Military Review

With good intentions: a note on disarmament

82

Infographics "RG": Anton Perepletchikov / Leonid Kuleshov / Alexander Chistov / Mikhail Shipov, Russian weapons


December 25, 2020 in an interview with RIA "News»Director of the Department for Nonproliferation and Arms Control of the Russian Foreign Ministry V.I. Ermakov made a statement that the Russian Federation voluntarily extended the scope of the START-3 Treaty to the newest Russian missile system equipped with the Avangard hypersonic guided warhead.

“This was done in a spirit of goodwill, despite a number of legal issues arising, including with respect to the unconstructive US approaches to control over such systems. These issues have yet to be resolved. In general, we are open to discussing this issue in multilateral formats, ”

- added Ermakov.

The issue of extending START-3 has long become one of the priority areas of work of the Russian foreign policy department. The importance and necessity of its preservation is constantly spoken about. However, is such a need really so obvious? And, more importantly, does this treaty really meet the national interests of the Russian Federation?

Abstracting from the moral connotation of judgments inherent in arms control specialists, we will try to analyze the relevance of this Treaty (and the inclusion of the latest weapons in its operation) from a military-political point of view.

National security


Speaking about disarmament treaties, one should ask the question: "Are they not causing damage to national security?"

So, for example, according to the INF Treaty, our country has lost the unique PGRK "Pioneer" (RSD-10; SS-20 mod.1 Saber), OTR-23 (9K714; SS-23 Spider), in everyday life "Oka", MRBM R- 12 (8K63; SS-4 Sandal), MRBM R-14 (8K65; SS-5 Skean), operational-strategic missile complex RK-55 "Relief" with a long-range land-based cruise missile.

The Soviet Union had a quantitative advantage (910 medium-range missiles against 689 American ones; in the field of short-range missiles, the USSR also had an advantage).

Starting from, to put it mildly, not quite adequate (if not to put it bluntly - openly treacherous) ideas of the then head of the Soviet Union about the international political situation, we eliminated 2 times more missiles (1836 versus 859) and 3 times more missile launchers ( 851 versus 283). As the lieutenant general of the reserve, Cand. military. Evgeny Buzhinsky:

"The eliminated Soviet missiles could carry 4 times more nuclear warheads than the American ones (3154: 846)."

The only missiles that the Americans have eliminated more than we have been land-based cruise missiles. However, according to the Deputy Director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies Konstantin Makienko,

"For the United States, this was not of fundamental importance, since they possessed a large group of sea-launched (Tomahawk) and air-based (ALCM-B) cruise missiles, which was planned to be brought to 1990 units by the mid-7000s."

At the same time, Soviet weapons were eliminated simply by barbaric methods (along with combat control equipment, cable networks, etc.). The Americans then showed much more ingenuity and, for example, did not destroy the W85 nuclear warhead from their MGM-31C Pershing-2.

We should also recall the situation with the Krasnoyarsk radar station (Yeniseisk-15).

In accordance with the 1972 ABM Treaty, each side had the right to deploy missile attack warning system (EWS) radar stations along the periphery of its national territory with antennas oriented outward. Proceeding from this, the deployment of a radar station in the Krasnoyarsk region really contradicted the agreement (such a decision was dictated by economic considerations). However, the Americans also violated the treaty by deploying their early warning systems in Greenland and Great Britain.

Gorbachev and Shevardnadze responded to objections from the United States in their "best" traditions - they made unilateral concessions.

"In search of the easiest solution, Gorbachev and Shevardnadze again simply sacrificed the Krasnoyarsk radar station, promising to dismantle it and not conditionalizing this on similar actions by the United States with respect to their radar stations in Greenland and Great Britain."

The situation with the START I Treaty was no better for us. We have again reduced more carriers (1 versus 1202) and warheads (435 versus 3898). As noted by TASS military observer Viktor Litovkin:

"Russia had to halve the number of the most powerful and heaviest in the world" Voevoda "R-36MUTTH / R-36M2 missiles or" Satan ", as they were called in the West (Satan SS-18)."
Gorbachev and Shevardnadze left the political stage (unfortunately, they also removed the Soviet Union from it). However, the pro-Western course of concessions has not gone anywhere.

In 1993, the START II Treaty was signed. According to this agreement, we lost our BZHRK. As military expert Mikhail Khodarenok emphasizes:

“By 1991, the Strategic Missile Forces of the USSR Armed Forces deployed three missile divisions armed with BZHRKs with RT-23UTTKh ICBMs: the 10th Guards Missile Division in the Kostroma Region; 52nd missile division stationed in ZATO Zvezdny (Perm Territory), 36th missile division in ZATO Kedrovy (Krasnoyarsk Territory). By 2007, all BZHRKs were dismantled and destroyed, with the exception of two transferred to museums. "

It would seem that these are the affairs of bygone days. Since then, Russia has systematically restored its status in the international arena, strengthened its armed forces and embarked on a direct course towards an independent foreign policy.

Yet in the refrain of the Cold War and Yeltsin's pliability, we have heard a striking continuity in the approach to arms control. Having created weapons that give an asymmetric response to the American missile defense system and provide Russia with a strategic advantage (which is noticeable in image No. 1), we are actually ready to volunteer again

"Put him under the knife."

Based on considerations of the primacy of national security, it can be summed up that the disarmament treaties did not in any way strengthen our national security.

Moreover, according to the latest theories, nuclear superiority instead of nuclear deterrence is much more important. Excellence allows leaders to take more risks during crises. If a nuclear exchange begins, says, in particular, one of the well-known modern researchers M. Krönig, then leaders who can escalate the situation further and faster than their opponents will be able to limit the damage.

Regarding the START-3 Treaty, it should be said that, given the geopolitical realities of our time (which will be discussed below), it seems to be only a rudiment of a bygone Belle Epoque (beautiful era) bipolar confrontation.

As supporters of the preservation of the arms control regime and, in particular, the preservation of START III, argue:

"From the current treaty, they have not only restrictions on the build-up of Russian strategic arms, but also, which is no less important, unprecedented transparency and predictability in relation to what is happening in Russia's strategic forces."

The benefits of transparency in matters of strategic importance for Russia are far from obvious. To obtain information about the strategic forces of a potential enemy, it is much more logical to use other mechanisms.

Preservation of the dialogue platform seems to be of value in itself.

Unfortunately, given the rather deplorable state of the Russian economy, the only issue that can seriously be the subject of bilateral Russian-American negotiations is the issue of arms control. However, looking at the extreme confrontation of the current stage of relations between Russia and the United States, concessions in the material sphere (including promising Russian weapons in the Treaty Framework) in order to preserve the abstract

"Spaces for dialogue"

seem counterproductive.

As E. Ya. Metaphorically repeated many times. Satanovsky:

“What can you agree with your killer about? About where, when and how will he kill you? "

Moreover, from the point of view of economic pragmatism, the likely increase in cash infusions into the military-industrial complex (contrary to the liberal illusions of the Ministry of Finance and similar structures that believe in the "Washington consensus"), on the contrary, will have a positive impact on the Russian economy.

Without going too far into this topic (which deserves a separate large study), it is worth saying that:

1. В stories examples of development precisely at the expense of the military-industrial complex are not uncommon (Prussia of Friedrich Wilhelm I, partly the Russian Empire, the USSR, Japan in the 1930s, etc.).

2. A technological breakthrough should be expected, first of all, from the defense sector.

The explanation of this phenomenon is the fact that the military-industrial complex belongs to the sphere high politics (high politics), in other words, falls under securitization. Thus, being a priority area of ​​public policy, an area that initially has a starting advantage receives more resources, which will accelerate the process of technological progress.

3. Militarization increases the military potential required to defend "real sovereignty" and achieve those goals that directly relate to the sphere of Russia's national interests.

International political situation


The picture, I think, will be incomplete if, together with the military-strategic costs of the arms reduction policy, one does not briefly analyze the current geopolitical context of START III. And it seems that the current situation in international relations (with a focus on Russia-NATO relations) does not at all favor pacifist sentiments in foreign policy.

With the decay of bipolarity and the transition from

"Unipolar moment"

to the current state of polarity, the following situation arises.

Distributed power, taking into account the preservation of great powers, will certainly generate a process of concentration of power resources. So, the current state of affairs is characterized by the following features:

1. The emergence of disputed territories (a kind of "gray zones"), where a conflict can break out. A number of geopolitically painful points have already arisen, which may become the site of active opposition from Russia and NATO. A.A. Kokoshin describes this situation as follows:

"The presence of many de jure sovereign states, which at the same time have insufficient resources to ensure their sovereignty in practice, creates a temptation for larger states (blocs, for example, the European Union) to take advantage of such a position - in accordance with the formulas of absolute sovereignty."

This is the kind of rivalry that we can observe at the moment.

True, the absolute preponderance in the sphere of influence remains with NATO. Russia has more than once expressed concern about the deployment of the components of the strategic infrastructure of the North Atlantic Alliance and, in particular, the United States, in close proximity to its borders, which undoubtedly poses a colossal threat to Russia's national interests and security.

A.V. Fenenko identifies a number of geopolitical points that are potential arenas for conflicts of interest.

“There are several pain points: Transnistria, the Baltic Sea”.

Do not forget the so-called new Europe - the former members of the Department of Internal Affairs.

Of course, we cannot ignore the region that is most sensitive for us - the post-Soviet space. We see the aggravation of contradictions and the activation of a number of players in the region.

2. Increased militarization of these territories (sometimes bypassing international legal treaties).

3. The general background is the erosion of the established Yalta-Potsdam world order. Speaking about the practical refraction of such, at first glance, a purely theoretical problem, as the erosion of the world order, it is worth concentrating on the institutional foundations of the current state of the world system. The UN is the supporting structure of the Yalta-Potsdam world order.

Let us note only the main parameters, according to which the universal Organization is no longer an adequate tool for resolving problems. So, there is no way to resist the escalation of violence (Kosovo, Iraq). The impossibility of making important effective decisions at the UN Security Council level due to the cardinal difference in approaches (USA, Russia). International agreements often do not correspond to the tactical interests of countries (arms control).

Apart from the UN, other international organizations are also losing their relevance. A striking example is the OSCE (destruction of the CFE Treaty).

Thus, a number of specific threats to the national security of the Russian Federation can be identified. These include:

First. The likely deployment of ground-based ballistic and cruise missile systems by NATO (the United States, in particular) in close proximity to the Russian borders.

It is already possible to observe the projection of this thesis in reality. We are talking about the deployment of multipurpose MK-41 launchers at American anti-missile targets in Romania (and later in Poland). The peculiarity of these installations is that from them it is possible to launch not only interceptor missiles, but also universal medium-range missiles - "Tomahawk". In turn, "Tomahawks" by their technical characteristics can be equipped with nuclear charges.

“The Tomahawk missile family includes a number of variants carrying different warheads. "Tomahawk" UGM-109A (Block II TLAM-A) carries a nuclear warhead W80 ".

A significant reduction in flight time, taking into account the capabilities of cruise missiles, poses a direct threat to the security of the Russian Federation.

Second.

"Additional deployment in the European zone of modern air and sea-based strike systems, including nuclear-armed SLCMs."

The third. Enhancing the effectiveness of the potential (in cooperation with allies in the North Atlantic Alliance) of NSNW deployed on the territory of European countries for the purposes of

"Joint nuclear missions".

This contradicts the NPT, primarily in view of the fact that within the framework of these measures, it is planned to work out tasks for the delivery of nuclear weapons aviation non-nuclear NATO member states. De facto, this can be classified as proliferation of nuclear weapons.

All this combination of military and geopolitical factors allows us to come to the conclusion that In the current circumstances, the extension of START III and an attempt to resume dialogue (which is de facto a dialogue for the sake of dialogue) seems counterproductive.

In conclusion, I would like to say that if our commitment to preserving sovereignty and strengthening our positions in the international arena is not empty rhetoric, then decisions in the spirit of voluntary concessions (which is the inclusion of Vanguards in the START network) seems to be obvious political short-sightedness.

New types of weapons should become an effective tool for ensuring the country's national interests.

And in this regard, the extension of START-3 should certainly not be an end in itself. And new types of weapons are certainly not a bargaining chip in dubious diplomatic "poker" with a deliberately unprofitable result. Moreover, as political reality shows, there are sitting at the opposite end of the table

hardened "sharper".

We can, of course, assume that we, in advance agreeing to the restrictions on hypersonic arms, we want to preemptively put normative red flags for our opponents by the time they will have (and, unfortunately, there is no doubt about this) such systems.

If so, then we suggest looking back at the many years of fruitless attempts by Russian diplomacy to invite the United States to agree on the "rules of the game" in the field of, for example, information security.
Author:
Photos used:
rg.ru
82 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Aerodrome
    Aerodrome 31 December 2020 15: 03
    +6
    In 1993, the START II Treaty was signed. According to this agreement, we lost our BZHRK.
    you just need to return the BZHRK.
    1. Ilya-spb
      Ilya-spb 31 December 2020 15: 50
      +10
      I agree. I am also for Barguzin.

      And - only those who surrendered are disarmed. Capitulated.
      1. D16
        D16 31 December 2020 19: 54
        +4
        only those who surrender are disarmed. Capitulated

        Those who abide by the treaty. No one concludes agreements with those who surrendered. He pays stupidly and repents.
    2. D16
      D16 31 December 2020 19: 50
      -1
      Barguzin worked 150% of his time. With a warranty life of 10 years, he worked 15.
      1. neri73-r
        neri73-r 5 January 2021 22: 26
        +1
        Quote: D16
        Barguzin worked 150% of his time. With a warranty life of 10 years, he worked 15.

        You are probably confusing "Barguzin" with "Well done".
        1. D16
          D16 6 January 2021 15: 47
          +1
          You are probably confusing "Barguzin" with "Well done".

          Quite right. Wrong.
    3. ccsr
      ccsr 1 January 2021 14: 59
      +4
      Quote: Aerodrome
      you just need to return the BZHRK.

      If we proceed from our POSSIBILITIES, then conceptually we no longer need a BZHRK, if only due to the fact that mine installations with hypersonic maneuvering heads will already reach the territory of the United States even before the Americans destroy our silos. Therefore, instead of increasing the number of various CARRIERS of missiles, it is necessary to concentrate all efforts on the unification of the country's missile fleet, but on the condition that the Strategic Missile Forces itself will be able to destroy our two main adversaries.
      Another important area for our strategic nuclear forces is the removal of our carriers as close as possible to the US border, i.e. the emphasis is on nuclear submarines and on the alert of strategic bombers during the threatened period, to indicate that we see the enemy preparing for an attack.
      Such a construction of our strategic nuclear forces will provide us with superiority over the enemy, but on one condition - a serious modernization of Russia's strategic intelligence in terms of technical equipment and the emergence of new systems capable of revealing a change in the operational situation in the world as soon as possible, even before the first salvo. And including the return to the Cuban positions, and it is also possible that they will have to return to the construction of a new "Ural" to organize alert duty on the west coast of the United States.
      Based on this, the construction of new BZHRK, in my opinion, does not fundamentally solve the issues of our security, because the enemy will take into account their missiles anyway, and the secrecy of their movement under current intelligence systems is generally in doubt. But the costs of their creation and technical operation will again create problems for our economy - we are not as rich as it was in the USSR, and therefore, we should not be scattered, no matter what tempting toy the industry offers us. The operational management on behalf of the General Staff should have their say first of all - how much will we increase the probability of destroying the enemy when placing such complexes on duty, and what will it result in us?
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 2 January 2021 18: 26
        0
        Quote: ccsr
        Therefore, instead of increasing the number of various CARRIERS of missiles, it is necessary to focus all efforts on the unification of the country's missile fleet.
        Unification will drastically reduce the production of media: if only Yars are left, and there are no Sarmats, then the number of Yars will not increase, their production is already working to its full capacity (yes, the coil is not large, but there is really).
        Quote: ccsr
        those. the main focus on the nuclear submarine
        The state of our fleet makes the emphasis on SSBNs a bad idea: our fleet cannot guarantee their deployment and cover. The states, on the contrary, have the strongest fleet in the world, SSBNs are very suitable for them.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 3 January 2021 11: 41
          -1
          Quote: bk0010
          Unification will drastically reduce media production:

          In Soviet times, we ruined our economy, including from the fact that our great commanders demanded as many different weapons as possible, and as a result, the people's money was wasted. Because of this and for some other reasons, a tremendous amount of work had to be done in the nineties on the weapons unification program, and this was a reasonable decision.
          Quote: bk0010
          if only Yars are left, and there are no Sarmats, then the number of Yars will not increase, their production is already working to the fullest

          Nobody is talking about a reduction in output - the question is how to get a cheaper product with the help of unification, including through the re-profiling of related industries.
          Quote: bk0010
          The state of our fleet makes the emphasis on SSBNs a bad idea: our fleet cannot guarantee their deployment and cover. The states, on the contrary, have the strongest fleet in the world, SSBNs are very suitable for them.

          The states are not a decree for us, we ourselves know how we will destroy them even without our fleet. As for the deployment and cover of SSBNs, in my opinion it is necessary to make these areas possible where we will provide such cover at least with the help of fleet aviation. But let our strategists discuss this - they know better than the enemy now has, and how best to neutralize him.
          1. bk0010
            bk0010 3 January 2021 15: 38
            0
            Quote: ccsr
            In Soviet times, we ruined our economy, including from the fact that our great commanders demanded as many different weapons as possible
            The military did not require a variety of weapons: a bunch of different weapons were a consequence of the backwardness of our industry. For example, no one except Kharkov could produce the T-64 - they simply could not master such a diesel engine. The plant can make liquid-propellant rockets, but it cannot make solid-fuel ones, at all. We abandon liquid-propellant missiles - the number of solid-propellant missiles will not increase. The states are not worth equal here: the guts are thin. Our SSBNs were made for missiles, which were gradually improved, and the states, like after the Polaris Trident, did not change the type of boat, Trident solves all their problems.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 3 January 2021 16: 15
              -2
              Quote: bk0010
              The military did not require a variety of weapons: a bunch of different weapons were a consequence of the backwardness of our industry.

              But I don’t need to tell this, I know this topic too well, and therefore we have different views. For some products of the Soviet period, we overtook all countries of the world, and this is not an exaggeration.
              Quote: bk0010
              For example, no one except Kharkov could produce the T-64 - they simply could not master such a diesel engine.

              By and large, we didn't even need so many tanks, because by that time we had strategic aviation and OTR, which could roll into asphalt all European countries, and our other neighbors.
              Quote: bk0010
              We abandon liquid-propellant missiles - the number of solid-propellant missiles will not increase.

              We refuse them, because the operating costs for liquid-propellant missiles are much higher than for solid-fuel ones. So it is necessary to solve the question of how to redesign enterprises to change the range of manufactured products - this will ultimately save our defense costs.
              Quote: bk0010
              Trident solves all their problems.

              So we need to think about how we can do this in order to solve several problems at once. I think we can make such products no worse than them.
          2. Siberian54
            Siberian54 6 January 2021 16: 45
            0
            Let's stop repeating the mantra about ruining the economy by the military - this is a duck that flew out of the editorial board of the katastroyechny "Ogonyok", the USSR was only a third behind in the arms trade from the USA and the budget received money comparable to hydrocarbons, the country was killed by two laws - "dry" - slowing down the internal movement of the ruble and the "election of directors" that brought down the planned economy and created hyperinflation with irrepressible, unsupported growth in wages (the right people had to sit in the right seats) and the artificial undervaluation of the "conventional unit" rate in settlements with former allies, this fraud made our country a debtor to these stuck.
  2. Sergey39
    Sergey39 31 December 2020 15: 16
    -9
    And after all, Biden (if he becomes president) clearly wants to extend and restore these agreements. But he is unlikely to succeed. If only on our terms.
  3. Ryaruav
    Ryaruav 31 December 2020 15: 24
    +6
    yap Stavropol and this Georgian muzzle did everything to weaken the defenses of the Great Country
    1. Land defence
      Land defence 31 December 2020 16: 32
      +34
      Quote: Ryaruav
      yap Stavropol and this Georgian muzzle did everything to weaken the defenses of the Great Country

      Now it was not Gorbachev and Shevardnadze who made unilateral concessions, but the current government.
      1. D16
        D16 31 December 2020 20: 01
        -5
        Now it was not Gorbachev and Shevardnadze who made unilateral concessions, but the current government.

        What concessions? List, pliz, that during the negotiations you unilaterally conceded?
        1. Land defence
          Land defence 31 December 2020 20: 51
          +21
          Quote: D16
          What concessions? List, pliz, that during the negotiations you unilaterally conceded?

          In the article:
          Ermakov made a statement that the Russian Federation voluntarily extended the scope of the START-3 Treaty to the newest Russian missile system equipped with the Avangard hypersonic guided warhead.

          “This was done in good faith, despite a number of legal issues.
          1. D16
            D16 31 December 2020 20: 54
            -3
            UR-100UTTH with the Vanguard unit taken out of the mine and cut on pins and needles? laughing It seems to be on the database.
            1. Land defence
              Land defence 31 December 2020 20: 55
              +21
              It's about what's in one-sided introduced into the START-3 treaty
              1. D16
                D16 31 December 2020 20: 56
                -3
                So what? He already falls under the contract. One media is one block. What's next?
                1. Land defence
                  Land defence 31 December 2020 20: 58
                  +21
                  Quote: D16
                  and so it falls under the contract

                  No, initially I did not get it. From our side, it is introduced as a goodwill.
                  1. D16
                    D16 31 December 2020 20: 59
                    -4
                    Why didn't you get it?
                    1. Land defence
                      Land defence 31 December 2020 21: 08
                      +22
                      The article says about this (about the missile system with the Avangard unit).
                      That's it, I'm leaving for today.
                      Happy New Year, everyone! drinks drinks
                      1. D16
                        D16 31 December 2020 21: 13
                        -1
                        Nonsense in the article. Happy Holidays! drinks
  4. paul3390
    paul3390 31 December 2020 15: 37
    +7
    And the enemies of the people are always the same. What then, what now. They could only sell their homeland at a higher price.
  5. Odysseus
    Odysseus 31 December 2020 16: 02
    +8
    The article precisely postulates that for the Russian Federation, the extension of START-3 is a priority in foreign policy. But at the same time, it is argued that this is wrong and does not correspond to the national interests. At the same time, it is argued that the Russian Federation is "systematically restoring its status."
    How is this paradox explained in the author's opinion? No way. Meanwhile, there must be an explanation, and it is in fact very simple.
    The author confuses the manipulation of the electorate's consciousness with funny pictures and bluffing with cartoons with reality. But the authorities are well aware of the difference.
    For the modern de-industrialized RF, no "arms race" is possible. And in reality there is no "strategic advantage". There is a bluff with the desire to bring the American partners to the negotiating table on acceptable terms. And there is a lack of such desire among Americans. Hence all these dances with a tambourine and stories about "voluntary initiatives" on "Vanguard" (in reality, the UR-100 rocket is already included in START-3 by default).
    Another thing is that the new US administration is just quite ready to renegotiate START III, its methods are different from those of Trump. Yes, conditions will be tougher than before, but START III is almost the only area where rapprochement between the Russian authorities and Biden is possible.
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 31 December 2020 19: 38
      -2
      Nuclear weapons (all strategic offensive weapons) are important, but the destruction of the Russian Federation will not be from the territory of the United States - from Europe and Japan. and more importantly, the number of modern weapons near our borders.
      I hope my general staff is not looking at arithmetic warheads and missiles.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 31 December 2020 21: 57
        -4
        "But the destruction of the Russian Federation will not come from the territory of the United States - from Europe and Japan" - By what means?
      2. Odysseus
        Odysseus 1 January 2021 12: 35
        +5
        Quote: antivirus
        but the destruction of the Russian Federation will not be from the territory of the USA

        The destruction of the Russian Federation is successfully proceeding from within the Russian Federation itself. No nuclear weapons are needed for this.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 2 January 2021 22: 48
          -1
          In your parallel universe, it may be - but in reality, the process of the destruction of Russia was in the 90s and it was stopped in the 2000s.
          1. SovAr238A
            SovAr238A 5 January 2021 13: 34
            +2
            Quote: Vadim237
            In your parallel universe, it may be - but in reality, the process of the destruction of Russia was in the 90s and it was stopped in the 2000s.


            Corruption devours the country from the inside ...
            Or rather, already devoured.
            We stopped - at the bottom ...
    2. D16
      D16 31 December 2020 20: 33
      -3
      The author confuses the manipulation of the electorate's consciousness with funny pictures and bluffing with cartoons with reality.

      Another witness of the sect of cartoons and pictures lol
      in reality, the UR-100 missile is already included in START-3 by default)

      Yes. and one "Vanguard" will count as a regular BB. One mine "Topol" without letters less. If the Americans do not agree with this, then let them offer something to exchange.
      There is a bluff with the desire to bring the American partners to the negotiating table on acceptable terms.

      This is public work. Everyone knows very well that the amers have nothing to offer. But in the Kremlin, everyone is white and in the fluff of peaceful ideas. laughing
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 1 January 2021 12: 56
        +2
        Quote: D16
        Another witness of the sect of cartoons and pictures

        Let's do it again. The author quite rightly asserts that the INF and START-2 treaties were not beneficial to us and scolds the traitors in power. He further argues that we now have new weapons and "strategic advantage." But at the same time, we want to conclude START-3, which is also not beneficial to us. The only logical conclusion is that traitors are in power. But the author does not do it and says that patriots are in power, and the Russian Federation is strengthening. That is, it contradicts itself.
        Either we have a new weapon and a strategic advantage and then there are traitors in power, or we don’t have, and then the desire of the authorities for the American partners to “listen to them” (the statement of citizen Putin) is quite reasonable and rational.
        Here you need to either remove the cross or wear pants.
        Quote: D16
        Yes. and one "Vanguard" will count as a regular BB. One mine "Topol" without letters less

        The point is that the initiative of the Russian Federation to "voluntarily turn on the Vanguard" is just an empty shaking of the air, a manipulation. In reality, we are talking about the deployment of old Soviet missiles UR-100, which are already included there. The author (as I wrote) takes advertising manipulations at face value. As for your statement that one warhead on the UP-100 will be counted as one, that is, 1 = 1, it is difficult to disagree with this statement ...
        Quote: D16
        This is public work. Everyone knows very well that the amers have nothing to offer. But in the Kremlin, everyone is white and in the fluff of peaceful ideas.

        That is, from your point of view, these are not the Americans, but we are withdrawing from all arms control treaties, we do not want to renegotiate START-3 and we refuse all their proposals to renegotiate it on the same terms?
        An interesting point of view, but I'm afraid she and the point of view that the Earth is flat, and people walk on their heads somewhat contradicts reality.
        1. D16
          D16 1 January 2021 14: 11
          -1
          Quote: Odyssey
          Let's do it again. The author quite rightly asserts that the INF and START-2 treaties were not beneficial to us and scolds the traitors in power.

          These treaties delayed the demise of the USSR. Without them, debit and credit would not have converged earlier.
          we are talking about the deployment of old Soviet missiles UR-100

          Why did the UR-100 not please you? Cheap and angry).
          That is, from your point of view, these are not the Americans, but we are withdrawing from all arms control treaties, we do not want to renegotiate START-3 and we refuse all their proposals to renegotiate it on the same terms?

          You don't have to turn everything upside down. The proposal to keep the agreement on the same terms for a year came from Putin. Americans do not want this and voice their wishes. The next offer from Russia will be worse. The meaning of these treaties is not to gain advantages for the physical destruction of millions of people, but in the conditions of their further coexistence on one planet.
        2. D16
          D16 1 January 2021 14: 31
          -1
          An interesting point of view, but I'm afraid she and the point of view that the Earth is flat, and people walk on their heads somewhat contradicts reality.

          That you will soon have calluses on the top of your head lol .
        3. Vadim237
          Vadim237 2 January 2021 22: 55
          -1
          But at the same time, we want to conclude START-3, which is also not beneficial to us. If we do not conclude it, the West will benefit, since it has large funds for the arms race, in particular, increasing the warheads to the maximum on all its ICBMs as well as increasing the number of these ICBMs and all carriers of nuclear weapons. The United States has already withdrawn from the INF Treaty whether it is beneficial to us - no, since they can deploy these missiles in most of the countries around Russia and even in the airborne version on heavy transport aircraft and even on cargo ships - Russia will not get involved in any retaliatory arms race to the extreme only in the missile defense system.
          1. Odysseus
            Odysseus 3 January 2021 00: 22
            0
            Quote: Vadim237
            If we do not conclude it, the West will benefit, since it has large funds for the arms race, in particular, increasing warheads to the maximum on all its ICBMs, as well as increasing the number of these ICBMs and all carriers of nuclear weapons

            I agree with you on this issue. This is quite a reasonable position. But it contrasts sharply with the position of the author of the article, who believes that the Russian Federation has a "strategic advantage" and wonders why it wants to conclude an unfavorable contract. It was this position that I criticized.
            In general, I do not consider it shameful to bluff for a profitable contract. If you need to talk about super-mega weapons, let it be super-mega weapons. But so far this bluff only works within the country. The West does not want to negotiate with the Russian Federation on the same terms.
  6. Khibiny Plastun
    Khibiny Plastun 31 December 2020 16: 19
    +3
    The Kremlin Jews no longer know how to bend their backs. They us-fly over the B-52 along our borders, our "power" anti-people, voluntarily "Vanguard" under the knife. Wonderful things in our PU kingdom.
  7. rocket757
    rocket757 31 December 2020 17: 06
    +3
    “What can you agree with your killer about? About where, when and how will he kill you? "

    The burden of the war race, guns instead of butter, is very heavy! How else?
    The enemy from all our self-disarmament initiatives only rubs his hands, but he never intends to do garlic!
  8. iouris
    iouris 31 December 2020 17: 49
    +3
    "Our partners" can only agree on the destruction of one former superpower, if it is tired of existing.
  9. U-58
    U-58 31 December 2020 18: 17
    +5
    It seems to me that the author has gotten too carried away with military-strategic analysis.
    But this issue has another side - economic.
    Let's build some kind of model.
    So, the United States is deliberately going to break START-3, having withdrawn earlier from the restrictive agreements on missile defense and DRMD.
    A new round of the arms race begins. The US economy receives a powerful impetus for development.
    Huge funds are being mastered, new jobs appear.
    Despite the enormous amount of funds for new weapons, the American budget "is not under strain," for the American economy is strong and sufficiently strong.
    The race also begins in Russia.
    Funds are being allocated just to fend off American challenges. In practice, insufficient funds are allocated.
    At the same time, missile defense plants also receive an impetus for development (or at least for non-closure). People work on a fairly modest salary.
    After 5-7 years, Russia is at the very least equipped with our response to a potential enemy.
    But the economy is shattered.
    The people did not get rich. Pensions, public sector wages are low.
    And what happened to the USSR is happening.
    He is among the outsiders of the list of world economies, nourishing the hope that all this is not in vain and our defense can (maybe) withstand the world aggressor in the person of the United States, NATO and their satellites.
    This is anything but a victory with an eye to the future.
    This is what American analysts are counting on.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 31 December 2020 22: 03
      -4
      "A new round of the arms race is beginning" - Only now Russia will not participate in it. The only increase in funding will affect air defense - missile defense systems.
  10. antivirus
    antivirus 31 December 2020 19: 33
    -3
    Is the MSG and Shevardnadze an enemy?
    everyone in the Politburo and other departments-instances voted for concessions, gifts from the USSR!
    empty to discuss - to condemn that time.

    Under the DAM, everyone signed and ratified a "compromise" agreement with Norway on the Spitz shelf.
    everything is not clear.
    preparing for the next concessions to partners ..
  11. Old26
    Old26 31 December 2020 19: 48
    +12
    On December 25, 2020, in an interview with RIA Novosti, Director of the Department for Nonproliferation and Arms Control of the Russian Foreign Ministry V.I. Ermakov made a statement that the Russian Federation voluntarily extended the scope of the START-3 Treaty to the newest Russian missile system equipped with the Avangard hypersonic guided warhead.

    Masterpiece said. Voluntarily expanded the Treaty to the Republic of Kazakhstan with the Avangard bloc. And nothing that this happened automatically, because the treaty applies to ICBMs of the UR-100N family (UR-100N and UR-100N UTTH). And there is nothing about the combat load in the agreement. At least 1 block, at least 6, at least "Vanguard" - the carrier falls under the Treaty

    So, for example, according to the INF Treaty, our country has lost the unique PGRK "Pioneer" (RSD-10; SS-20 mod.1 Saber), OTR-23 (9K714; SS-23 Spider), in everyday life "Oka", MRBM R- 12 (8K63; SS-4 Sandal), MRBM R-14 (8K65; SS-5 Skean), operational-strategic missile complex RK-55 "Relief" with a long-range land-based cruise missile.

    The Soviet Union had a quantitative advantage (910 medium-range missiles against 689 American ones; in the field of short-range missiles, the USSR also had an advantage).

    Starting from, to put it mildly, not quite adequate (if not to put it bluntly - openly treacherous) ideas of the then head of the Soviet Union about the international political situation, we eliminated 2 times more missiles (1836 versus 859) and 3 times more missile launchers ( 851 versus 283).

    And what does the author want to say? That we needed to eliminate as many as the Americans? But the treaty was for ALL medium-range missiles. The only disadvantage of this agreement was that the Oka complex fell under this agreement, which "did not climb into any gates" under this agreement. But here we must say a special "thank you" to Mikhail Sergeevich and his Minister of Foreign Affairs. And more were destroyed due to the fact that more riveted. Plus there were more than a hundred unwritten P-12 and P-14, which at that time and without a contract were removed from service

    At the same time, Soviet weapons were eliminated simply by barbaric methods (along with combat control equipment, cable networks, etc.). The Americans then showed much more ingenuity and, for example, did not destroy the W85 nuclear warhead from their MGM-31C Pershing-2.

    The author is seriously sure that ours destroyed the physical packages of nuclear warheads. Or did they, like the Americans, destroy the warhead corps?

    We should also recall the situation with the Krasnoyarsk radar station (Yeniseisk-15).

    In accordance with the 1972 ABM Treaty, each side had the right to deploy missile attack warning system (EWS) radar stations along the periphery of its national territory with antennas oriented outward. Proceeding from this, the deployment of a radar station in the Krasnoyarsk region really contradicted the agreement (such a decision was dictated by economic considerations). However, the Americans also violated the treaty by deploying their early warning systems in Greenland and Great Britain.

    After all, we knew that we were going to violate the contract, but we thought that it would. The Americans turned out to be smarter in this regard. They let us finish building the station, pour a lot of money into it, and then officially declared the violation and demanded that the station be dismantled. As a result, such "savings" came to us sideways. It would be cheaper to put the station where it was planned: on the islands of Franz Josef Land (including the construction of a nuclear power plant there to power this station).
    As for the American stations in Greenland and Great Britain, the treaty was not retroactive. At the time of signing the contract, the stations were already there. And the contract did not say anything about these stations

    The situation with the START I Treaty was no better for us. We have again reduced more carriers (1 versus 1202) and warheads (435 versus 3898). As noted by TASS military observer Viktor Litovkin:

    "Russia had to halve the number of the most powerful and heaviest in the world" Voevoda "R-36MUTTH / R-36M2 missiles or" Satan ", as they were called in the West (Satan SS-18)."
    Gorbachev and Shevardnadze left the political stage (unfortunately, they also removed the Soviet Union from it). However, the pro-Western course of concessions has not gone anywhere.

    Well, the fact that we cut more, again, just because we had a lot more than the enemy. "Voevod" we have not cut a single piece. Only R-36M UTTH. And "Satan" "for the information of the author is called the entire family of R-36M missiles, which includes and included R-36M (15A14), R-36M UTTKh (15A18), R-36M2 Voevoda (15A18M). All of them had in the west the same index - SS-18 and differed in this index only by the number of modifications, and more were reduced due to the fact that almost 4 hundred old SS-11 missiles and 60 old SS-13 solid-propellant missiles were in service. on the submarine there were almost 180 old SS-N6 missiles with a range of 2500-3000 km and almost 300 SS-N8 monoblock missiles that were not new at that time, albeit with a range of 7800/9100 km. ...

    Quote: Ilya-spb
    I agree. I am also for Barguzin.
    And - only those who surrendered are disarmed. Capitulated.

    And I am against it. There is no sense in deploying one division. Moreover, it will be necessary to deploy from scratch, rebuild the entire infrastructure and for the sake of one division? To spend trillions of rubles to deploy 3 dozen Yars-type missiles? Isn't it easier and easier and much more efficient to deploy 3-4 regiments of the Yars PGRK?

    Quote: Khibiny Plastun
    The Kremlin Jews no longer know how to bend their backs. They us-fly over the B-52 along our borders, our "power" anti-people, voluntarily "Vanguard" under the knife. Wonderful things in our PU kingdom.

    Smart guy, but where did you hear, yap, that "Vanguard" goes under the knife when it just unfolds ???
    1. D16
      D16 1 January 2021 14: 24
      0
      The author is seriously sure that ours destroyed the physical packages of nuclear warheads. Or did they, like the Americans, destroy the warhead corps?

      Then Rosatom high-tech unleashed highly enriched uranium and sold it to the Americans with all the ensuing consequences for their nuclear industry in accordance with the well-known agreement laughing .
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 2 January 2021 23: 05
        -1
        Back in the 87th the USSR began to supply uranium to the USA.
        1. D16
          D16 3 January 2021 15: 02
          0
          Since the 70s, actually. But the Americans quickly closed the shop through customs duties of 116%. But then they had to cancel everything and allocate a quota according to Wow, Low.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 3 January 2021 16: 18
            0
            Quote: D16
            But then they had to cancel everything and allocate a quota according to Wow, Low.

            I still read conflicting comments on this deal, and I cannot understand whether it was beneficial to us, or whether we really squandered strategic raw materials for a song. Throw in reliable information if in the subject.
            1. D16
              D16 4 January 2021 07: 52
              +1
              Not enough to guarantee the accuracy of the information smile ... On the one hand, they sold weapons-grade uranium, which would have to be stored somewhere in appropriate conditions, on the other hand, the nuclear scientists got a guaranteed job for 20 years and stayed in Russia, rather than scattered around the world, spreading nuclear technologies. As a result, Rasatom is ahead of the rest of the world, and the Americans have not acquired their own competitive separation capacities and are forced to annually extend the cancellation of the antidumping investigation and the introduction of duties on uranium enriched in Russia.
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 4 January 2021 11: 48
                +1
                Quote: D16
                As a result, Rasatom is ahead of the whole planet,

                Those. At least we have not lost in this matter, and this pleases, judging by the success of the construction of our nuclear power plants around the world.
  12. A_Lex
    A_Lex 31 December 2020 20: 49
    +3
    It was done in good faith.


    Since the accession of the EBN in the country, in fact, nothing has changed, because the same people are ruling, who carry out the same policies as before. And as long as people who support this policy remain in power, no fundamental changes for the better will take place. Changes for the better mean the complex development of Russia, as it was under the USSR, and not the policy "we will not finish eating, but we will take it to our beloved Europe", which was carried out both in Ingushetia and in the modern Russian Federation. For this reason, there is no point in hoping that the situation will suddenly change by itself. In the oil visor - yes, they will tell you what you really want to hear on the other side of the screen - about the global leadership of Russia. The only problem is that reality doesn't always match the fabulous news.
    1. D16
      D16 31 December 2020 21: 12
      0
      The only problem is that reality doesn't always match the fabulous news.

      “The US President’s Special Representative for Arms Control Marshall Billingsley again proposed freezing the number of warheads in response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s words about readiness to negotiate with Washington on START III. Moscow had previously rejected this proposal. In addition, Billingsley continued to assert that the Russian Federation has already agreed to these conditions, although Moscow denied it. "(c) https://iz.ru/3/1101514-2020-12/billingsli-otvetil-rossii-po-povodu-prodleniia-snv-18
      I chased you for three days to say how indifferent you are to me. (C)
  13. Vadim237
    Vadim237 31 December 2020 21: 49
    -4
    1. In history there are frequent examples of development precisely at the expense of the military-industrial complex (Prussia of Friedrich Wilhelm I, partly the Russian Empire, the USSR, Japan in the 1930s, etc.).

    2. A technological breakthrough should be expected, first of all, from the defense sector.

    An explanation of this phenomenon is the fact that the military-industrial complex belongs to the sphere of high politics, in other words, it falls under securitization. Thus, being a priority area of ​​public policy, an area that initially has a starting advantage receives more resources, which will accelerate the process of technological progress.

    3. Militarization increases the military potential necessary to defend "real sovereignty" and achieve those goals that directly relate to the sphere of Russia's national interests. All this once led the USSR to degradation in the civil sector and an economic crisis that grew into a political one, as a result of which the USSR did not - Russia will not step on this rake - they allocate 2,5% of GDP to the military-industrial complex per year and this is quite enough.
    1. A_Lex
      A_Lex 1 January 2021 15: 40
      +1
      All this once led the USSR to degradation in the civil sector and an economic crisis that grew into a political one, as a result of which the USSR did not become


      In the USSR, there was no degradation in the civil sector or an economic crisis, but the USSR did not become, because the party elite wanted to privatize assets that worked for the whole country, and not, as now, for private owners.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 2 January 2021 23: 07
        -2
        Yes, yes, fantasize further in the style of "It is not the system that is to blame and it is not us - these are those who are to blame"
        1. A_Lex
          A_Lex 3 January 2021 00: 03
          0
          It's not the system's fault and it's not us


          It has long been uninteresting for what reason the liberals blame the people and the system this time. The people of the liberals are to blame a priori, and the management cadres, to whom the liberals always treat like servants, hoping to get their honestly begged sugar pit, never do anything. What is characteristic - it is at the present liberal time that top managers receive astronomical fees, along with complete irresponsibility for their decisions.
  14. Poetry
    Poetry 31 December 2020 22: 57
    -1
    Enough to behave like terpily, gentlemen in power! We have already gone through this ...
  15. evgen1221
    evgen1221 1 January 2021 07: 41
    -1
    Of course, the breakthrough can be made by the military-industrial complex, but it is being promoted to the masses by a lot of private small firms that convert these developments into peaceful use. And where is it in the Russian Federation, if all and sundry look at the SME as a cash cow.
  16. bandabas
    bandabas 1 January 2021 14: 00
    0
    How do you call a yacht, so it will float.
  17. faterdom
    faterdom 1 January 2021 14: 07
    +1
    High strategies are all. START, the number of delivery vehicles and warheads ...
    Is it okay that with the current terms of service we actually do not have the required number of soldiers and sailors?
    Going on about all kinds of "committees of soldiers' mothers", which are often not soldiers at all, and sometimes not mothers, but terry Western NGOs ...
    We do not have them on an urgent basis, because they take care of them in every possible way and try not to let them go anywhere, in the end we do not have a prepared mob either. reserve, 40-50 year old former SA soldiers flashed their training in the Donbass.
    And then who?
    A professional army? And then when will it end quickly?
  18. besserbest
    besserbest 1 January 2021 15: 05
    0
    We are simply "thrown" in these deals. That is precisely why they hanged Marshal Akhromeev, who was a categorical opponent of the actions of the two scoundrels. Let's see where the GDP will "steer" ...
  19. Old26
    Old26 1 January 2021 16: 01
    +4
    Quote: A_Lex
    There was no degradation in the civil sector in the USSR

    Unfortunately there were. And degradation at times became possible because of "His Majesty's plan." My friend worked for a long time in Novocherkassk at the Stankozavod. In the early 70s, they drove products that even African countries did not buy. Attempts to switch to a new type failed in Moscow. When in high offices it was announced about the possibility of starting the issue only by reducing the plan of the old type of issue - the director was explicitly announced. If you lower the plan without permission, you will put down your party card ... What does this mean, I think it's not worth saying. It's the same in the auto industry. I'm not even talking about the quality of our cars. But if the model remained on the assembly line for 10-15 years, this meant only one thing. Even those who used to take the Soviet auto industry were not very willing to do this by buying outdated models. So, alas, it was. Not everywhere, but it was
  20. sleeve
    sleeve 1 January 2021 18: 54
    0
    Perhaps we are entering a "non-contractual" period. Belief in its absolute invincibility in terms of potential (economics, finance, "soft power") nullifies any need for compliance with treaties for the USA. The agreements will take the form of a vassal oath with a unilateral compromise. The USA is interested in any development of events in the "non-contractual" zone. If it is possible to limit the strategic nuclear forces of Russia, even if in exchange for holding their own (although there is experience of open fraud in the execution of treaties), then absolute superiority will be achieved in the usual segment of conventional weapons. It will be even more profitable to drag us into an unlimited arms race. For some reason, other options are simply not considered. It is not possible to believe that the analytics there is at this level. However, what we have, we have. For now, we'll have to share the planet with our neighbors who are really interested in our elimination.
  21. ximkim
    ximkim 1 January 2021 19: 26
    0
    The Kremlin has chosen a foreign course, and it cannot be "wrong." So it does everything "right".
  22. tank64rus
    tank64rus 1 January 2021 19: 53
    -2
    Arms betrayal may be enough. Who offered to remove the Vanguard by name.
  23. Old26
    Old26 1 January 2021 22: 19
    +3
    Quote: tank64rus
    Arms betrayal may be enough. Who offered to remove the Vanguard by name.

    I read, I think, carefully, the article. Didn't find ANYTHING there, which would be connected with the fact that "remove" "VANGUARD"? Where is it written, if not a secret
  24. Ugochaves
    Ugochaves 2 January 2021 11: 30
    -1
    Quote: Old26
    I read, I think, carefully, the article. Didn't find ANYTHING there, which would be connected with the fact that "remove" "VANGUARD"? Where is it written, if not a secret

    These are readers from the category "I look at the book, I see a fig" and what I do not see, so I fantasize
  25. Old26
    Old26 2 January 2021 17: 32
    +3
    Quote: UgoChaves
    Quote: Old26
    I read, I think, carefully, the article. Didn't find ANYTHING there, which would be connected with the fact that "remove" "VANGUARD"? Where is it written, if not a secret

    These are readers from the category "I look at the book, I see a fig" and what I do not see, so I fantasize

    Clear. And then I thought I didn’t take on a lot on NG, there was no hangover, and I didn’t see the place where they were offered to be “put under the knife”. It is now clear
  26. Old26
    Old26 3 January 2021 14: 53
    +2
    Quote: D16
    Barguzin worked 150% of his time. With a warranty life of 10 years, he worked 15.

    Sorry, Ilya! I just don't understand, what year are you writing from, from 2045 or later? How can "Barguzin" work out if it does not exist yet ??? Or are you still a guest from the future?

    Quote: Kara
    The article says about this (about the missile system with the Avangard unit).

    Well, they also write a lot on the fences. And in the press. For example, it is wild for me to read that the carrier of the same "Vanguard" is the UR-100 missile. The person writing this probably does not know that by the mid-90s all the missiles of the Ur-100 family were decommissioned. And the "Vanguard" is installed on the UR-100N UTTH ICBM and nothing else.
    It's the same with the Treaty. The articles of the treaty list the weapons to which the treaty provisions apply. So here is the UR-100N UTTH THERE IS... And talk about unilateral voluntary inclusion "Vanguard" in the provisions of the agreement - noodles for listeners
  27. Bratkov Oleg
    Bratkov Oleg 3 January 2021 18: 05
    0
    At the UN level, it is impossible to make any decision, because the US has an army, but the USSR does not have an army, and the USSR itself does not, there is no one to resist.
    In some American science fiction films about the future, UN leaders are the pocket secretaries of American presidents. Now they see it this way
  28. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 4 January 2021 02: 45
    0
    There are many words, but the essence is the same and very simple - behind all the existing exaggerated leafy screen of our hurray propaganda, another surrender is being prepared, which will be turned inside out and presented as a grand triumph of will and a gesture of peace of extraordinary generosity. There has already been one such generous donor in history - Mikhail Gorbachev. This is an empty path from the point of view of the real security of the state.
  29. serg v zapase
    serg v zapase 5 January 2021 16: 17
    0
    And if Russia gets another 5 nuclear warheads with carriers, people in our country will be calm about their future, the health of their children, and a secure old age. In the USSR, the enraged militarists forced thousands of tanks, hundreds of submarines to rivet, the arithmetic would not be enough to count nuclear weapons. The alliance overloaded with missiles bent down, I'm sorry, but the generals did not calm down, we will not build three-storey dachas as weapons. Then Serdyukov was set on them, immediately howling and crying - we did not have time to plunder everything, but also forced to serve. North Korea has several carriers with nuclear weapons and is calm, the French are sitting with a hundred bombs and are not blowing, Russian nuclear weapons can destroy the earth three times, the military does not need 5 times, for round counting. Who said that the BZHRK were afraid, they were afraid of idiots on both sides of the ocean. How many of those BZHRK were, were removed and what has changed, but nothing at all, except that the costly servants of this super garbage were removed.
    1. Siberian54
      Siberian54 5 January 2021 20: 19
      0
      You are right, and France with a hundred and England with don’t know how many, under an umbrella and general command with 5,000 American YAZUs sit quietly ... North Korea also quietly gnawed Trump under the supervision of the PRC I don’t know how many YAZUs and the Russian Federation 5,000 YAZUs and you have not yet been invited to a showdown of urban ruins precisely because of these 5,000 expensive toys of our military, which I hope have not forgotten the ashes of the resurrection on 22,06,1941
      1. serg v zapase
        serg v zapase 5 January 2021 23: 43
        0
        Sunday in 41 showed - the disgusting training of troops, ignorance of orders, often ignorance of their duties by commanders. A "peculiar" attitude to materiel, roughly speaking, the then Luddites. In the press, a number of 20 thousand tanks slip, of which only half are more or less combat-ready, start up, and there are enough mechanized drivers for a third. Reluctance to master new technology, new aircraft are simply ignored. Failures in diplomacy, intelligence. It's good that the dates and the Balts have been moved. Where the troops were taught, there were successes. Now the training in the troops is increasing, "sudden" checks have shown this. If we recall the very first checks, then it was generally continuous on 22.06, then the training system was given a magic pendel, training began, in Syria, as a weapons range, they reduced the ensigns with big stars. Why else fuyuva bunch of nuclear warheads. An invented case - in front of the storehouse number 1 there are three tractors, in a constant bg. a sudden check, they were started, the engines are thawed, the fuel is at the bottom of the tank, they cannot move.
        1. Siberian54
          Siberian54 6 January 2021 16: 17
          0
          Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction and did not have-it feeds someone else's army, and there is a permanent civil war, the DPRK-WMD exists, the state exists, hunger after a terrible drought and typhoons reinforced by a food blockade (the country's situation is one to one as during the "Holodomor, countries banned food supplies and denied loans, and the EBN also hurried in advance) was overcome.On the combat effectiveness of the army, the army that has not been involved in hostilities for 10 or more years loses up to 70% of its combat effectiveness, which is why, on average, every seven to ten years the one hundred and fifty thousandth contagent of the USA army chasing local natives somewhere, supporting his officers in combat uniform, checking the real performance characteristics of his military equipment
          1. serg v zapase
            serg v zapase 9 January 2021 01: 48
            0
            It's good to be healthy and rich! I understand that it is necessary to take an example from the DPRK, and not from Iraq. They say the Iraqi army could have fought wonderfully, but the generals have merged. Who knows the state of the army better than generals? so they ran to surrender to amers, as they knew well. Koreans train fighters, have the ability to respond militarily to threats, so they don't go into the fog. Nuclear weapons help them a little in this, but this is not a panacea. Again, rumors circulate that the next general rank can only be obtained by visiting Syria. Perhaps there is a military sense in this, but only from me it is hidden. It is difficult to get Suvorov's experience in taking Ishmael in one short business trip.
  30. Siberian54
    Siberian54 5 January 2021 20: 11
    0
    To our state, due to weak international media support (RT and Sputnik, the amount of content is vanishingly small) and internal weakness (complete absence of national content in the Internet community (all social networks are controlled by a foreign resource, there is no free computing power to create our own) It is categorically contraindicated to withdraw from such an agreement yourself!
    1. serg v zapase
      serg v zapase 9 January 2021 01: 54
      0
      The entire apparatus of power supports you in this. No fools were put on the top, but the contracts have validity periods, changed circumstances, force majeure finally.
  31. Old26
    Old26 6 January 2021 21: 52
    +3
    Quote: Siberian54
    Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction and does not have - it feeds someone else's army, and there is a permanent civil war, the DPRK has weapons of mass destruction,

    In fact, Iraq had it. At least chemical weapons. Read about the "war of cities", about how Saddam gassed his Kurds

    Quote: Siberian54
    the state exists, the famine after a terrible drought and typhoons reinforced by a food blockade (the situation in the country is one-on-one as during the "Holodomor, the same countries banned food supplies and refused loans, and the EBN also fussed in advance) has been overcome.

    Uh-huh. Their hunger has been catastrophic since 1995. And all as one banned the supply of food. The Americans especially tried, supplying North Korea from 1995 to 2011 about 2 million tons of food. Here are the bastards, they staged such a food blockade. And the neighbors are South Korea. Who only dreamed of how to kill the northern neighbors. "Starved to death" by supplying 400 million 3 thousand tons of food. More than China ... Hugo, the food blockade was imposed ...
    1. Siberian54
      Siberian54 12 January 2021 08: 45
      0
      Due to what, the design, construction and manufacture of the nuclear power plant had to be financed .. We followed the Soviet path ..
  32. The comment was deleted.
  33. Vyacheslav Kotelnikov
    Vyacheslav Kotelnikov 7 January 2021 14: 53
    +1
    Like many who are rooting for the security of Russia, I asked the President of Russia a written question at a press conference on 17.12.2020/14.12.2020/1310981 (register 26/15/131098131 / No. 1 / out. No. A1-XNUMX-XNUMX-COXNUMX with Appendix XNUMX PDF file). But there is no answer yet, and I know why.
    Question. Why does the RF Ministry of Defense have "expensive" fake projects: "Railgun", ETH-guns, "Smart Bullet", which will "chase" the enemy, unmanned tanks, which were abandoned back in the Finnish war, etc., and all the proposals, for example: a helicopter-type UAV with a lifting capacity of up to 3000 kg or more, a projectile / bullet with an initial velocity of up to 2500 + m / s, etc. are they rejected without any arguments?
    After all, technologies have already been developed and patented that make it possible to have an initial velocity of a projectile / bullet of any caliber up to 2500 m / s and more (Patent-No of patents are indicated in the original). Which were repeatedly proposed by the RF Ministry of Defense and the State Corporation "Rostec".
    After all, it is obvious that for a projectile with an initial velocity of 2600 m / s - 2800 m / s and, with a caliber of 57 + mm, any tank in the world is a "plywood shed" at a proactive distance.
    But in the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation for all proposals, these and other developments, incl. UAVs, they answer: "For the RF Armed Forces, these developments are not interesting - the correspondence on them has been stopped." Even the Order (Order-29.07.2016) of the Chief of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces did not convince them.
    And in the Conclusions: the RF Ministry of Defense, TSNIITOCHMASH JSC and others, in fact, it is stated: "It is not possible to do this." At the same time, for the entire time of correspondence with the RF Ministry of Defense, not a single professional question was asked, in fact.
    Although in the documents of each development: the essence, design, description of work, drawings - are disclosed with completeness sufficient for implementation by a SPECIALIST in the relevant field of technology, as defined in Clause 2 of Article 1376 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
    Since the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation hides important scientific and technical information from the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, the Chief of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces - the Russian Army and, deliberately (thoughtlessly) open special developments that are now available to terrorists and NATO, I, in order to protect future developments, turned to FSB RF.
    In addition, now in the United States (based on Russian developments: the above) a super-gun "SLRC" is being developed, with which they are going to fire at Moscow, St. Petersburg and other cities of Russia from the northern seas.
    Now this problem in the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation is being dealt with in the DCK of the FSB of the Russian Federation (No.K-695 / 04.08.2020/XNUMX/XNUMX).
    Yours faithfully,
    Vyacheslav Kotelnikov,
    External head of the ONTC "Beta", "The best inventor of the rocket and space industry" (Ud.22)
    1. serg v zapase
      serg v zapase 9 January 2021 02: 05
      0
      Launch 50 rockets, a couple of drones and sit and fly. Why do you need a super gun in this case? A shell for her is more expensive than a tomahawk. Americans are happy to cut their budget, and here is the "SLRC" cannon.