Naval war, defeat, revolution and death
A small defeat can be disastrous.
Often we have to face the point of view that in fact it does not matter whether the fleet is combat-ready or not, since the only thing that is important and necessary for the country is that the population fervently believe in our invincibility and could be “proud of the country”, and then - even though the grass does not grow, and who does not agree is not a patriot.
Alas, a similar point of view clearly takes place in the highest echelons of power. Moreover, there is some evidence that this is exactly the case with a number of high-ranking defense industry leaders.
Among the people, this approach is accompanied by such a phenomenon as the mass, and, apparently, characteristic of a significant part of the population, the ability to pass off the wishful thinking. So, a typical jingoist-patriot is not able to distinguish between the events that have happened (in Russia they have adopted, started production, entered the troops, etc.) from the promised events (will be adopted, start production, go to the troops, etc.) ), for "uryakalka" it is one and the same, and these people really do not really understand the difference. With such a contingent, we have almost completely put everyone on our shoulder blades, we are the strongest in the world and there is nothing to worry about, because tomorrow ...
In turn, this is used by cynical businessmen from the press and the media, "spilling" the patriotic segment of the Internet and interested in traffic on controlled online resources, and now the Poseidons are ready to crash into America and split it into pieces, the Daggers are almost we have sunk all American aircraft carriers, and if something happens, we will "glaze" everyone, and whoever does not believe and doubts is an enemy and a traitor. This is what a significant part of the population carries in their heads.
Everything is complicated by the fact that the typical citizen is not able to retain integral memories of what was too long ago, for example, three or four years ago. A person of an average mind almost always remembers what happened relatively long ago in fragments, “in pieces,” the limit for an ordinary normal person, not a degenerate, but not an intellectual, is about four years, then the whole picture begins to disintegrate into fragments. True, for normal people this is not important, they understand the limitations of such an instrument as human memory, and sometimes tend to check whether they remember everything correctly or are wrong. Hence all these reservations in Internet discussions "if my memory serves me" and the like. Memory can really "change", that's okay.
Hooray patriots are a completely different matter. They generally cannot understand the difference between reality and their ideas about reality, and the memory there works at best for six months in depth. Therefore, such comrades can be endlessly promised that tomorrow we will have "Poseidon" and they will endlessly believe it, moreover, since they do not see the difference between "is" and "will", then in their reality this very "Poseidon" stands "on guard". As well as "Dagger".
Our propaganda is simply excellent. Unfortunately, there is not always something really behind it, often they are just parades.
To paraphrase Marx, let us say that an idea that has taken possession of the masses becomes a material force. The masses of jingoistic patriots were seized by the idea of Russia's omnipotence and that the Russian Federation does not have any urgent and requiring an immediate response. And this idea actually became a material force. In Russia, in a number of absolutely critical areas, there are huge "holes" in combat effectiveness, but nothing is being done to eliminate them. After all, nothing needs to be done, we have already “done” everyone, and whoever does not believe, “pours slop on the country”.
I would like to outline the possible consequences of this approach. To do this, let's start with one fundamental problem that Western military theorists are now grappling with.
Nuclear weapons and the need for war
Many people do not know, but war is one of the needs of a person living in an organized society. A soldier who has gone through a fever may not agree with this, but he has already drunk this cup in person, but those who have not yet have a completely different vision of the issue, and it has a very solid basis.
Man is a collective being, for his survival he needs a collective of his own kind, but at the same time, this is an egoistic being who puts himself at the center of the universe. The combination of the need to obey society for the sake of survival and powerful egoism generates an internal conflict that leads to an increase in the aggressiveness of the individual. At the individual level, this aggression can spill out in the form of fights with passers-by, rudeness on the road, family quarrels, and defiantly arrogant behavior. In a mentally weak and notorious person, unable to even cover up a casual passer-by with obscenities, accumulated internal aggression can sometimes lead to mental pathology, and the world gets a serial killer who, being weak, splashes out his unrealized aggression on those who are weaker, women and children.
But this is an individual level. To release internal aggression on it, firstly, not everyone can, and secondly, there may simply not be enough opportunities to release it. To extinguish aggression without releasing it is possible only by acting on the psyche in different ways, the simplest of which are the use of alcohol and drugs.
What will happen if society has nowhere and no one to dump this load on? There will be a society of the late USSR, in which there was nowhere to throw out aggression. At first, it was poured with alcohol - the peak of alcoholization of the population is the end of the 70s, and this fact was reflected even in the cinema, remember Soviet films with alcoholic heroes.
Then, when Gorbachev began his anti-alcohol campaign, Soviet people were surprised to learn that for twenty kopecks they could be killed on the street, somewhere near a beer stall. And then came the nineties, which were remembered precisely for the terrible level of aggression and violence - the "valve" was blown off completely.
How can this problem be treated? In the 90s, she was "cured" by drug addiction, which simply physically destroyed the entire aggressive active contingent and several million more people along with it. But this is not an option, it can be done once every fifty years or so, but not more often.
The outlet for society and its "safety valve" is war. It is in war that the masses "come off in full". And if not everyone succeeds in taking part in wars, then to hate the enemy, watch films in the style of "Rambo", where a completely inhuman enemy is killed in various brutal ways with screams of pain and agony, scroll through this a hundred times in memory, watch several hundred episodes News with smart bombing and artillery shelling of "these" everyone can. And it really helps the masses to let off steam.
For example, the same Americans in everyday life are very friendly and polite, but this all has a downside in the form of many millions of non-Americans killed after 1945. And as the current internal political situation in the United States shows, this is not enough, more is needed. But there is no "more" yet. While.
The USSR could use the Afghan war in the form of the same "valve", but this would require a complete dismantling of the dominant propaganda paradigm "peace-peace!" and its replacement with something like Gorky's "if the enemy does not surrender, he is destroyed", with a corresponding reflection in the culture, in the same cinema. But this was not done, for various reasons. As a result, the aggression of the Soviet people broke through "inside".
Many examples can be found, but we will not do this, we will simply limit ourselves to the fact that war is a natural need for highly organized societies, and the higher the organization, the higher the need for organized violence outside. Or one day it will "burst inward." In fact, war is the export by society of the internal aggression accumulated due to its organization, "the removal of social entropy." And it's not for nothing that the most organized societies on the planet are also the most militant. Moreover, in the case of the "world champion" in these cases - the United States, the reasons for the wars are already clearly and distinctly irrational.
And there are a lot of wars for rational reasons, for example, if the Ukrainian army took Donetsk and Lugansk in 2014, then Vladimir Putin could lose power in Russia due to popular discontent with this fact, and how this would end for the country is an open question. Today we know how this contradiction was resolved. By the way, the Russian Federation fights much more than the USSR and actively promotes this fact in all ways, and, which is typical, the aggressiveness of the population in the country today is much lower than in the 80s.
War, therefore, is inevitable outside of connection with anything.
The current world situation complicates the situation by the fact that in addition to irrational reasons (humanity has not fought on a large scale for too long, there is a lot of aggression) there are also rational ones. For example, the Americans are not satisfied with the trade balance they have with the Chinese, and the Chinese are not particularly willing to change anything. We need to force them somehow, right? But as?
And then there is Russia, which is like a stick in a wheel - too weak to fight for world domination and its advantages, like a negative trade balance for tens of years in a row (with the USA), but too strong to just kick it out of the way to this domination. And these Russians are also helping the Chinese - they build an early warning missile system, transfer missile technology, participate in the design of ships, air defense systems, helicopters, supply components and the like. There was a war with China, and suddenly pipelines and railways from the Russian Federation to China, along with the 19th trade fleet in the world may turn out to be a lifesaver for the Chinese.
It is logical that the Russian Federation should be "removed from the site" in order to decide later with the Chinese. But it is possible, and vice versa - to clean up all the same, first the Chinese, and only then these Russians, who poison everyone with chem. weapons and interfere in elections.
There is a synergistic effect - rational reasons are superimposed on irrational reasons for war.
Today there is some delimitation of approaches. Democrats in the US first want to liquidate Russia and then subjugate China. Republicans are the opposite. As we now know, it seems that the Democrats' turn has come.
But there is one problem with all this - nuclear weapons. A war with Russia could quickly turn nuclear. And this does not in any way correspond to the aspirations of the attacking side - it needs to kill, not die. Thus, first it is necessary to resolve the fundamental question - how to fight with Russia so as not to receive a nuclear strike from it?
This is a fundamentally important question. It would be naive to think that the Americans do not think about such a question. They think, and for a long time, but for the time being, it was "on the sidelines." At a certain point in the United States, they decided that it was no longer worth hiding an awl in a sack, and decided to publish some developments on this topic. And they made it public.
Institute of Russian Marine Research and Non-Nuclear Maritime War with Russia.
The return of Russia to an active foreign policy forced the US Navy to create a "think tank" for assessing the Russian threat at sea. It was the so-called Russia Maritime Studies Institute-RMSI in Newport, organized under the auspices of the US Naval War College - an analogue of our Naval Academy named after I. N.G. Kuznetsova.
On the RMSI website the following is said about its tasks:
“The mission of the Russian Maritime Research Institute (RMSI) is to conduct research on these (listed under the link to RMSI - AT) maritime issues on behalf of the US Navy and NATO partners. In agreement with the relevant elements of the US Navy ... he develops and carries out an extensive research program, and then distributes the finished research to the leadership of the Navy ... "
All this is about Russia and its maritime affairs, of course. The activities of the RMSI are mostly of a closed nature, since the decisions contained in the study of this structure determine what decisions the US Navy and politicians in Washington will make.
But they did make something public. First, these are literate translations into English of all Russian doctrinal documents related to maritime policy and the fleet.
And secondly, this is a curious document called "Report on the seminar" Nuclear Stability with Russia and North Korea Workshop Write-Up ".
The title of the document does not match its content. In reality, the topic of the seminar was different, namely, how to fight with Russia and North Korea, without provoking these countries to use nuclear weapons first.
The document is short, the Newport professors give the following recommendations on Russia (in short):
For politicians: The Russians are not suicides: nuclear deterrence is working, a situation where there is military action, but there are no threats to the existence of the country and to the strategic nuclear forces, and all command structures remain functional, most likely will not end with the use of nuclear weapons. It is necessary to make it clear to Russia that the United States and NATO are not going to change its borders and political regime, and this makes the use of nuclear weapons unlikely.
For the US Navy: To drive the Russian Navy into "bastions", where it can defend itself, not to carry out offensive operations in these "bastions", but to suppress the exit of Russian forces from them. Operations in the deployment zones of strategic nuclear forces and full-scale strikes on the territory of the Russian Federation should not be carried out, since this dramatically increases the risk of using nuclear weapons, instead, it is necessary to concentrate on one direction of the strike and limited escalation outside the territory of the Russian Federation, and all this within a limited time frame.
Could this be "misleading"? Yes, but in any case, the publication of such documents allows us to build at least two hypotheses for military planning. One is that the Americans will fight in this way, the other is that this is how they will not fight. This is already something, but we will not explore such possibilities, we will look at something else: for one important point in this document, which remained "without continuation" - it appeared there, but no special conclusions were drawn from it, but it is clear that this moment the Americans discussed and had in mind.
In fact, the fact that this fragment was not cleared from the report is a serious blunder, but everyone is mistaken, even the Americans.
This is the fragment we're talking about.
Finally, while domestic political priorities cannot be discounted, the workshop participants concluded that Moscow is unlikely to use nuclear weapons to gain political support domestically (for domestic political reasons, author's clarification) - unless the Putin regime concludes that impending defeat during a conflict will undermine the legitimacy of the government and threaten the existence of [the country or the regime] through internal unrest (with the loss of the territorial integrity of the country or the onset of another event vital to the course of the war)
For those who did not understand, we highlight the key point that the Americans discussed
... looming defeat during a conflict will undermine the legitimacy of the government and threaten the existence of [a country or regime] through internal unrest
This is an important point. The Americans are well aware that the unrestrained military propaganda that is taking place in our country makes military power and the ability to defeat enemies one of the foundations of the legitimacy of power. We have not had economic breakthroughs for a long time, there are no wonders of the world such as the 2014 Olympics either, there are no bright events, super-holidays and the like, but there are military parades, “we can repeat”, an immortal regiment, “Dagger” and “Vanguard” and so on.
In part, the West itself is to blame for this militaristic tilt, in any case, prior to Crimea, the priorities of the Russian leadership clearly lay in a peaceful plane, but the “partners” were able to effectively break all our tools, except for the military.
And this caused a side effect, which, unfortunately, was not realized either by the authorities or by society - if the military machine of the Russian Federation fails, then it will be EVERYTHING - the people will consider it a complete and final failure of the government as a whole. We chose cannons instead of butter, everyone agreed with this, everyone accepted that there was no choice. This turned out to be historical moment, nothing special, not the first time so.
But "guns" must always win now. No options. And not "at any cost", but quickly and efficiently - in proportion to the intensity of propaganda.
If the military suddenly fails to fulfill their tasks, it will be a failure of the authorities and the scale of this failure will be such that it will lead to the loss of the legitimacy of the government in the eyes of the masses.
Simply, the social contract will be violated. The people agreed to tighten their belts in exchange for victories. If in exchange for a tightened belt comes defeat, then the authorities are finished. This is Russia, here, as they say, "does not roll", no amendments to the Constitution will help. Those who were already of a conscious age in 1991 understand this well and remember how such things happen. And Americans understand and remember too.
This is a critical aspect. Let us decompose the phrase about internal unrest into its components once again in order to understand the train of thought of our enemies.
So, Moscow can use nuclear weapons first if:
... looming defeat during a conflict will undermine the legitimacy of the government and threaten the existence of [a country or regime] through internal unrest
what if there is no threat to the country's existence at this very moment? If the "regime" assesses its ability to cope with the internal political situation as sufficient?
Then the defeat and undermining of the legitimacy of the government will be, and the use of nuclear weapons will no longer be.
That is, the war will be lost, or, at worst, not won. The legitimacy of the authorities will be undermined, a revolutionary situation will develop, but there will be no critical consequences for the United States and its allies!
And the Americans did not formalize this conclusion directly following from the report - but we see from their own text that this topic was raised there! They are studying this issue, discussing it!
Thus, we will "finish" for the Americans their work - if the scale of the defeat of Russia is not too great, then nuclear weapons will not be used, but a revolutionary situation in the country may be created.
So far, the United States has no understanding of how to wage such a war. From the speeches and articles of a number of state and public figures, it is possible to reveal interest in the potential naval blockade of the Russian Federation.
Moreover, the actions of Russia itself in the Sea of Azov, where an extremely "soft" for Ukraine quasi-blockade was carried out, show that in order to inflict significant economic damage, even ships do not need to be picked up, it is not necessary to confiscate cargo, it is enough just to delay neutrals for several days and subject to sanctions those ports through which Russian cargo is transshipped. Russia exports by sea most of its exports, almost all of its oil, almost all of its grain, imports also go through ports, and their cargo turnover has shown considerable growth until recently. Russia's independence from ties with the outside world is a myth, and a very stupid one that does not pass any reality check.
However, blockade or not blockade is an open question. But the enemy's understanding that a military defeat inflicted on Russia can cause a coup in our country has been formed. This is a fact that does not require any further proof.
It only remains to organize it at the right time.
Disaster scenario
A small introduction. Japan carries out armed provocation in the South Kuriles, very limited in scope, for example, destroys a missile boat, after which it claims that it was defending itself, and the Russian barbarians attacked first. World media confirm.
Japan is not leading any escalation, but it is conducting a demonstrative deployment of large groupings of its navies. Ours, naturally, react to this too. Further, some "Soryu" or "Taigei" consistently goes to some curtain of submarines and sequentially attacks a pair of new "Varshavyanka".
This is in propaganda we are the best. But in reality, we have Stone Age torpedoes, boats do not have anti-torpedoes, there are no modern hydroacoustic countermeasures, there is no normal telecontrol even for those torpedoes that are, and the boats themselves are, in fact, modernized Soviet developments.
How will the duel of the newest Japanese submarine with modern torpedoes and countermeasures against our "Warsaw" end? This is a rhetorical question. And if you then find the second and destroy it too?
What will the Pacific Fleet counter this? Ancient unmodernized IL-38? What can they do? MPK pr. 1124 / 1124M? How many are left? And how many corvettes are there in the Pacific Fleet? Enough for all dangerous areas?
Of course, there are always risks for the enemy, this is a war, but in this case they are minimal. And then - diplomacy, Japan is backing down, "we would like to reduce tension", etc.
As a result, the enemy retreats in exchange for the status quo. Considering how enormous Japan's superiority is over the forces of the Pacific Fleet, the Eastern Military District and, in terms of a number of parameters, over all the RF Armed Forces, this is a very "cheap" option - to disperse like this.
Will nuclear weapons be used "in exchange" for two missing submarines (the enemy does not have to blow at all corners about what has been done), and even in the conditions of a retreating enemy, behind whose back is nuclear America?
The answer is as clear as God's day - no. Of course, "uryakalka" will not agree with this, but this is only because 2015 was too long ago, and they have already forgotten about it. We remind you.
And then the most "interesting" begins. The enemy, after the ceasefire, in detail, relish, with illustrations and videos, tells at every corner how these deaf and unarmed Russians were drowned. How their torpedoes went to "bait". How their hydroacoustic countermeasures proved to be useless over and over again. How they tried to break away and could not. Like a telecontrolled torpedo hit right on target.
With explanations about how telecontrol works and how the hose reel, standard for all mankind, except for Russia, is superior to the towed hose reel typical for the Russian Navy, which all mankind has long abandoned. With explanations of why it is almost useless to launch a homing torpedo against a modern submarine, but the Russians did it in an attempt to escape. With explanations of how a normal anti-submarine aircraft could have worked and how the antediluvian Il-38, corresponding to the western level of the early 60s in its capabilities, showed itself instead.
And all this will be translated into Russian and spread by our "fifth column" so fiercely that the concept of underwater combat and how far we lag behind the whole world in this will even arise among housewives. And at this moment the society will have questions to the authorities, which the authorities will not be able to answer.
Moreover, even jingoistic patriots, at this moment banging their heads against the cruel reality, "will see clearly" and "understand" (words in quotation marks, since this contingent cannot understand something by nature) that "they were deceived"! They were promised "Poseidon", "Dagger", "the whole world in dust, but then", "glaze", they were shown the Main Naval Parade, and as a result, Japanese videos translated into Russian were released about the effortlessly easy destruction of our submarines and powerlessness our anti-submarine forces - moreover, just confirmed in practice. The psyche of these people will not survive such a mental blow.
And then what will happen?
There will be the same complete, unconditional and final loss of the legitimacy of our authorities in the eyes of our own population.
Will our main enemy be able to take advantage of this? This is the same rhetorical question as the discussion of the results of the battle between "Taigei" and "Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky".
It is now that they can call to a riot only a bunch of psychiatric patients, homosexuals, dissatisfied with the infringement of their rights, Navalny's supporters with their hair dyed green, remote patriots of Ukraine who have turned away from the ATO by fleeing to Moscow, and a similar contingent.
But after such a humiliating slap in the face, completely different people can take to the streets. And extras can be recruited from the same jingoistic patriots: they are stupid, they can be moved like "units" from a computer game, thrown without weapons at machine guns and generally spent as you like. They were deceived ...
But it won't be over. Because there is another “trend” that is opposite to what is openly discussed in the RMSI and similar structures. And he, too, can no longer be hidden.
Fantasizing about a very, very limited small-scale non-nuclear war with Russia and fomenting a revolution in it as a result of a military defeat, the United States is making very intensive and expensive preparations for a completely different war. Quite nuclear.
The last act of the drama
In the summer of 1996, the Americans helped Boris Yeltsin win the elections in Russia. And in the fall in the United States, Congress approved funding for work on new warheads for submarine ballistic missiles, those that are today known as the W76-2.
Congress showed amazing foresight - even then, in 1996, they knew that they would need high-precision warheads that would allow the use of SLBMs as a means of first strike, and nuclear deterrence would not be particularly needed, since the new warheads do not have a thermonuclear part and their power is reduced to 5-6 kilotons, with a significant increase in accuracy.
The fact that work on these combat units began immediately after Yeltsin went to the next term, and Russia was already "written off" aloud, is, of course, a coincidence.
The Americans fiddled with new combat units for a very long time, and their deployment began only this year.
In general, the topic of the fact that nuclear deterrence is of much less interest to Americans today than before, but a nuclear attack is much more, was discussed in the article “We are building a fleet. Special Operations: Nuclear Deterrence " (it also explains the differences between the new combat units from those that were previously and disclosed a host of other issues related to the conduct of nuclear war and its containment).
Above - the fall of old warheads on the target, below is a diagram of the detonation of new ones. This is the specificity of the new detonators, and it is they that make it possible to use SLBMs in the first strike - successfully.
Now the US Navy has ample opportunity to conduct an offensive nuclear war - their SLBMs are accurate enough to strike silo launchers. In 2027, in addition to these missiles, the Navy will receive missiles with a hypersonic glider in non-nuclear equipment, and missiles with the same glider, only ground-based, will be received by the US Army.
If the Americans succeed with hypersound, then they will be able to destroy our ICBM launchers from a short distance and from an unexpected direction in one blow. If it does not work out with hypersound, then you will have to attack in a purely nuclear version, but in general, nothing is impossible in this.
The lifting by Congress of the ban on the development and creation of small-sized nuclear charges allows a return to the sabotage use of nuclear weapons, which makes it possible to neutralize an early warning system from the territory of the Russian Federation (although the delivery of small-sized ammunition to Russia will be difficult, it cannot be considered unrealistic).
A saboteur with a container for a nuclear weapon.
And this is the ammunition itself. Today you can make it smaller and more compact.
However, such an operation contains a lot of risks fraught with a Russian strike against the United States. In addition, even the total superiority of the US submarine over ours does not guarantee that at least one missile-carrying submarine of the Russian Navy will not remain undetected by the US Navy submarines and then will not work on American territory.
How can these risks be reduced to zero? What must happen so that the Russians lose the ability to maintain security at the proper level within the country, so that one can hope with a high degree of probability to neutralize the early warning system and the Strategic Missile Forces control system, so that submarines with ballistic missiles are not at sea at all?
The answer is simple - there must be an internal confrontation in Russia, at least a sluggish civil war, the necessary condition of which is what? That's right - a revolution. And it doesn't matter whether it is successful or unsuccessful, socialist or nationalist - it doesn't matter.
Is the puzzle starting to take shape?
Everything is simple in fact. The Russian Federation has catastrophic failures precisely in the combat readiness of the Navy. At the same time, the people believe that our fleet is omnipotent. At the same time, the confidence of the people that our military power is boundless has become one of the sources of the legitimacy of the political system.
What happens if some, in the opinion of the population, a second-rate enemy inflicts a humiliating, but at the same time minor, insignificant military defeat on Russia, which cannot entail a "nuclear response"?
There will be a loss of the legitimacy of power in the eyes of the population, and after that, through the efforts of both the enemy - the United States, and the local “fifth column”, it will be possible to organize a “color revolution” in Russia without any problems - the authorities will simply have no one to rely on, after a military failure they will not perceived as power, there will be no support at all.
Further, internal unrest, even small ones, some chaos, an economic downturn - and here they are, the conditions for an unrequited American nuclear strike against the Russian Federation.
Will they apply it or not? Nobody knows. Now this, apparently, is an open question for them. But preparations for such an operation in the United States are underway, and new combat units for the Tridents are a vivid evidence of this.
Apparently, we are still being led to this option. Some decisions and actions of the people in charge of naval development in the Russian Federation bear clear and distinct signs of deliberate sabotage. Up to reducing the ability to "make money" for the sake of weakening the Navy. When some "statesman" makes sacrifices in order to stop a project important for the country's defense, send the state. money for another, unrealizable, and at the same time someone has professionally cleaned up a biography on the Internet (there are no traces at all, except for officialdom, as if the person was already born an adult with a printed biography on a piece of paper), then this is puzzling, to put it mildly. And there are many such cases.
So what awaits us in the end? Where and how will our patriotic frenzy end? They tried to push us against Turkey in 2015, and if it succeeded, then we would have seen the executed "Warsaw" (and not only) in that year.
We almost ran into her again because of Idlib quite recently (see article "Will frigates with" Caliber "be able to pacify Turkey?... We could have encountered it in Libya, but chose to quietly leave, handing over this theater of operations to the Turks.
And there was also a strange multi-move in Armenia, when the West immediately put both its president and its prime minister there, and the latter brazenly and boldly began to provoke Azerbaijan to the war, in no way, at the same time, not preparing to defend Karabakh, without doing anything for this, arresting pro-Russian statesmen in Armenia, up to the CSTO Secretary General. What was that? An invitation to us to fit in for Armenia against Turkey?
At the same time, neither the Japanese claims to our territories, nor the crazy Poland disappeared anywhere. So far, we are bypassing the traps on the topic of "making war with Turkey," however, we have to hand over some of them. But this cannot last forever: not Turkey, so someone else will work against us with American "kamikaze".
At the same time, on land, few people can cope with us, only the Americans themselves are not a fact. In the sky, everything is more complicated, but there the Aerospace Forces are at least trying to move in the right direction, but the Navy is a really weak point, as well as the understanding of war at sea by the political leadership in principle, and if they hit us, they will hit there. And then - see above.
Doesn't all this cause any concern to anyone?
Conclusion
By virtue of all of the above, the disclosure of all those problems that exist in our fleet becomes vital. Mine action, mines, torpedoes, anti-torpedoes, naval aviationboth anti-submarine and shock (assault) programs, the adequacy of shipbuilding programs to threats, albeit within the framework of a poor budget - all this must be "highlighted" with merciless precision.
How to really make the authorities puzzled by the combat effectiveness of the Navy (and more broadly - the RF Armed Forces as a whole, although in general everything is not bad)? And everything is simple - an idea that has taken possession of the masses becomes a material force.
And if in the domestic mass consciousness a strong demand is formed to correct all the shortcomings in the Navy, then these shortcomings will sooner or later be eliminated. Practice shows that this method works, albeit extremely slowly.
In any case, we have no choice. In another way, the people cannot influence anything, and this one sometimes turned out to be working. So you have to "push".
Because otherwise events will follow the chain of “war-defeat-revolution-nuclear strike”. And this will be the end, after this we will not rise. This will be the last change of power in our history.
It is easier to ensure that the submarines get new and modern weapons, the minesweepers would be modernized, the corvettes were built with normal radars, the aircraft carrier was out of repair on time, and the preparations for war would go “in a real way”, as Lenin insisted at the time.
Time is running out and the risks are getting higher and higher.
Information