Demonstration of strength, or who will scare whom
Everyone in the world today is busy discussing Russia's attack on Ukraine. Russian arguments that Russia is not planning any attacks are not accepted in the West, this is understandable. But even the President of Russia added a petrol to the fire, saying that "tension in the western direction is useful, because the partners will take Russian interests more seriously."
And the situation is blazing, it's great that while on the pages of the media, no further. But while the media in different countries are discussing the upcoming (or hypothetical) Russian attack on Ukraine, we will raise a slightly different topic.
The main question for today is, really, how useful is any show of force in terms of sobering up?
In general, the countries from the NATO bloc are very confident in their strength. Especially those who represent nothing of themselves, such as the Baltics. But there is some self-confidence.
In general, the block is a very, very strong structure, especially at sea. And it looks beautiful on land. Therefore, if you scare, demonstrating your capabilities, then in full program and not cartoons about "miracleweapon».
As practice shows, even a superpower can understand in time and back up at the negotiating table. The best example is the Cuban missile crisis, which was a direct result of the Turkish crisis. The Soviet Union did not like the idea of the Pershing in Turkey; the United States did not want to have Soviet missiles in Cuba. And everything, finita, the negotiating table, and Kennedy and Khrushchev quite decently agreed.
The fact that today there are really no platforms on which to negotiate is a completely different matter. The fact that the United States was the first to initiate the collapse of the INF Treaty, the ABM Treaty, the Open Skies Treaty greatly reduces the number of topics for conversation in general. Today, only the START-3 Treaty is in effect, and even then, as I think, for now.
In such circumstances, perhaps the only way to encourage thinking about the future is showing of strength. The question is - who and what to scare, to whom to demonstrate the capabilities?
It is clear that the main message of the demonstrations is directed towards the United States. If the US perceives it, then all other NATO vassals act in the same way and without much discussion.
Another question: what to negotiate and what to push to these negotiations.
We seem to have a theme. Russia would like NATO not to accept Ukraine and Georgia into its ranks (it doesn’t dare to call this a proud “non-proliferation to the east”, in the east only these crumbs remained unoccupied), not to deploy offensive weapons on their territories and guarantee this in the form of appropriate signed documents.
Naturally, NATO today feels itself in such a way that it does not want to talk about any documents or treaties. The Biden-Stoltenberg connection works on the same wavelength and sounds everything quite clearly.
And so the question arises: what to do in this situation?
The answer suggests itself in the style of "we are strong, you can regret it." That is, the same aforementioned demonstration of strength.
There are many ways to demonstrate strength. One such method in the USSR was a military parade on Red Square. It was truly a landmark event, and it was held on November 7th. And many countries looked at him with interest, since it was here that the Soviet Union showed its new products.
And the whole world knew - if today this rocket or tank drove through Red Square, then tomorrow they will actually be in the army. Somehow there was no point in lying, because they would not "surrender" their own - they would tell who needed the "allies" in the ATS.
Today the parade has a slightly different meaning as it is held on May 9th. November became, as it were, not the most convenient month for celebrations, since the date was canceled, and a new one of this level was not invented.
Now, in fact, May 9, Victory Day is the only holiday that is really nationwide. These days of Russia and national unity - well, so-so holidays, because they are invented instead of others, often even more ridiculous (like the day of independence of Russia is not clear from whom) and incomprehensible.
Well, God bless them, strange holidays, the fact is that there is only one really nationwide Victory Day. A holiday that still exists and still really unites everyone.
And on this day, a military parade is now being held.
Photo by: kremlin.ru
Let me tell you my opinion right away: there are two components, good and bad. I'll start, as expected, with the bad one.
What this parade has become is not entirely clear to me personally. In my time (I was a participant in the 117th military parade on November 7, 1988) it was a real military parade. For the right to participate in it, there were very serious battles between military institutions and participation in the parade was an honor, and not a joke. Although no medals were given for this, it was prestigious.
Of course, there were also constant participants in parades on Red Square, such as the Suvorov and Nakhimov schools, MosVOKU, border guards, paratroopers, and so on. There were also inconsistent participants, but it was impossible to imagine such an outrage as the parade was turned into now.
How can the representatives of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Federal Penitentiary Service, the Investigative Committee, the Cossacks, and the Yunarmiya be called a "demonstration of strength"? This is power?
As for the technical component, the “partners” are already openly giggling and slandering about it, discussing all the same 10 “Armats”, heels of “Boomerangs” and other types of weapons that do not have a mass production. Prototypes, so to speak.
In general, it is worth concluding that this parade by no means can be a demonstration of force. Ten "Armata" and boxes with non-military - this is not something that can be puzzled by Western "partners". This is not power, this is a demonstration of powerlessness.
The good thing is that now parades are held in cities where there is a technical opportunity.
These events will not scare anyone either, but they give the children the opportunity to see real military equipment. To join, so to speak, personally. This is a very rewarding business indeed. At least this is a chance to awaken something so patriotic in the minds of the kids.
The rest is just darkness and sadness. Parades, which from year to year drive the same "unmatched in the world" and released in single copies of equipment - this is somewhat not what is needed to intimidate a potential enemy.
And how to get it, an adversary?
As practice shows, the stirring of large masses of personnel and military equipment near the borders of states such as Ukraine and the Baltic states causes a much greater effect.
Indeed, large-scale maneuvers, sudden exits in the framework of inspections, exercises are more and more effective and effective. Indeed, in these events, not ceremonial crews of Cossack cadets participate, but quite normal privates and sergeants, often of contract service.
Yes, the T-72s don't look as brutal as the T-14s. And Msty is not like the Coalition. The question is, which is more efficient and effective, 10 "Armat" or 100 T-72?
It is clear that a hundred T-72s look much more dangerous precisely because there are many of them. Ten "Armata" is laughter. With ten tanks, even the most progressive, “lacking” and sophisticated, will be much easier to cope with than a hundred not so innovative, but proven by more than one war.
Therefore, they openly joke and laugh at our parades, but after the movements of older, but more massive equipment begin near the borders, screams begin.
And there are reasons for this.
This NATO expansion is actually not as terrible as we are shown. Let's see what acquisitions did the block make after 2000?
Albania. Bulgaria. Latvia. Lithuania. North Macedonia. Romania. Slovakia. Croatia. Slovenia. Estonia.
Do you see at least one country on the list that is something of a military nature? No, all these are small fragments of the Department of Internal Affairs and the communist camp that collapsed 30 years ago. And all 30 years there was a degradation of the armed forces of these countries.
Romania, this European flea market of old military equipment, we recently dismantled. There is also Bulgaria, which is no better. A "privileged" member of NATO, who was allowed to keep Soviet equipment in service, because according to the standards of the bloc, there is no chance of acquiring weapons from the word "at all."
Old MiG-21 and MiG-29, old T-72M1 and BMP-1, old Soviet boats. Everything is very old. If the Germans had not donated three old frigates from the master's shoulder, the fleet consisted only of boats and minesweepers.
In general, that is still a present for NATO.
But these "allies" must not only be accepted, they must equip their armed forces, transfer them to NATO standards, and resolve issues with governance.
This is such a huge amount of money that it is scary to even represent this entire former socialist camp fully in NATO. By and large, it's good that they are there. And they are pulling money and weapons from the United States and Germany, not from Russia. And if this whole gang remained on the balance sheet of the Russian bloc, it would have to be fed, watered and armed.
Well, how all these gentlemen can be good as allies, there is no need to say.
So you can accept the whole of Africa in NATO, who will get worse from this? Only the United States, which will have to put on-shoe-arm these and still try to shake the money out of them into the NATO budget. For protection and training, let's call it that.
The only real negative for us is the possibility of deploying offensive weapons on the territories of these countries. Yes, and defensive, from the same missile defense, by replacing missiles, you can easily turn into an offensive tactical weapon.
Yes, I'm all about the same, already mentioned Mk.41 missile defense installations in Poland and Romania. All our ears were buzzing that this is against Iran, but where is Iran from Poland ... Plus, the infrastructure is still being created: warehouses, workshops, equipment and equipment is being supplied.
It is unpleasant. It is worth fighting against this, at least by informing those who are so actively deploying NATO infrastructure on their territory that it can be very painful in certain situations. Or even fatal.
For Russia, it is not so much the advance of NATO to the east that poses a threat, in fact, the bloc has advanced as much as possible, there are only remnants of the socialist camp in the face of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, that's all, Europe is over, as the saturation of these territories with equipment and elements of military infrastructure.
Well, and the placement of more or less combat-ready combat units near the borders of Russia.
Combatable units from the same America - this is, of course, serious, they can become good detachments if necessary. The Americans, of course, will not fight for the Latvians, Lithuanians, Bulgarians and Romanians, not to mention the Ukrainians. This is not costing American lives at all, proven by Afghanistan.
Americans, with rare exceptions, generally prefer to fight with someone else's hands. So their presence in the Baltics or Slovenia is not as scary as the missile systems deployed near our borders on the territory of these countries. Airplanes at the airfields of countries. Ships in the ports of the allies.
In order for everything to happen not according to this scenario, it is worth demonstrating strength. But not in the same way as the "demonstration of the flag" by a couple of ships on the other side of the world, not in ostentatious parades. It is necessary to demonstrate the force that can destroy ships in ports, aircraft on airfields and tanks in hangars.
And - most importantly - it must be demonstrated so that the government of any country understands the idea of the inevitable loss of not only the military infrastructure with the military equipment of the United States and allies deployed on it, but also its own facilities associated with the military.
This is a good way to convey to US allies the idea that Russia should be reckoned with in terms of deploying troops and facilities near Russian borders. Perhaps this approach will not scare anyone, but the goal is precisely for those who so fiercely advocate the deployment of NATO military facilities on their soil simply begin to think about the possible consequences of such actions.
Well, some experience will not hurt the Russian troops.
Information