all this, speaking of Britain or the United States, one must understand that behind their backs were those who actually became the world master of capitalism, and these are the emerging transnational monopolies and the richest families on the planet. It is people like the Rothschilds, Morganans, Rockefellers and the like who made and are making their bloody super profits in all wars, they order the "tune", make bets, and skim the bloody cream.
    They are the main criminals, and they had to sit on the same bench with the Nazis before the tribunal in Nuremberg in 1945.
    From the Germans, under Hitler, the Anglo-Saxons made cannon fodder, under the sauce of nationalism, and profited from the Second World War, simultaneously destroying the last major empire on the planet - Japan. Now, both Germany and Japan are actually occupied territories by the Anglo-Saxons. Capitalism has won, and the same China, with its "national communists", is also dependent on the owner, who invests it for a reason, allows it to be a factory of world counterfeit goods, a center of world technology piracy. And huge money is being made on this.

    Now Russia, with its renegades, former "members" who picked up capitalism from the dustbin of history. Who will attack them? They are already henchmen of world capitalism, and they puff up their cheeks for an internal rating, no more. Maybe someone fatter a piece from the owner still squeeze hope. They have money in other people's banks and foreign currency, they have children and mistresses in the West, they have everything there, and not with Russia, from which they are pumping raw materials and the Soviet reserve of safety. The West needs them, already their clumsy actions and chewing snot have allowed Russia to mold a new image of the enemy, to impose sanctions in order to make super profits again.

    Russia is still dangerous to the West in that the Soviet spirit, the Soviet groundwork, the Soviet nuclear shield and sword remain, and this will be destroyed and is being destroyed. "Optimization" of health care, science, education, there is no need for external enemies, the old people who have received an excellent Soviet education will leave, the production at the worked-out facilities will collapse ... Have our bourgeoisie built many new factories and plants in front of those that were closed, destroyed? These are not shopping centers and hubs for pumping raw materials, we no longer have our own machine-tool industry, even astronautics, space technologies, where the USSR was in the lead, is declining.

    The war, and it never ended, is the main supplier of super profits to the capitalists. Russia was killed and will continue to be killed until it ceases to be Russia, both external ghouls and internal bad boys, renegades. The same Covid 19, most likely a trial balloon, before the real genocide of the "extra" population, in particular in Russia.
    1. parusnik
      parusnik 12 August 2020 11: 00 New
      +4
      That's right. "If the enemy has built a fortress on the way, you need to bypass from the rear, take it without attack" (c) ... And then who will bomb his own? Renault-Nissan-Avtovaz, Rusal, etc.
      1. IS-80_RVGK2
        IS-80_RVGK2 14 August 2020 10: 25 New
        0
        I strongly disagree. Although this point is also taken into account, there is much more at stake. Therefore, the Rusal and Renault-Nissan factories will also be bombed calmly. Do not flatter yourself. On the robbery of the destroyed Russian Federation, you can cash in much more. But this is not only about the robbery of the Russian Federation, but in fact the whole rest of the world.
  6. Stirbjorn
    Stirbjorn 12 August 2020 08: 42 New
    +2
    As for the Turks, the conflict between Turkey PNS, against Egypt, Greece and the LNA is more likely. The source of the conflict is the rights to the sea border and control of the future gas and oil pipelines from Libya to Turkey.

    1. Operator
      Operator 12 August 2020 11: 09 New
      0
      The boundaries of the maritime economic zones do not go along the shelf, but according to the Maritime Code - two hundred miles from the coast of the countries. If there is contact between the zones of two countries - then at an equal distance from their shores.
      1. Shopping
        12 August 2020 12: 32 New
        +1
        Quote: Operator
        The boundaries of the maritime economic zones do not go along the shelf, but according to the Maritime Code - two hundred miles from the coast of the countries. If there is contact between the zones of two countries - then at an equal distance from their shores.


        On December 20, 2001, Russia submitted an official submission to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Article 76, paragraph 8). The document proposes to create new outer boundaries of the Russian continental shelf beyond the previous 200-mile zone (370 km), but within the Arctic sector of Russia. Territorial claims were made for most of the Arctic in the Russian sector up to the North Pole. One of the arguments was the assertion that the eastern part of the Lomonosov Ridge, an underwater ridge stretching across the Polar Basin, and the Mendeleev Ridge are an extension of the Eurasian continent.

        In 2014, the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, following the results of consideration of the RF application, included an area of ​​52 thousand km2 in the Russian continental shelf in the center of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, located outside the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. Russia's application was filed in 2001 as part of a similar application for the Arctic shelf, but in 2004 it was decided to split them.

        In August 2015, Russia sent a repeated application to the UN Commission to expand the boundaries of the continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean by 1,2 million square kilometers to join the Lomonosov Ridge and other sections of the seabed, including the Mendeleev Rise, the Podvodnikov Basin, and the southern tip of the Gakkel Ridge and the North Pole zone.
        1. Operator
          Operator 12 August 2020 12: 49 New
          -3
          In the waters of the World Ocean with permanent ice cover, the Maritime Code provides for exceptions to the general rule.
  7. A. Privalov
    A. Privalov 12 August 2020 08: 57 New
    -2
    The participation of the USSR in the conflicts in the Middle East was less successful: the numerous military conflicts between Israel and the Arab states most often led to the defeat of the latter. It is unlikely that Soviet weapons and military advisers have become worse, rather, the allies of the USSR were not very good in military affairs.

    A familiar rotten stuff from the editorials of the Pravda newspaper of the 70s. They say Israel won all the time not because the Jews fought well, but only because the Arabs fought badly.
    1. Shopping
      12 August 2020 09: 20 New
      +7
      Quote: A. Privalov
      The participation of the USSR in the conflicts in the Middle East was less successful: the numerous military conflicts between Israel and the Arab states most often led to the defeat of the latter. It is unlikely that Soviet weapons and military advisers have become worse, rather, the allies of the USSR were not very good in military affairs.

      A familiar rotten stuff from the editorials of the Pravda newspaper of the 70s. They say Israel won all the time not because the Jews fought well, but only because the Arabs fought badly.


      Isn't that so? The Vietnamese resisted the superpower, albeit with our help and the help of the PRC, but the main burden fell on them. And Israel fought on its own, albeit with the help of the United States. And despite this, the Arabs always raked. And now they are raking. Attack Israel, Egypt or Saudi Arabia, with American weapons, European ones, or ours, they will still get it.

      I don’t remember, I read somewhere that during attacks by Israeli aircraft, the Arabs threw air defense systems and fled, allowing the Jews to destroy their positions with impunity.
    2. 5-9
      5-9 12 August 2020 16: 51 New
      -2
      How does one interfere with the other?
      The basic reason for the results of all wars is the colossal difference in the educational level of the broad popular masses of opponents. The rest of the consequence
    3. IS-80_RVGK2
      IS-80_RVGK2 14 August 2020 14: 08 New
      0
      You mean the Jews fought badly and the Arabs fought well? Or how?
  8. Glory1974
    Glory1974 12 August 2020 10: 30 New
    +6
    I never saw the script, not a single one. An article about what kind of war could be hypothetically.
    At the same time, there is not a single link to the documents of our potential opponents. But they are working on completely different options.
    For example, the US has an offensive air operation. And it is not at all necessary that it be conducted in conjunction with the ground, it may well be independent. This option was tested in Yugoslavia. Only after the end of the air offensive, when Milosevic accepted the ultimatum, did the ground operation begin. There were no battles on the ground. What prevents the same in Russia? Nothing! Therefore, such plans are being developed.
    there is a plan, enshrined in the directive of the chiefs of staff committee, called the "Strategy for the destruction of command posts." It describes how to act to deprive the enemy of control, both military and civil. The author of the article probably never heard of such plans. And it could turn out to be an interesting scenario if you try to put such a plan into action in the form of a war game.
    1. Shopping
      12 August 2020 11: 35 New
      +1
      Quote: glory1974
      I never saw the script, not a single one. An article about what kind of war could be hypothetically.
      At the same time, there is not a single link to the documents of our potential opponents. But they are working on completely different options.
      For example, the US has an offensive air operation. And it is not at all necessary that it be conducted in conjunction with the ground, it may well be independent. This option was tested in Yugoslavia. Only after the end of the air offensive, when Milosevic accepted the ultimatum, did the ground operation begin. There were no battles on the ground. What prevents the same in Russia? Nothing! Therefore, such plans are being developed.
      there is a plan, enshrined in the directive of the chiefs of staff committee, called the "Strategy for the destruction of command posts." It describes how to act to deprive the enemy of control, both military and civil. The author of the article probably never heard of such plans. And it could turn out to be an interesting scenario if you try to put such a plan into action in the form of a war game.


      This is to the question of Yugoslavia:

      In the author's opinion, the so-called air-ground operation is possible only with a significant qualitative and quantitative superiority of one enemy over the other, and in fact it is rather an air-space operation with insignificant participation of ground forces. If the capabilities of the opponents are comparable (even if one of the opponents has some advantage), then with the existing number of combat aircraft, the opposing sides will quickly knock out a significant part of the combat aircraft from each other, after which the main burdens of the war will fall on the ground forces.


      And this is in relation to the "Strategy for the destruction of control points":

      As we said in the previous article, only the United States has the ability to conduct a full-scale aerospace / air-sea operation. No other country in the world or a group of countries has a comparable number of precision weapons and their carriers, such effective intelligence and communications systems. Based on this, in the event of a massive use of precision weapons by the United States, Russia is likely to respond with tactical nuclear strikes according to scenario # 2, discussed in the previous article.
  9. Operator
    Operator 12 August 2020 11: 01 New
    -1
    The author contradicts himself - he either names the main criterion for waging a conventional war (preventive actions on our part), then begins to give sphero-conical versions of conventional defensive actions on our part.

    An example with Damansky not in an arc - in 1964, at the negotiations of the deputy foreign ministers of the two countries of the USSR, he agreed with the new principle of drawing the border with China along rivers, namely along the fairway (which contradicted the provision of the Beijing Treaty of 1860 on drawing the border along the Chinese coast) ... The Soviet attempt in 1969 by military methods to replay the agreement, as expected, led to the actual refusal of the USSR from the islands located on the Chinese side of the fairway. The Russian Federation, as the successor of the USSR, had to implement the current state of affairs also in the form of a formal demarcation of the border
  10. 7,62h54
    7,62h54 12 August 2020 14: 19 New
    0
    ... "Is there life on Mars, is there life on Mars, science is unknown ..."
    There is no need to invent scenarios if you do not have secret information on the size of the army, reserve and industry.
  11. Vitaly gusin
    Vitaly gusin 12 August 2020 14: 27 New
    -2
    The participation of the USSR in the conflicts in the Middle East was less successful: the numerous military conflicts between Israel and the Arab states most often led to the defeat of the latter. It is unlikely that Soviet weapons and military advisers have become worse, rather, the allies of the USSR were not very good in military affairs.
    Yes, officially in the USSR there was such a theory, but after the collapse of the USSR, truthful information appeared and you could rely on it and it would look true.
    1968 year
    In the "six day war", in addition to military advisers and specialists, directly in hostilities Our pilots, anti-aircraft gunners, representatives of other military branches and specialties took part. The forces were unequal. In six days, Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. The territory under his control has quadrupled, and there was a small coastal strip.
    Operation Rimon 20
    The result. In six minutes, the USSR lost 5 MiG-21 aircraft. Killed 3 (according to Soviet), 4 (according to Western) data, the pilot.
    Effects. On August 2, 70, the commander who flew to Cairo USSR Air Force Marshal Kutakhov orders the termination of flights of Soviet pilots in the Suez Canal zone
    1982 year
    More than 30 thousand Soviet servicemen passed through the Middle East alone. People served in extremely difficult conditions, according to eyewitnesses - sometimes just hellish. And they fought, dying in absolute obscurity. Since the late 90s, the very fact of our military participation in the Middle East and other wars has ceased to be a secret.
    ... It was decided: to send three Soviet long-range anti-aircraft missile regiments equipped with SAM-5 and SS-21 missiles, one technical regiment, and electronic warfare units to Syria to protect its space from possible Israeli bombing. The number of Soviet servicemen was planned in the range of 5-6 thousand people.
    The first troop transport arrived under cover of night at the port of Latakia on January 10, 1983. Dressed in civilian clothes, Soviet soldiers disembarked as tourists. The other five transports arrived in the following days. Already on January 23, the 231st long-range anti-aircraft missile regiment (ZRP) of air defense was concentrated in the Doumeira region, which is 40 km west of Damascus. By February 1, the 220th Anti-Aircraft Missile Regiment had deployed five kilometers east of Homs. A technical regiment arrived in one of the suburbs of Damascus. EW helicopter detachments deployed at the capital's military airfield, and ground EW units deployed on the Golan Plateau and in the Bekaa Valley.
    In September 1982, a meeting of the Central Committee of the CPSU was held in Moscow, dedicated to the analysis of the battles that took place in Lebanon. At this meeting, the commanders of the Soviet Army and the military-industrial complex were harshly criticized.
    "Until now, few in our country know that one of the main reasons for Perestroika was the defeat that Israeli aviation carried out on the Syrian air defense system in the Lebanese Bekaa valley on June 9-10, 1982. The system was, of course, one hundred percent Soviet, and the newest on that moment.
    The disaster could not be attributed to the ordinary incapacity of the Arabs: even the Israelis admitted that the Syrians fought well this time, in addition, Soviet instructors sat next to the Syrians in the cabins of the destroyed air defense systems. It's just that the enemy fought in a new way, and we - in the old way. "(Alexander Khramchikhin. Military construction in Russia." Znamya "2005, no. 12).
    1. 5-9
      5-9 12 August 2020 16: 49 New
      +1
      Oooh ... Noble Onoliteg Temple-Chi-Hin? With "our SAM-5 air defense systems" ... laugh out loud ...
      1. Vitaly gusin
        Vitaly gusin 12 August 2020 17: 40 New
        -3
        Quote: 5-9
        With "our SAM-5 air defense systems" ...rzhu in a voice ...

        1 When to start CLICK give oats loudly laughing
        2 At the end of 1982, the Soviet Union began to supply modern anti-aircraft missiles SAM-5 with a range of 300 km and a ceiling of almost 30 km. According to Jane's Weapons Review, this was the first time they were deployed outside the Soviet Union.
        Keep on laughing
        1. 5-9
          5-9 12 August 2020 19: 20 New
          -1
          Dadada ... And in his article Temple-Chi-Khin in some leaflet Banner used these basurman names .... Well, isn't he blessed?
          And for the sake of your own reassurance, push your lies in Hebrew ...
    2. Sanichsan
      Sanichsan 13 August 2020 20: 28 New
      -3
      Quote: Vitaly Gusin
      It was impossible to write off the catastrophe for the ordinary incapacity of the Arabs: even the Israelis recognized that the Syrians fought well this time, moreover, Soviet instructors were sitting next to the Syrians in the cabins of the destroyed SAMs.

      very interesting...
      what happened in 1983-1984? why the effectiveness of air defense suddenly increased so much that Israel sat down on airfields for almost a year, and the United States generally turned its rods off after losing 21 aircraft.
      it looks like someone is breaking laughing
      1. Vitaly gusin
        Vitaly gusin 13 August 2020 22: 24 New
        0
        Quote: SanichSan
        it looks like someone is breaking

        In normal Russian, the word breshet refers to a dog and a person is not telling the truth
        1 For you personally.
        "Until now, few people in our country know that one of the main reasons for Perestroika was the defeat that the Israeli aviation inflicted on the Syrian air defense system in the Lebanese valley. Bekaa June 9-10, 1982 The system was, of course, the Soviet one hundred percent, and the newest at that time.
        The disaster could not be attributed to the ordinary incapacity of the Arabs: even the Israelis admitted that the Syrians fought well this time, in addition, Soviet instructors sat next to the Syrians in the cabins of the destroyed air defense systems. It's just that the enemy fought in a new way, and we - in the old way. "(Alexander Khramchikhin. Military construction in Russia." Znamya "2005, no. 12).
        A 2 1983-1984 WERE LATER !!!!
        According to G. Yashkin, in six days of active hostilities, the missilemen shot down nine American aircraft, including five A-6 Intruder, three F-14 Tomcat, one F-4 Phantom II, in addition, four Israeli and two French Super Étendard carrier-based fighters. In air battles on the MiG-23MLD, Syrian pilots trained by the Soviet military, allegedly shot down four Israeli aircraft - three F-15 Eagle and one F-14 Tomcat, (note that the F-14 aircraft were never in service in Israel).
        On the eve of Victory Day, it is customary to honor veterans, and not only those who participated in the battles of World War II. Parlamentskaya Gazeta is closely following the fate of the Soviet military, who in 1983-1984 helped protect the skies of Syria from the aircraft of the United States, Israel and their allies. The operation was secret, but even now, 32 years later, those who performed their international duty still do not have the status of "war veterans"
        https://www.pnp.ru/social/2016/05/07/veterany-siriyskoy-operacii-v-1983-84-godakh-obratilis-kprezidentu-rossii.html
        3 Well, whatever you ask the question, what was ......... in?
        Over the past two years, the Israeli Air Force destroyed a third of Syria's advanced air defense systems.
        According to the Israeli military, in recent three years the air force attacked 955 targets in Syria. During this period, Israeli aircraft were released 844 missiles. Only one of them hit the plane.
        1. Sanichsan
          Sanichsan 13 August 2020 22: 46 New
          -1
          Quote: Vitaly Gusin
          1 For you personally.
          "Until now, few in our country know that one of the main reasons for Perestroika was the defeat that Israeli aviation carried out on the Syrian air defense system in the Lebanese Bekaa valley on June 9-10, 1982. The system was, of course, one hundred percent Soviet, and the newest on that moment.

          ha ha ha laughing found the source! Radio Freedom Shit Eaters bully
          5 points! set off dude! good in principle, we can not continue, but we will continue ...
          Quote: Vitaly Gusin
          And 1983-1984 WERE LATER !!!!

          really later ... when the air defense was Soviet and with Soviet calculations. and the result is radically different. yes

          Quote: Vitaly Gusin
          Over the past three years, the air force has attacked 955 targets in Syria, according to the Israeli military. During this period, 844 missiles were fired at Israeli aircraft. Only one of them got on the plane.

          dooo .... laughing exactly so. well, the Jews won't lie request yonder and BBC reprinted it too. definitely not lying! laughing
  12. 5-9
    5-9 12 August 2020 16: 47 New
    -3
    What nonsense about China again? They have 80% of their military potential against Taiwan deployed. Our border is the rear with the corresponding quantity and quality of troops. And geography is stupid to step on us, you can only step through the Dzungarian Gate ... To run into the hills with forests ... and surrender.
    About Japan it is at the level of Turkey in the Crimea ...
  13. iouris
    iouris 12 August 2020 21: 16 New
    0
    Everything was fine: there was a great hybrid war, and here you go.
  14. AML
    AML 13 August 2020 16: 26 New
    0
    Especially my IMHO, that in '24 a big and global ass will begin and everyone will have no time for a global war.
  15. rusboris
    rusboris 22 September 2020 20: 01 New
    0
    For Russia from the beginning of time it has always been more profitable to prepare: to wage wars of low intensity. It is pleasant to realize that now this is becoming a priority in military development. However, there is a clear lag in the normative, theoretical, legislative and cognitive (public opinion) base. Becomes a brake on the country's gaining from the results of a low-intensity war. In the context of the rapid transformation of the world order into world disorder, we are pleased with the achievement of parity between the concepts, preparation and conduct of an interstate war and a war of low intensity. Since ancient times, the logic of the outbreak of war due to material interest acts as a propaganda fig leaf. The need for war is inherent in human nature, therefore the slogan "Peace - Peace" is for simpletons. This means that Russia will always fight, and it depends only on us that the war is fought with the little blood of our soldiers and on foreign territory. This is what the USA does. This country has fought over a hundred wars since 1945, and the people are generally happy with the results. This is a serious argument for the Russian military-industrial complex in discussions with pacifists and liberals. It is often necessary to fight, then the results will be positive for the state and its citizens.