US press presented a scenario of a possible war between Russia and NATO

A possible war between Russia and NATO will be dire. It can turn into "real horror."

This opinion was expressed by the journalist Stavros Atlamazoglu in an article published by the American edition 19FortyFive.

The US press notes that the Russian military has significant advantages. Indeed, in recent years, Moscow has stubbornly modernized and strengthened its armed forces, while the United States and its allies are mired in regional conflicts around the world - in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries. And although they received real combat experience, it is unlikely to come in handy in armed clashes with such powerful opponents as Russia or China.

According to Atlamazoglu, military actions between the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Alliances, if this happens, will begin either in the Baltic Sea region or in the Black Sea region. At the same time, he believes that NATO's strategy does not imply the first to start a conflict, because, according to the journalist, it provides for exclusively defensive or retaliatory actions. From this he concludes that only Russia can act as an aggressor in a possible war, and this gives it certain advantages. Apparently, the foreign observer does not want to remember how many wars on Earth were initiated by the NATO countries.

The most important thing, writes Atoamazoglu, is that the parties to the conflict will in no case use nuclear weapons. weaponso that it does not grow from regional to global. The conflict scenario is nuclear-free. Where the American newspaper columnist got such confidence is not entirely clear.

Earlier in the American media there were other versions of the scenario of a possible military confrontation between Russia and NATO. One of them is a clash in the Arctic with the use of missile weapons. Now - options with the Baltic and the Black Sea region.

Comments

[Grandfather Mozai]

Shaw, again? !!!

[Finches]

Atoamazoglu, arguing that the parties to the conflict will in no case use nuclear weapons so that it does not grow from a regional to a global one, must carefully read the Military Doctrine of Russia:
"The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and (or) its allies, as well as in case of aggression against the Russian Federation using conventional weaponswhen the very existence of the state is threatened "

[Civil]

"Can we repeat" was already in the comments?

[Zyablicev43]

There is a Red Button, there is a finger that has to press it ... but the finger has a hobby of being constantly late. Always, everywhere and in everything.

[Alexga]

Personally, I believe that any armed conflict between the Russian Federation and NATO will lead to the use of nuclear weapons, most likely tactical. And all partners should remember this. There is no other option. The time for "concern" is over. Only the problem of political will remained.

[Vladimir Mashkov]

Another aggressive insanity from the Americans: there will be a war and Russia will attack. How many of them have already been and how many more will be!

[alex neym_2]

Not "again", but again delirium is carried by all the "peace-loving" who are so thirsty for blood!

[Xnumx vis]

Quote: Grandfather Mozai

Shaw, again? !!!

What do you want? Atmaz wrote about the corner in a flock. Here is such a bullshit! We read all sorts of sewing atmazobugol ...

[Vladimir Vladimirovich Vorontsov]

A possible war between Russia and NATO will be dire. She can turn into "real horror"

***
And how did he guess? ...
***

[lucul]

And how did he guess? ...

Maybe even Facebook will stop working or, oh, horror, Netflix)))

[Vladimir Vladimirovich Vorontsov]

Maybe even Facebook will stop working or, oh, horror, Netflix))) [/ quote]
***
Already!
Facebook is gone. There is Meta ...
***

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Vladimir Vladimirovich Vorontsov

Facebook is gone. There is Meta ...

what about an owl what an owl about a stump
all one is banned for the word Ukrainians

[mojohed2012]

A similar topic has recently been covered on VO. About the same journalist and about the same.
In fact - fabrications on the topic, and what will happen if any of us writes his own.
You need to know the main thing: if tomorrow is a war, then NATO should not hope for any regional nuclear-free conflict. These are dreams. The Russian Federation does not have a comparable number of forces and weapons in comparison with NATO, therefore, nuclear weapons will be used faster and more massively than they think.

[blackberry]

Quote: mojohed2012

if tomorrow is a war, then there is no need to hope for any regional nuclear-free conflict of NATO.

It is for the war in Europe that everyone is psychologically prepared. And they are pushing.

[Barberry25]

but on the contrary, the Yankees will not go to a large-scale conflict, because then they will have to assemble a group of at least 1,5-2 million. They will wash themselves with a little boy even if our people decide to wait for the beginning of the aggression, so most likely the stake will be made on a regional conflict, far from the main part of Russia in order to demonstrate the possibilities ... there is either the KOR or the PMR, I would bet on Transnistria ... Romanian is easier to persuade into war, forces there with a gulkin's nose, and if something happens, Russia will have to invade Ukraine.

[kytx]

Finally! Fallout chasing the irl.
Sarcasm off

[Cowbra]

The most important thing, writes Atoamazoglu, is that the parties to the conflict will in no case use nuclear weapons, so that it does not grow from a regional to a global one.

Exactly for this reason, the WWII did not use chemical weapons.

[lucul]

Exactly for this reason, the WWII did not use chemical weapons.

Hitler used concentration camps to the full, but still did not dare to use chemical weapons. But the Americans used nuclear weapons with ease.

[Cowbra]

Only they had it then - so the risk was zero. And now there are many who have nuclear weapons, and they will immediately respond to its use.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

everything is understandable, Hitler did not dare not because of philanthropy, but fearing reciprocal use, mattresses at the time of the use of nuclear weapons were the ONLY country with such weapons

[lucul]

and being afraid of reciprocal use

For some reason, when the Germans bombed cities, Hitler was not particularly afraid of retaliatory bombings.

[Nastia makarova]

from simple bombs, the damage is small, and if it were bombs with chemical weapons, then the cities would be empty in a month

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

I understand that you do not quite understand what chemical weapons are

[nobody75]

Hitler used concentration camps to the full, but still did not dare to use chemical weapons.

Ever wondered WHY?
Sincerely

[fruc]

We remember very well who initiated the wars in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria, Libya. If there is a war, it will be for the redistribution of spheres of influence in the world and for resources (and not liberal and democratic values ​​and freedom of the gay community). And in this case, NATO will be the first to unleash a war.

[NDR-791]

Quote: lucul

Hitler used concentration camps to the full, but still did not dare to use chemical weapons.

They write that Hitler was afraid of chemical weapons as being used. But unfortunately I made up my mind, just not at the front. And our people learned about this much later. The Germans in the Crimea hunted partisans in the catacombs. They would immediately recognize the kirdyk of Germany. There was already such good in the USSR in full abundance.

[Crimean partisan 1974]

The Germans in the Crimea hunted partisans in the catacombs.

....... well, not with chemical weapons, but with the exhaust gases of the internal combustion engine, but I had to go to the lower tiers of the Adzhimushkaya catacombs, but the limestone walls of the catacombs absorbed CO so that these actions were unsuccessful ... there were still such unsuccessful CO operations to smoke partisans taken in the catacombs in the Eltigen area near the hero city of Kerch

[Looking for]

and all because you were at that time its monopolists

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Cowbra

Exactly for this reason, the WWII did not use chemical weapons.

Was WWII a regional conflict?

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir

Was WWII a regional conflict?

ASHA and the West are screaming everywhere and writing "It was a war between Hitler and Stalin," forgetting that it began in 1937. Although they always write in the west - "The war between the ROC and the Japanese Empire that began before World War II and continued until its end."

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Cowbra

The most important thing, writes Atoamazoglu, is that the parties to the conflict will in no case use nuclear weapons, so that it does not grow from a regional to a global one.
Exactly for this reason, the WWII did not use chemical weapons.

But for some reason Atoamazoglu forgets that in the First World War, the parties to the conflict used chemical weapons without a twinge of conscience.

[Non-fighter]

Read the same Veremeeva: Well, for starters, let's take storage problems. Further, chemical weapons are highly dependent on the weather, this is one, and secondly it hits and on its own it is two. In total, the factor of surprise goes into negative territory, and the enemy has time to prepare. And now we recall the favorite dishes of the generals, first German and then ours: the enemy is in a cauldron in his own juice. And sitting in a trench in a chemical kit is somehow easier than running to the same trench.

[bk0010]

Quote: Cowbra

Exactly for this reason, the WWII did not use chemical weapons.

1. During WWII, chemical was used. weapons: they hunted partisans in the Adzhimushkai quarries.
2. Mass chemical. weapons were not used due to insufficient effectiveness compared to the usual: to disrupt the attack of the battalion, chemical. shells required the same as high-explosive, hemorrhoids with the use of more, and the result is not guaranteed (if the enemy is ready).

[Altmann]

It's time to prove to Americans that they are not so strong

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Altmann

It's time to prove to Americans that they are not so strong

And for what ?

[The popuas]

Any war is horror!

[Looking for]

ordinary life is also sometimes horror.

[Pavel73]

Everything is exactly the opposite. And NATO is by no means a defensive organization, and this war will become nuclear immediately. Especially at sea. On land, the commander may still have some doubts, hesitations, because both cities and civilians, millions of victims, radioactive contamination. But at sea there is none of this, only we and the enemy fleet. And the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons is much lower.

[BARKAS]

And who will die in this war?

[tihonmarine]

Quote: BARKAS

And who will die in this war?

As planned by the United States, everyone except the Americans.

[Sands Careers General]

Captain Omerika and Batman, well, all sorts of avengers))
And they will die without hope

[verdict]

The US press presented a scenario of a possible war between Russia and NATO.

They are so eager to find themselves in HELL ... first in the physical, and then in the metaphysical ?!

[lucul]

They are so eager to find themselves in HELL ... first in the physical, and then in the metaphysical ?!

The coming de-industrialization of Europe will release 400 million people. And what to do with them? That's
can throw on the next DRANG NACH OSTEN (Drang nach Osten).
Everything goes to this.

[Pathos]

It was not for nothing that England fell out of the European Union, and even created an alliance with Australia, while rolling the Europa, they brought barmaley to Europe of different stripes, wrap their tails with chubby while pumping them with weapons, and then they will start distributing Kalash as free shrimps for drug addicts with slogans there in the east is yours the land and the slaves, and their mothers will say: - son, you pick the earth out to beat a stream (stream or river), that rich rabiv ne rery 2 is enough. We had such 2 meters each and many got it, because from a direct hit there was nothing left to fill them like dogs for a year, the dogs from the landings then dragged their arms or legs. The Europeans themselves will not come to the war, they are already poor fellows themselves settling in Russian regions in which the Arabs do not bother, well, ours do not assimilate to European tolerance on May 9 and other holy holidays, and how it is customary for ours to be beaten first and then asked. The situation is so sad that it was surrounded from all sides. And if they trample on to answer with a vigorous loaf of a dumb question in terms of the consequences of radiation and its other delights, to beat what is on their territory, what on its own, and it is a no brainer what is possible, but then how to attack the contaminated territory In theory, it is possible, but in practice, how some issues with far-reaching consequences will look like the dose will be picked up by all. And the territory will be uninhabitable for a number of years. Nuclear weapons only for partners because of a puddle are suitable as a response, for Europe in any way, it will cover everyone too close to where those clouds will carry, God only knows, the example of Chernobyl is obvious howl stood in Europe. It's just that they have already developed a tradition about once in a hundred years to sneak up on us unexpectedly to visit us so that they can find us at home. , probably will have to the old grandfather's method with the spell "your mother" unknown to them. Then the gifts to distribute pindulins are called it will hurt, but everyone will get it

[Barberry25]

well, there is an idea of ​​controlled chaos - to declare a default in the United States due to hyperinflation, to create a new currency along the way by joining, say, Canada, and so that others are not opposed to especially, to arrange a third world, say, Arabs in Europe, Turks against Greeks, Jews against Iranians, China against Japan with the insular part of China, and along the way Ukraine is being prepared + barmaley in Central Asia

[rotmistr60]

NATO strategy is not intended to be the first to start a conflict,

How so? And what about the constant talk about a preemptive strike, and the legends of the exercises held in the Black Sea and Baltic regions? Everything is aimed at the offensive and a little on the defense, obviously calculating the response.

The conflict scenario is nuclear-free.

Where such confidence? Not otherwise from the same bravura articles of the Western media - we will defeat everyone even without using nuclear weapons ...

[Cananecat]

Quote: rotmistr60

Not otherwise from the same bravura articles of the Western media - we will defeat everyone even without using nuclear weapons ...

Exactly ... they start from the position "And we are army", but they do not take into account that we think "where are we going to bury you all?"

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

in fact, once a century there are major international conflicts, we did not fight for too long, and if we consider that the war was already postponed for at least 20 years (the west passed its next crisis n = thanks to the plundering of the USSR), then we are really on the verge of a major military redistribution of the world

[Ross xnumx]

Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir

then we are really on the verge of a major military redistribution of the world

Simply put:

 Show / Hide text

Do you know what I dare to suggest? That it is in Europe that there are very few people willing to contact Russia in the perspective of the illusory happiness promised by the Americans. For all the seeming Russophobia, neither Germany nor France will go to war with Russia. If only GB? So even if she is not allowed to freeze in winter.
Here at one time there were messages from our former compatriots about the wonderful life in the EU and about the liberties of temporary residence in it. Let's presumably take their word for it. And then it turns out that native Western Europeans generally ride like cheese in butter (if the apartments are warm and there is electricity). Tell me, what have these tolerant Europeans lost (or left) in the cool and very cold expanses of our beloved vast country?
Therefore, I will say frankly that rumors about an impending clash between NATO and Russia are clearly exaggerated.

[Cananecat]

Quote: ROSS 42

Therefore, I will say frankly, rumors about an impending clash between NATO and Russia are clearly exaggerated.

Unfortunately not exaggerated. But Europe will wait for the America-Russia penalty shootout, and if the number of goals (read missiles hitting the target) from Russia is greater, it will remain in its positions. But if the Americans lead, then they will turn around in all their glory.
One problem, in Russia, the entire European part will be hit, and Europe will have to go through the contaminated area.

[Kerensky]

One problem, in Russia, the entire European part will be hit, and Europe will have to go through the contaminated area.

I would call this a gross exaggeration. Yes, there will be foci of infection, but there will be much more conditionally clean areas with forests and swamps. And the swamps will simply "devour" the sources of infection. A year or two and you can walk calmly.

[Looking for]

and Europe will exist by that time?

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir

thanks to the plundering of the USSR) then we are really on the verge of a major military redistribution of the world

Yes, he, this "redistribution" has been going on for 30 years, but everyone pretends that this is not. And he walks and picks up speed.

[75 Sergey]

In short - everyone died

[Jcvai]

NATO's strategy does not imply the first to start a conflict, because, the journalist claims, it provides for exclusively defensive or retaliatory actions

[Ross xnumx]

This opinion was expressed by journalist Stavros Atlamazoglu

It seems that in the United States, apart from the Crimean Tatar, there is no one to analyze the upcoming "battles" between NATO and Russia ...

[rocket757]

A possible war between Russia and NATO will be dire. It can turn into "real horror."

... And you do not imagine, do not guess, just convey this all to your layman ... the upper ones cannot completely ignore the mood in society, if there is one!

[tihonmarine]

A possible war between Russia and NATO will be dire. It can turn into "real horror."

Isn't the United States still waging a war against Russia ???

[Wedmak]

NATO's strategy does not imply the first to start a conflict, because, the journalist claims, it provides for exclusively defensive or retaliatory actions.

For purely defensive purposes, more than 800 NATO bases are scattered around the world, yeah ... doves of peace, adherents of purity, paladins of good ... (a lot of uncensored three-story battle)

[Crash]

NATO's strategy does not imply the first to start a conflict, because, the journalist claims, it provides exclusively defensive or retaliatory actions... From this he concludes that in only Russia can play the role of an aggressor in a possible war

What did I just read ??? Oh my eyes!

Same source:

The United States and its allies are mired in regional conflicts around the world

[bar]

A possible war between Russia and NATO will be dire.

This is the only correct conclusion from all the rest of the delirium.

[75 Sergey]

Let them not flatter themselves, they will shower us with hats with conventional weapons. We are first of all Ya. O. bahn!

[iouris]

Social networks report that the Armed Forces of Ukraine launched an assault on Dokuchaevsk in Donbass. The settlement is located 20 kilometers from Donetsk. Taking control of Dokuchaevsk, according to experts, could put an end to the existence of the DPR. Also reported about the fierce fighting between the security forces of the Ukrainian army and the militias.

[pomor23]

Egghead storytellers! No one in the history of mankind has ever dreamed of wars and blood so much as the "civilization" of eggheads!

[Prisoner]

Atoamazoglu thinks if NATO climbs Russia will not dare to burn with a vigorous club? A naive person. Looks like I have not read about the defenders of Smolensk in 1611.

[shubin]

NATO's most "terrible" weapon is the hundreds of billions of dollars of Russian oligarchs lying in Western banks and their real estate, from London to San Francisco. Russia has no arguments against such a weapon.

[Nick1973]

Why is there such a big "decollete" on the bulletproof vest in the photo for the article?

[Vdi73]

Another western ex..krement who saw the war on TV and YouTube gave his conclusion.

[Alexander Voilokov]

The scenario is very simple - Europe will not exist in principle, America will turn into Burkina Faso with Negro gangs, the Empire of Hyperborea will revive in Russia, with Emperor Shoigu and serfdom (in the sparsely infected Siberian and northern territories).

[Alex347482]

Ha ha ha. Here is underdevelopment, well, and climbs from all the cracks.

[Looking for]

oh, how the West is promoting a "possible war" scenario that is beneficial only to them.

[singless]

strange message. and if there is a war, not only Russia will participate, but there will not be enough fingers from whom NATO will grab

[poquello]

"They will start either in the Baltic Sea or in the Black Sea region. At the same time, he believes that NATO's strategy does not imply the first to start a conflict, because, according to the journalist, it provides exclusively defensive or retaliatory actions."
defend themselves gathered at the borders of Russia, and the help of our PMCs to Free Texas is somehow not considered

[Alexander Popov_1963]

Well, "writers" also need to eat. And they are fed by lines of text. Let's not be too hard on those who feed by pulling an owl onto a ball.

[Dilettante grandfather]

Quote: Kerensky

Yes, there will be foci of infection, but there will be much more conditionally clean areas with forests and swamps. And the swamps will simply "devour" the sources of infection.

Forests and swamps at all times gladly "devoured" not only the sources of infection, but also the troops that invaded our territory

[Codett]

even such a powerful weapon as a nuclear one has its limits of destructive power, which are not difficult to calculate by the formula of high explosiveness, that is, by the power of the shock wave. Although there is radiation, but still
According to open data in our arsenal are:
- 460 warheads R-36M2, power 1 Mt, radius of destruction 2800 m., Area of ​​destruction 24,6 sq. km;
- 114 RT-2PM warheads, 550 kt, 2200 m, 15,2 sq. km;
- 440 RS-24 warheads, 500 kt, 2200 m, 15,2 sq. km;
- 656 warheads R-29 and R-30, 200 kt, 1600 m, 8 sq. km.
Total total affected area:
- R-36M2 - 11 316 sq. km,
- RT-2PM - 1 sq. km,
- RS-24 - 6 688 sq. km,
- R-29 and R-30 - 5 sq. km.
In total, our nuclear arsenal has a total affected area of ​​24 sq. km or 984 thousand sq. km., and in this territory nuclear explosions will destroy most of the buildings and structures, as well as destroy most of the people. By the way, the Soviet nuclear potential in January 25 was 1990 warheads. Approximately 10 times more than now in Russia.
In the United States, the area of ​​cities in 2010: 106 thousand square meters. miles (274,5 thousand sq. km) with an average population of 905 people per sq. km. km. Calculations show that the available nuclear arsenal of Russia will be enough to destroy 9% of the urban area in the United States, which is home to 23 to 26 million people. In 1990, our capabilities were at least 6 times greater ... The total population of the United States in 2010 is 308,7 million people (now 340 million). In this case, 7-8% of the country's population will become victims of our "response". A very modest result. Although the population density in different cities of the United States is not the same, focusing on the most populated cities in the United States while ignoring small cities with a low population density, with the same initial data, will result in 40 to 80 million dead and dead. In this case, the most valuable passionate part of the population will suffer: technical specialists, entrepreneurs, administrators.
80 or even 40 million dead is no longer 10 or 15.
This is already enough for predators to be found who want to profit from the weakened United States.

[av58]

If a war breaks out between NATO and Russia, then at the first stage, if NATO fails to succeed and withdraws to its territory, nuclear weapons will most likely not be used.
If NATO countries (any) use small nuclear charges, then the conflict will probably immediately escalate to maximum intensity, and then strikes will be delivered on the territory of all NATO countries, and above all the United States, and without any stupid "surgical precision" , and excluding the military or civilian purpose of the object.
Moreover, it would be advisable to simultaneously strike both at military targets and purposefully at all civilian infrastructure facilities and the so-called "civilian population."
It is the civil infrastructure that ensures the normal functioning of the country and the population. Try today to live without electricity, water supply, and without a working sewer ... Just imagine New York, Chicago, LA, etc. covered in shit up to their ears, and it flows through the streets of these cities ... If we add to this the absence of roads, bridges, the supply of the population with medicines, food, fuel and lubricants for vehicles, the total destruction of the existing industrial and trade relations, and the presence in the United States of a large number of weapons in their hands, including those of a criminal element, then life will be very to put it mildly, quite savory. The lack of communications and the Internet is generally a real nightmare for the current generation.
Strikes on the "civilian population" are also necessary because this population works, including in military production, and is a reserve for the active army.
In short, the assertion that "the parties will refrain from nuclear strikes" is sheer nonsense.

[Zomanus]

Oh, how they want to fight everything ... They play it this way and that ... and all the same, Russia comes out victorious. By the way, in the photo for the article ... the vests look like baby bibs, to be honest.