"There is no protection from them": American expert proposed to ban Russian heavy flamethrower systems

The Russian heavy flamethrower systems TOS-1 "Buratino" and TOS-1A "Solntsepek" are capable of burning out huge areas; there is no escape from them even in shelters. They are so destructive that they must be banned. This is the conclusion reached by an American expert on new threats, retired US Army officer Brent Eastwood.

The author draws attention to the fact that Russian heavy flamethrower systems are "mobile installations" developed on the basis of Soviet tanks T-72. Each installation carries 24 guides with 220-mm projectiles capable of burning out an area of ​​several football fields, while there is no protection from it even in shelters, it is impossible to survive with such a blow.

According to Eastwood, TOS-1 and TOS-1A use thermobaric and incendiary rounds capable of destroying personnel, armored vehicles and shelters at a distance of "more than 3,5 miles."

According to him, the Russians began using the TOS-1 "Buratino" back in Afghanistan, then in Chechnya. TOS-1A "Solntsepek" appeared in 2001 and was used in Syria. Now these systems are pulled to the borders of Ukraine, the author says. In addition, Russia is actively promoting flamethrower systems for export; they have already been purchased by the armies of Armenia and Azerbaijan, Iraq, Syria and Kazakhstan.

In 1980, the world community adopted the "Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary weapons"However, Russian thermobaric weapons do not fall under its effect. Therefore, American and European human rights activists need to revise the norms and impose restrictions on the use of such systems. And the best solution would be to completely ban the use of such systems," he sums up.

Application of TOS-1A "Solntsepek":

Comments

[SaLaR]

And if they still find out about the construction battalion .................

[Maz]

It's good that there is no protection from them, and even better that we have them. Go Russia!

[Shurik70]

All of these flamethrower systems operate at close range.
Just don't start fighting against them. And you will be completely safe.

[ZeeD]

Well 7-9 km, after the current modernization, this is not a short distance

[Anachoret]

And according to Geletey, the Minister of Defense of Ukraine during the times of gunpowder) Buratino can carry a nuclear warhead)))

[VORON538]

It was "Cheburashka"

[mikstepanenko]

Is it? Geleta spoke about the Cheburashka system. Do you know about this? I do not know. He also invented the Altai armored militia and other new types of troops.

[Anachoret]

Armored police))) class)))
Well, everything in Ukraine is so ... a mosquito fleet, cockroach cavalry and flea strategic aviation, submariner gophers, etc.))
They think that everyone has it))

[Andrey Chizhevsky]

There are also scooter-pistol companies there.

[knn54]

Why is the production of compact "lip-forming" automatic / semi-automatic machines still not established?

[serezhasoldatow]

In Sevastopol, on Grafskaya, they give out free of charge.

[Vladimir Mashkov]

The Americans, of course, can "ban". But will the Russian army obey them?

[Real Pilot]

How "partners" from these combat vehicles twists! Right up to grinding teeth and involuntary bowel movements ...
So good systems! We still need to produce.

[Joker62]

These finally "beasts" with a sapper shovel in their hands!

[VORON538]

During my urgent years (2001-2003), construction battalions came to the brigade in Ussuriisk, they were engaged in repairs, 100 percent were Caucasians. Such was the construction battalion. By the way, at that time a total of 15 of them served in the brigade, this is for 1000 conscripts.

[adler87]

I served in the construction battalion, 87-89. There was a Russian olin in the department, that's me. Dagestanis, Chechens, there were many more Uzbeks. Like this. When the Siberians-Omsk people came, and every one of them with the articles of the Criminal Code, we were very happy about that.

[marchcat]

"Sonltsepёk" is the most humane weapon, after the impact of which there will be no wounded or crippled!

[mitrich]

I served in the construction battalion in 82-84, in Protvino, near Moscow time. Churkeston was diluted with our call from St. Petersburg and the Arkhangelsk province and the following, guys from Ukraine. Than greatly clarified the composition of the regiment and tempered the ardor of especially zealous nat. minorities.

[Timon2155]

CBT is against Iranian missiles, let Europe and the United States not worry

[mitrich]

And you forgot to mention what else is against Eun's missiles.

[George Miloslavsky]

there, in general, animals do not even give them weapons)))

[swnvaleria]

let them first get out of Eastern Europe, and then we'll see what they have from the forbidden.

[fruc]

...... they should be prohibited. This is the conclusion reached by an American expert on new threats, retired US Army officer Brent Eastwood .......

And that suddenly they were worried. It's not against them !!!

[syndicalist]

Quote: frruc

And that suddenly they were worried. It's not against them !!!

In general, the use of these systems against a regular army is simply impossible. How impossible to imagine their covert approach to the enemy on these very "3.5 miles". Especially when you consider their turtle, in fact, the speed of movement, as well as the need for escort in the form of loaders and other escorts.
Against the Papuans, or, say, protesters inside the country, this is the very topic.

[your1970]

Quote: syndicalist

How impossible to imagine their covert approach to the enemy on these very "3.5 miles".

That is TANKS also against the regular army - no way ?????? !!!!
They are on the chassis of 72!
And the United States is hoping for the Abrams ...

Quote: syndicalist

domestic protesters

- well, if it comes to the need to fight the protester with the help of CBT ...
Or do you call ISIS in Syria - "protesters"?

[syndicalist]

The tank is a more self-sufficient system than the TOC. He moves faster, and loads the gun himself, and he can stand up for himself too, and he has more firing range. Unlike buratin, the use of which can be found, perhaps, in the designated areas. Their protection is about the same as that of a civilian fuel tanker, with much more significant consequences of being hit from any weapon. That is, it must move to a combat position with protection from ground and air enemies. This is in addition to the loaders mentioned. And now this entire "aircraft carrier group" at snail speed must approach the enemy motionlessly waiting for it by 3.5 miles and strike him with a crushing blow. Who can believe in this? It is clear that American generals need to intimidate the congressmen more, since they, like their Russian counterparts, like to eat well.

[Lykases1]

I don’t understand why you were given cons. If memory serves, then these machines are assigned to parts of the RHBZ. Ie, they must clear the territory of something, burn it out. As for the armor, hitting the tank is options, getting into the TOC, I think, without options. Here they posted a video of getting into a car - it's hell. And there were quite adequate comments - do the designers want to put their child in this car and send them to war? With a range of 4.5-6.0 km, I don't understand enthusiasm. Not because of the good life in Afghanistan, the extreme cells were not charged. MLRS also have thermobaric ammunition. There, the range is at least adequate

[your1970]

Quote: Lykases1

Here they uploaded a video of getting into a car - it's hell. And there were quite adequate comments - do the designers want to put their child in this car and send their child to war?

I'll tell you a secret - war is generally hell ... anywhere - even in a tank, even in the infantry, even in aviation ...
Everywhere kill and die scary in war

[Lykases1]

I was in secret in the war, even though it was called a counter-terrorist operation. In the distant 00-01. Just another question. Popularized weapons, but is it that good? Hurray to shout is good, but b.d with a serious opponent - the value is doubtful

[your1970]

Quote: Lykases1

a serious adversary - dubious value

If fighting in CTO or with Ukraine is a necessary thing. If fighting a serious adversary such as NATO - we will not need neither tanks nor the fleet - everything will be over in half an hour.

[Lykases1]

You shouldn't think so. There will never be a nuclear war until one country is guaranteed not to strike. But that is not the question. Again, in Afghanistan, the outermost cells were left uncharged. Because the ammunition we carry is vulnerable. Range implies action in the foreground. The machine is not suitable for this. Have you heard that the hail was not fully charged due to the vulnerability of the ammunition? I think no. Because he shoots 20 km. And here the tank's direct fire range. A tank with a bag of explosives on its armor.

[your1970]

Quote: Lykases1

Again, in Afghanistan, the outermost cells were left uncharged. Because the ammunition we carry is vulnerable

I am aware that I served nearby, I did not get it because of the withdrawal. But there was a specificity of the mountains - when the enemy could easily be seen in 100 meters and / or above the column.
The shelling of the positions of vehicles ready for battle, I do not know, most likely there were, but these are already different distances.

Quote: Lykases1

And then the range direct fire tank. A tank with a bag of explosives on its armor.

You slightly exaggerating the distance Direct shot of a tank gun - it is less than 7 km

[Lykases1]

At the expense of the war with Ukraine, why are they all eager to fight? Once or twice and we won. And I remember how the demobilization was dismissed and told how the corpses of the 6th company were taken out. I remember how our columns were smashed and this is where there was simply the total superiority of our Armed Forces. I read about the unjustified losses of our troops in Georgia. Any peace is better than war. I also doubt that the entire readers of this site have already fled and at least signed a contract for a mob reserve. They will attack us, we will fight. But it's just that the power there is not that kind, it is not necessary to send the boys to the meat grinder

[your1970]

Quote: Lykases1

At the expense of the war with Ukraine, why are they all eager to fight?

Are you sure they won't attack? Me not...

Quote: Lykases1

They will attack us, we will fight.

[your1970]

Quote: syndicalist

He moves faster

TOC is obviously easier due to the lack of a turret. With the same engine, at least the speeds are equal. Without ammunition, the TOC speed will be higher than that of a tank.

Quote: syndicalist

combat position, he must advance with protection from ground and air enemies

Don't the tanks need such protection? Helicopters do not exist in nature? ATGMs canceled as a class? I'm generally silent about RPGs ...

Quote: syndicalist

And now this whole "aircraft carrier group" at snail's speed must approach the enemy motionlessly waiting for it by 3.5 miles and strike him with a crushing blow. Who can believe in this?

Sure sure....
We change the word "TOS" to the word "tanks" and according to your theory it turns out that tanks NOT NEEDED AT ALL - because, unlike TOS, they need to crawl these 3.5 miles and reach the enemy at "0" distance !!!!
TOS from 7 km fired off and left to recharge further - and the tanks of these 7 km do not have, they must converge with the enemy nose to nose

[pol_pol]

==And this whole "aircraft carrier group" at a snail's speed should approach the enemy motionlessly waiting for it by 3.5 miles and deliver its crushing blow to it. ==

For fortified areas in the Donbass, just the right thing.
Naturally, before this, it is necessary to suppress artillery.
And also "Smerch" with ammunition of a volumetric explosion

[Starover_Z]

Quote: swnvaleria

let them first get out of Eastern Europe, and then we'll see what they have from the forbidden.

They still seem to have not destroyed their antipersonnel mines, which, by the way, have not been destroyed, as well as prohibited chemical weapons, military poisoning systems!
And in general, let them not go to Europe with their troops, and in America we will definitely not attack them!

[aslan balaev]

Quote: swnvaleria

let them first get out of Eastern Europe, and then we'll see what they have from the forbidden.

America should be banned. In all other continents. Primarily in Eurasia

[Proton]

Good offer.
We prohibit TOS, but you are dismantling Aegis from ships.

[28st region]

In 1980, the world community adopted the "Protocol on the Prohibition or Restriction of the Use of Incendiary Weapons", but Russian thermobaric weapons are not subject to its effect.

Interesting logic. American thermobaric weapons are normal, Russian ones are not.
For reference, the Americans were the first to use thermobaric weapons in combat conditions during the Vietnam War. At first they were used for the construction of helipads in the jungle. Babakh, and in the dense forest, a platform appeared where you can land helicopters and land troops behind enemy lines. Then they began to apply against everything that moves.
In service with the US Air Force is

GBU-43 / B Massive Ordnance Air Blast, called in the media "Mother of All Bombs" (MOAB) - "the mother of all bombs", with an explosion force of up to 11 tons of TNT

It's okay too. But CBT is bad. It’s strange that he didn’t demanded to ban Russian nuclear weapons, as too effective.

[businessv]

Quote: 28st region

It’s strange that he didn’t demanded to ban Russian nuclear weapons, as too effective.

It is strange that these at @ urki have not yet proposed to ban Russia!

[Lykases1]

By the way, the Americans used phosphorus bombs to the full. Interestingly, they do not fall under the restrictions and shouldn't they be banned?

[VORON538]

These will both be removed and put in place. Agreements with the Naglo-Saxons are not even worth the paper on which they are written.

[Serge-667]

So Aegis is a protective system. Well this is a missile defense. It is very problematic for her to iron the surface.
CBT, as it is not quite a defensive system.
Plus, the radii don't correlate slightly.

[paul3390]

Duc let them banned - who's stopping them? In general, any weapon can be banned only if it is obviously not effective for all parties. As for example, combat chemistry - hemorrhoids from her attacker go no less than the defender .. Everything else - one hell will be used, despite any prohibitions. At one time, the church won out crossbows - and what? All together put it on.

[NDR-791]

Quote: paul3390

Duc let them banned - who's stopping them?

That's how they wrote it, you fools

Therefore, American and European human rights defenders need to rethink and place restrictions on the use of such systems.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: paul3390

Duc let them banned - who's stopping them?

Probably smelled how the ass is hot TOSochka.

[1976AG]

Quote: paul3390

Duc let them banned - who's stopping them? In general, any weapon can be banned only if it is obviously not effective for all parties. As for example, combat chemistry - hemorrhoids from her attacker go no less than the defender .. Everything else - one hell will be used, despite any prohibitions. At one time, the church won out crossbows - and what? All together put it on.

Absolutely right. If you want to live, you can use whatever you like.

[Terran ghost]

At one time, the church won out crossbows - and what? All together put it on.

To begin with, this is, in general, a myth.
Indeed, in 1139 the Roman Catholic Church adopted the canons of the 2nd Lateran Council, among which there was one like this.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum10.htm
Quote: "29. We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hateful to God, to be employed against Christians and Catholics from now on."
that is, this canon equally prohibited the use of bows and crossbows in war against Christian opponents. Hunting, sports and wars with Muslim opponents, this prohibition did not apply.
However, there were many interesting things in the decisions of this church council. The 12th canon of the Second Lateran Council established for the same cases of wars between Christian opponents the obligatory observance of the truce from sunset on Wednesday until dawn on Monday EVERY week and plus two more multi-day periods of truce every year. The 14th canon prohibited knightly tournaments.
But the most interesting thing is probably the 13th canon of this cathedral.
Quote: "13. Furthermore, we condemn that practice accounted despicable and blameworthy by divine and human laws, denounced by Scripture in the old and new Testaments, namely, the ferocious greed of usurers; and we sever them from every comfort of the church, forbidding any archbishop or bishop, or an abbot of any order whatever or anyone in clerical orders, to dare to receive usurers, unless they do so with extreme caution; but let them be held infamous throughout their whole lives and, unless they repent, be deprived of a christian burial. "
the latter strongly condemns and prohibits usury. As is known from history, this church canon did not interfere with the existence of all kinds of bankers.

[Cottodraton]

Yes Yes! Everyone knows that everything bad about the West is fakes and myths. This is another. But all the cranberries about the Russian Federation - it's true ... yes ... yes

[Prisoner]

I wonder how he is going to ban them?

[paul3390]

According to the old anecdote - Train, wait, two!

[Curious Katya]

These boobies - do they really believe that if they ban something there, then Russia will obey these bans?

[Soldatov V.]

Gorbachev cut the Oka.

[Curious Katya]

thank God, we don't have Gorbachev at the helm of the country now

[minby]

So far, the country will NOT be run by traitors like Gorbachev.

[Ros 56]

Only with the consent of the striped ones to get out of the geyrope for a puddle forever.

[Mountain shooter]

And they understand that there will be nothing to bury, except for the name plates! And immediately ban it! Do you want to forbid yourself anything? For example, stir up conflicts and bomb everyone thousands of kilometers from their borders?

[sen]

"There is no protection from them": American expert proposed to ban Russian heavy flamethrower systems

So the United States has it. The XM40 1060mm grenade is a thermobaric small arms device that was supplied to the US military in April 2003. During the invasion of Iraq, the US Marine Corps used the "Novel Explosive" (SMAW-NE) thermobaric projectile on the Mk 153 SMAW launcher. One team of Marines reported that they destroyed a large one-story stone building with one shot from 100 yards (91 m).
The AGM-114N Hellfire II, first used by the U.S. military in 2003 in Iraq, uses a metal enhanced charge (MAC) warhead that contains a thermobaric explosive using aluminum powder coated or mixed with PTFE in layers between the charge body and PBXN explosive mixture. -112. When the PBXN-112 explodes, the aluminum mixture disperses and burns quickly. The resulting sustained high pressure is extremely effective against people and buildings.
And there are bombs of a similar volumetric explosion
BLU-73 FAE I
BLU-95 500 lbs (FAE-II)
BLU-96 2000 lbs (FAE-II)
CBU-55 FAE I
CBU-72 FAE I

[pomor23]

Gee)), if only in exchange for the prohibition of the American fleet, in general, completely, forever and in any form!

[Zaurbek]

And what makes TOZ worse than napalm bombs or ODAB? simply cheaper, no need for an airplane ...

[rocket757]

The Russian heavy flamethrower systems TOS-1 "Buratino" and TOS-1A "Solntsepek" are capable of burning out huge areas; there is no escape from them even in shelters. They are so destructive that they must be banned. This is the conclusion reached by an American expert on new threats, retired US Army officer Brent Eastwood.

... The question is ... and someone asks his opinion?
If you go back into history ... Agent Orange, no, nothing comes to mind? Forgot how it was not? And much more, if you dig, you can find ...

[Kesha1980]

The Russian heavy flamethrower systems TOS-1 "Buratino" and TOS-1A "Solntsepek" are capable of burning out huge areas, there is no escape from them even in shelters. They are so destructive that they must be banned.

Cut chopiki out of wood and (stick it in ... - crossed out) use anally.
Chew on your manicure and don't complain - as long as you are far away, you will not be kicked off.

[Pankrat25]

In vain is he so, a good, environmentally friendly weapon, can be used to fight the coronavirus The main thing is not to collect the corpses.

[vik669]

There is no protection from them - so banning those who "have no protection from them" can only survive by nakuya they are!

[iouris]

The first attempt to ban weapons was when English archers (commoners) shot down the aristocratic cavalry of France (knights).

[kytx]

Nobody seemed to try to ban archers, the English archer, although a commoner, is not a cheap combat unit. They study for a long time.
The Pope forbade crossbows.

[minby]

America should be banned. Once and for life. Many even their "partners" in the form of colonial Europe will breathe a sigh of relief.

[ankir13]

In general, they would like all Russians to be taken and banned, and then they could continue to live ... but as luck would have it, there is no calendar on the island, children and adults are wasted ... this is how unfortunate savages live ... , kind inside ...

[Two]

Thermobaric ammunition developed striped and used, actively, even in Vietnam! Areas for landing helicopters were cleared. And they didn't buzz ...

[Bolt cutter]

Areas for landing helicopters were cleared.

The Daisy cutter (BLU-82) was loaded with ordinary ammonal, while the M-121 used tritonal (TNT + aluminum powder). Something like this

[Two]

The first volumetric explosion bombs, called BLU-73, were loaded with 33–45 liters of ethylene oxide and dropped from a low altitude - up to 600 m. The braking parachute provided bomb stabilization and a moderate descent rate. The detonation was carried out with a tension fuse - a thin cable 5-7 m long with a weight descended from the nose of the bomb, and when it touched the ground, it released the drummer's lever. After that, an initiating warhead was activated, generating a cloud of a fuel-air mixture with a radius of 7,5–8,5 m and a height of up to 3 m.

[Bolt cutter]

BLU-82 has little in common with them - its filling was a jelly-like ammonal. It was blown up at a height of about a meter with a special pin attached to the fuse, so that there was no crater, which seriously complicates the landing of the helicopter on the patch cleared by the explosion. (English wiki)

[Two]

So it does not apply (in full understanding of this meaning!) To ODABs! ODABs are equipped with low-boiling liquefied gases, mainly mixtures of ethylene oxide with propylene oxide, even propane will do.

[Bolt cutter]

So we came to that very stove - daisy cutter (bomb for clearing sites) - not ODAB, but a classic land mine.

[ODERVIT]

Durik, they will not smoln across the Atlantic, but for the old woman of Europe they will.

[viktor.]

He can't be banned, he's just Boo! Ra! Ti! But !! On the Sun !!!

[zwlad]

They are so destructive that they must be banned.

Forbid the ray already your America.

[Zefr]

Is it possible to build such a bomb for heavy drones? Boomk - and the task is completed

[viktortarianik]

If no one said that there is such a bomb, it does not mean that it is not there.

[Sovpadenie]

Yes, leave these Russians only non-lethal weapons ...

[Tuzik]

and there is also an aviation vacuum bomb of increased power (AVBPM), probably haven’t heard of it yet

[Yaro Polk]

Even Hitler was not so arrogant, he did not ask to ban Katyusha, but he didn’t have enough to kill his tyama.

[akarfoxhound]

Well, so as not to worry and smile - there is nothing to do there in Ukraine on the part of the Russian state border for American and European "human rights activists"

[Incvizitor]

Poor amerz terrorists are not given any chance

[Pravodel]

There is no protection from them

So, I wonder if Russia will place the TOS-1A "Solntsepek" along the perimeter of Ukraine, will mattress mats run away or not run away from Ukraine, yes, and in general, Anglo-Saxons and their mongrels !? If they run away, can they scare them? ...

[Retvizan 8]

Kama is this fool going to prohibit something ?!
I have a suspicion that he won't be able to forbid anything to his wife, but here he barks at Russia!

[Sebastian Aristarkhovich Pereira]

Tell the Enola Gay crew about this, expert!

[evgen1221]

Well, according to the logic of the enlightened military hegemony, everyone except himself must prohibit any weapon more complicated than a stick and a stone.

[Dmitry Potapov]

And your cluster munitions don't bother you too much?

[nonsense]

(C) "Now these systems are pulled to the borders of Ukraine, the author says."

what, all 10 (ten!) pieces are pulled together ?! - Wai-wai, how scary ... Jump out of the window, s ***!

[zenion]

What right do the Russians have to such equipment and did not ask the United States for permission. It is impossible and expensive to attack Russia in this way. If the Russians refuse this technique, then a dump truck of colored glass will be sent to them as a gift.

[wandlitz]

The Russian heavy flamethrower systems TOS-1 Buratino and TOS-1A Solntsepek are so destructive that they must be banned. This is the conclusion reached by an American expert on new threats, retired US Army officer Brent Eastwood.
What if some retired Russian officers come to the conclusion that the Northern United States should be banned? What will YUSA do then?

[Charik]

Come on, prohibit us, the prohibition has not grown.

[Charik]

he has not heard about phosphorus in Iraq?

[Drozdov]

okay and good. destroy cruise missiles and WORLD TO YOU

[Charik]

even if he bent a little 3 half miles?

[Normann]

I propose to prohibit posting any nonsense from the mind of a surviving former military man ...

[Alexander Voilokov]

First, full-scale tests must be carried out, five or six US military bases can be used as objects, and based on the results, a decision can be made that it is impossible to restrict the use of such useful weapons.

[alystan]

They want to prohibit what they themselves do not have and do not even have the ability to create!
Degenerates and cunning in one bottle. It's amazing that everything has been rolling for them so far !?
It is necessary to tear all their Wishlist to a famous hairdryer!

[bzbo]

These people, who shot natives all over the land, recommend?

[Terran ghost]

In addition, alas, the expected next "round" of anti-American hysteria in the comments, but what do we see in the article then?
By the way, I found the original source. Here it is
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/12/tos-1-russias-wall-of-napalm-weapon-is-truly-1-of-a-kind/

They are so destructive that they must be banned. This is the conclusion reached by an American expert on new threats, retired US Army officer Brent Eastwood.

comparable to the original

Russian TOS-1 Buratino and TOS-1A Solntsepek rockets are so destructive they should be banned, according to some security watchdogs.

that is, this is not the opinion of Brent Eastwood, it is he who in his article refers to the opinion of some anonymous "security experts".

In 1980, the world community adopted the "Protocol on the Prohibition or Restriction of the Use of Incendiary Weapons", but Russian thermobaric weapons are not subject to its effect. Therefore, American and European human rights defenders need to rethink and place restrictions on the use of such systems. And the best solution would be to completely ban the use of such complexes, he sums up.

but here there is a direct substitution of concepts, due to which the text is given a completely different meaning than in the original. We look at the source

It's time that human rights groups take a closer look at thermobaric weapons and provide a means to regulate them. However, their use is probably too widespread to make a difference when attempting to ban them. So, this may be a bridge too far.

we are not talking specifically about ONLY Russian weapons, but about ANY thermobaric weapons in general - Russian, German, French, Chinese, American, etc. Moreover, it is immediately concluded that this type of weapon is used by too many countries to be "just taken and banned."

[zloybond]

To begin with, let them fulfill their obligations to eliminate their chemical weapons.

[aleks700]

And rightly so. Not a single country of NATO and the EU, not in Japan, or in any other allies of the United States, has never had anything like this.

[Vdi73]

Sealed, not Brent, but Brad Eastwood. Another lupen expert, imagines himself that he can have influence on what Russia is armed with, so they instilled exclusivity, everyone, not even a pawn, sees himself as a queen.

[military]

Unleash the Americans, so they would have banned all our weapon systems. Only American weapons are the most humane in the world.

[faterdom]

Therefore, American and European human rights defenders need to rethink and place restrictions on the use of such systems.

So who decides who can arm themselves with what!
Votoono - World Government! Retired. Like this American officer Brent Eastwood (not to be confused with Clint Eastwood! - that’s different).
We petition for the inclusion of Tikhanovskaya and Guaida there - and otherwise we will refuse to comply with the decisions of the above-mentioned human rights activists.
In general, whoever is against Pinocchio is for Barabas’ Karabas!

[lvov_aleksey]

White phosphorus is the norm for them, but if they can’t do it themselves, then screw it!!!
ps it’s as simple as that - they’re afraid to fight with us

[Klingon]

That is, dropping napalm bombs and incendiary tanks is democratic, but using a multiple launch rocket system is not??

[kartalovkolya]

I read and remembered the unforgettable bard Vladimir Vysotsky about prohibitions and prohibitors: "... rumors are circulating, soon everything will be absolutely prohibited..... soon everyone will be banned to hell..."! Well, well, fair wind in the seat...

[meandr51]

In an open field, of course, these systems are difficult to use against a regular army. But in the mountains or in the city - it’s quite possible.

[Zaurbek]

TOZ is a simplification of the destruction of non-regular units in fortifications.... simplification (loss of drugs, cost) and for underdeveloped countries such as SAR and others - also replacing aviation in this matter. And reducing losses in such operations gives the regimes a free hand in resolving issues with the separatists. And separatists are an instrument of modern wars. So they are trying to grab such systems by the ears.

[Alexfly]

Why then don’t aircraft carriers be banned, they are anti-ecological and they spray orange and napalm... disgusting for nature..

[Roman Dementyev]

..as soon as Russia invents something, something that is not in the “West”, all sorts of “experts” immediately appear and demand to ban it, but........ for some reason they are here They don’t prohibit anything, but on the contrary, so that only they have, like, to protect “peace”......and interests, and their own...

[ZIF122]

Well, yes, if the Americans themselves do not possess such weapons, then of course they should be banned!

[DrRey]

Let them ban it and not use it, and we will continue

[Reserve buildbat]

In principle, it is logical. Mattresses spend tens of millions of dollars on training terrorists, and TOSs nullify these expenses and efforts in one gulp. It turns out to be economically unprofitable for mattresses.