Military Review

Russia in search of military alliances

Today we need to talk about the need not for a coalition, but for a lasting civilization union.

The problem of the expediency of certain coalitions of a military or politico-military nature for Russia is acquiring a new urgency in connection with the ideas of expanding and strengthening cooperation with NATO, up to the possible entry into this traditionally and constantly anti-Russian alliance. In this regard, I think it will be useful to give an overview of the past coalition policy of Russia, which can serve as information for reflection already on contemporary subjects.

Before the attack. Under the Plevna. Vereshchagin Vasily Vasilyevich


The first coalition with the participation of Russia was the anti-Swedish, the Northern War of 1700-1721: Russia, Denmark, Poland and Saxony.

Two hundred years later, the clever Russian general said that if Romania joined Germany in World War I, Russia would need an extra two dozen divisions to defeat the Romanians, and if the Romanians became allies, the Germans would quickly defeat them, and then Russia would need the same two a dozen divisions to protect the Romanians.

The same was true of our “coalition” with the Danes and Augustus the “Strong”. True, Peter then only studied real politics, and the coalition, although inferior, had some reason - Russia needed to show itself as a European power. However, our “allies” did not so much fetter (no talk about victories at all) of Charles XII, as they were a burden. Oreshek, second Narva, Forest, Poltava, Gangut, landings to Sweden, Grengam sea battle - these are all Russians, not “coalitional” sweat, blood and glory!

We remember the victory of the Russian wonder-bogatyrs at Egersdorf in the Seven Years War 1756-1763, that the Russians reached Berlin for the first time in 1760. But we do not remember well that the Seven Years War began because of the colonial conflicts of England and France, and then we were dragged into this completely unnecessary Russia by the Austrian Empress Maria Theresa, deftly using Elizaveta Petrovna’s personal offense against the Prussian King Frederick.

The conflict between Prussia and Russia was beneficial to Austria, France, England and Sweden. The famous memoirist of those times, Andrei Bolotov (himself a member of the Seven Years War) wrote: “The (secret) alliances were concluded (Maria Theresia - author's note) with the Saxon elector, who was then the Polish king, also with the King of France and Sweden itself. All convenient ways were used to conclude such an alliance with Russia and to bow to it so that she would also be entangled in her intended and not at all relevant business. ”

Yes, since Russia turned into a European and world factor, they have tried to “weave” it into alien adventures more than once. And, alas, more than once "woven"!

Russia in search of military alliances
The first coalition with the participation of Russia was the anti-Swedish, the time of the Northern War. Picture by Alexander Kotzebue “Storm of Noteburg fortress 11 October 1702”.

What did the first anti-Napoleonic “coalition” cost, for example, when Ushakov experienced all the “charms” of interaction with the Anglo-Saxon Nel-sonon, and Suvorov with the Austrian Gofkrygsrat. No sooner had the emperor Paul (by any means, it should be noted, not a fool) understand the harm of this "coalition", as he was immediately brutally murdered by English agents of influence from among the Petersburg nobility.

And as a result of the second anti-Napoleonic coalition, created in the name of the elimination of the continental blockade of England — objectively very beneficial for the Russian national capital and production, Russia received the fire of Moscow.

The post-Napoleon “Holy Alliance of Monarchs” was no more useful and beneficial for Russia, the result of which was the Russian intervention in Hungary in 1848. To cover the costs of this “anti-terrorist” (using modern terminology) campaign, Nicholas I climbed into a bonded external debts without any benefit for internal development.

All these “coalitions” brought Russia nothing but Paris fashion for lacquered “Suvorov’s” boots, European graves of Russian “wonder heroes”, Borodin’s glory (without which Russia could have done without France) and new debt.

Nikolai Dmitriev-Orenburg. “General M.D. Skobelev on horseback.

“Weaving” into European “showdowns” did not make sense to us. We had to develop a national economy and industry, to which the same, let's say, alliance with Napoleon contributed greatly.

Of course, after Napoleon went to war with us, it was necessary to fight with him to the bitter end. But it is time to understand that Napoleon had no plans to conquer Russia. He was forced to start a war, because the participation of Alexander I in the "coalition" with England disrupted his continental policy. But its anti-English orientation objectively stimulated our domestic economic growth. The union with Napoleon meant for us peace and development, a “coalition” against it — war and military spending, which undermined our economy. I suggest the reader to think independently about whether there are any parallels with our policy regarding, for example, Iran. It greatly hinders the West and the United States, but not very much hinders Russia, except for the Caspian aspect, which is best resolved amicably.

Alexander II continued the mediocre "coalition" policy of Alexander I. After the sedan collapse of Napoleon III’s empire and the victory of the Germans in the Franco-Prussian war, the king demanded that Prussia confine itself to less reparations than she hoped to get from France. What for?

In 1875, Bismarck started a preventive war against France. Alexander II breaks these plans. As a result, Russia after the Russian-Turkish war at the Berlin Congress faces opposition from Austria-Hungary and England, but Germany does not support us.

In 1879, Wilhelm I and Alexander II fell out completely. Not far away, but the proud Russian “Tsar Liberator” was offended by Germany for her behavior at the Berlin Congress - as if Germany had no counter-claims to Russia. And they had grounds ... So, in 1887, Bismarck again plans to defeat France. But this has already prevented Alexander III. In the same year, June 18, the Russian-German so-called “reinsurance contract” was concluded, tying the hands of the Germans in relation to France!

And what did we have before that France? Germany was our rational economic partner! Alas, the dull royal policy harmed both the economy and the future of Russia. But such a policy was programmed far from stupid and far from in St. Petersburg.


Separately, it should be said about the Balkan policy of Russia and, first of all, about the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878. Lawyer Anatoly Koni, her contemporary, wrote at the beginning of the twentieth century: “Brothers” turned out to be “scoundrels”, according to the unanimous opinion of the military, and the Turks, on the contrary, were “good honest little ones” who fought like lions, while the liberated brothers had to be extracted from corn. "

But the opinion of the historian Eugene Tarle: "The Crimean War, the Russian-Turkish war 1877-1878. and the Balkan policy of Russia in 1908-1914 - a single chain of acts that did not have the slightest sense in terms of the economic or other imperative interests of the Russian people. ”

Vasily Vereshchagin. “The vanquished. Requiem "

It would not be superfluous to quote the assessment of the General Staff of Major-General Yevgeny Martynov: “Catherine exploited the sympathies of Christians for the benefit of national interests, and the policy of the later time donated blood and money to the Russian people in order to make it more comfortable for the Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs and others, as if loyal fellow tribesmen and co-religionists ”.

General Martynov did not use the bitter words “supposedly loyal to us” from an empty head. The combat losses of the Russian Danube army during the war amounted to about 40%, to the allied Romanian army - less than 15%, and participation in the liberation of Bulgaria from the Turks of the “Bulgarian militia” was episodic. Serbia also deployed troops, modest both in number and in their combat activity. So did Koni exaggerate when he wrote: “The gloomy irony breathed the shedding of the blood of a Russian soldier, torn from a distant chicken hut, bast shoes and chaff, to ensure the well-being of the“ brat ”walking in his boots, picked up on meat and corn and carefully hiding from his eyes” savior "tightly stuffed pod in the underground of his strong home with stoves and household appliances"?

Participation in the First World War on the side of the Entente is the main "coalition" mistake of tsarist Russia

However, the experience of the then “liberation of the Slavs”, which cost Russia up to 200 thousands (at that time!) Of lives, didn’t go ahead. Tsarism still fell under the trap of "coalitions" and supported "little brothers" in the Balkan wars of the twentieth century. Although the same Tarle reported: "Serbia and Bulgaria live ... with agriculture and cattle breeding, and for them ... the question of Macedonia (one of the main reasons for the war with Turkey - author's note) was ... the question of new arable land and new pastures ... For Serbia Thessaloniki’s acquisition was tantamount to access to the sea, which was what the exporters of Serbian cattle and raw materials needed. ”

Well, how are we making any profit here?

Or - the Black Sea straits. The "Russian" Bosphorus and Dardanelles were needed by the Parisian Rothschilds and the Nobels - as the owners of Russian oil. The straits were needed by the French capital, who owned the Donbas and the heavy industry of southern Russia. Formally, the “Russian” straits would also cut off German interests in the Middle East - in the interests of the already English Rothschilds and international oil magnate Deterding.

That was the background ... Over the decades of its Balkan policy, Russia had only glory in the Balkans, the graves of Russian soldiers and boulevards in the Balkan capitals, named after the Russian generals. But economically the Balkans depended on Germany, France, England. And politically, too.

There is an interesting document - “Note by the State Councilor A.M. Petryaeva. As a foreign minister already, he wrote in 1917: “England and France will not contribute to the formation of a large Slavic state on the Adriatic coast ... They will undoubtedly prefer the creation of an independent Croatian kingdom, which will fall completely under their influence.” However, Petryaev was wrong. Yugoslavia was created on the basis of the unification of Serbia and Croatia with the support of the Entente. But not in Slavic Petrograd, but in London. In May 1915 was formed by the Yugoslav Committee headed by the Croatian Ante Trumbich, who played a prominent role in the South Slavic state structure with the help of the British. And this is despite the fact that English Foreign Minister Gray told Milyukov in 1916 that, as they say, the Serbs and the Croats will settle there, this is their internal affair and also Russia. England, they say, does not care about this.


All the Balkan miscalculations, however, turn pale before the main "coalitional" mistake of tsarist Russia - participation in the anti-German Entente. Smart Russian European politics fit into three words: "Peace with Germany." It would be difficult to conduct a decent, respectful “German” policy of Russia, but it is possible! After all, many critical moments arose precisely because of the vastness of mutual Russian-German relations.

Instead, Russia once again let itself be drawn into “nothing to do with it” - the elimination by America of the most dangerous geopolitical rival, the German Reich. Yes, the world war was being prepared not in London, but in Washington, although it was usually considered to be the cause of the confrontation between Germany and England.

But this is not so! English gold spread over the globe, and the result was a lack of it for building up internal power. England has grown, new industries have developed slowly. In 1913, the United States smelted 31,3 million tons of steel, and England - 7,7. Germany - 17,3 million. Without such colonies as the English, the Germans created a powerful economy within their own country.

Alexander III

And the main world contradiction was no longer the Anglo-German, but the American-German. Here is what the German ambassador to Washington Holleben wrote to 1 on January 1898: “The economic contradictions between Germany and the United States have become increasingly acute since the great boom experienced by Germany as an economic force, as far as US attitudes are concerned, entered the acute stage. Now Germany in the local press and in the philistine conversations is by far the most hated country. This hatred relates primarily to a constraining competitor, but it is also being transferred onto purely political grounds. We are called gangsters and robbers from the main road. The fact that discontent against us goes so far and manifests itself more strongly than against other competitors is due here to the fear of our growing competitiveness in the economic field and our energy and increasing power in the field of political ”.

Holleben's assessment is bright, accurate and valuable, which proves that the United States did not see England as a serious prospect. But there they feared the Germans.

The general statements of Holleben are well illustrated and practical. In the same 1898, the Spanish-American war began. States landed in the Philippines. However, in the Manila Bay was sent from China and the German squadron. 12 June 1898 was anchored by the American squadron, which was inferior to the Germans. In the US press, a wave of "noble indignation." And it was why - the Germans from the United States ransacked some of the tasty pieces of the “Spanish pie”. The government of Spain sold Germany the Caroline and Mariana Islands. But this was only the beginning. At the same time, Lenin, with his usual merciless accuracy, noted: "The United States has" views "of South America and is struggling with the growing influence of Germany."

But the great European war would have been impossible if they had not “wove” Russia into it as an enemy of Germany. A lasting alliance between Russia and Germany ruled out a world war, since it ruled out its first inevitable phase - the war in Europe. Having a neutral, if not allied, Russia in the rear, the Germans would have entered Paris in a couple of weeks of hostilities. On the other hand, without being distracted by the war and focusing on domestic economic and social construction, Russia would eventually get rid of the influence of foreign capital, but at the same time would interfere with America and the cosmopolitan elite of the world.

Eliminate the real dangerous rival of the United States - Germany, and deprive the great future of a potential competitor - Russia, this is the origin of the First (and Second) World War. And the “trap” of the Entente here was set up not to pinch the paw of the Russian bear, as in the Balkans, but to put the bear in the cage forever!

It does not bother to remind: on the eve of the October Revolution, Russia's public debt exceeded 60 billion rubles - seventeen pre-war annual state budgets. At the same time, external debt amounted to 16 billions, of which about 9 billions were one short-term debt. That is, immediately after the war, Russia would have to pay the West almost three prewar budgets immediately.

That would be the price of the last coalition of Tsarist Russia, if not for the "villains-Bolsheviks" who not only canceled the Tsar's debts, but also made such counterclaims (justified by volumes of documents) to the "allies" at the Genoa Conference that the question was right there jammed.


I will not now deal in detail with the coalition policy of the Soviet Union. I note only that, in my opinion, the interstate conflict between the USSR and Germany was by the end of the 1930-s - the beginning of the 1940-s. not so great that the new war between the Russians and the Germans was inevitable. And the forced coalition of the USSR with the United States and Britain had so many “pitfalls” that some of them would rip the “belly” of the state ship of Russia even in 1991, and later.

Our coalition policy with respect to the socialist countries of the CMEA and the Warsaw Pact was no more reasonable. All these our allies received much more from us than they gave us, but in the end they betrayed Russia.

Separately, it must be said about China. No other great power has taken as many unselfish and large-scale steps for the development of the PRC as the USSR. In "gratitude," China is increasingly pursuing a policy of creeping expansion against Russia.

And finally, the theme of NATO. We are assured that there is no life without partnership with NATO. Is it not the opposite? Or is the “partnership” and coalition with NATO deadly dangerous for the future of Russia?

But what do we do? I think, first of all, it is necessary, finally, without emotion to study and analyze history our coalitions. Today they often refer to the famous phrase of Alexander III: “Russia has only two faithful allies - its army and its fleet”. Alas, the penultimate emperor only spoke well, but in fact he foolishly embroiled Russia in the cause of the future Entente and in the silliest conflict with Germany.

Any development of relations with NATO will be no more expedient and useful for Russia than the previous "alliances" with Augustus of Saxony, with Austria of Maria Theresa against Prussia, with England of Admiral Nelson and Austria of the corrugated nation against France, with the "Holy Alliance", with all sorts of "bratushkami" and with the Entente.

As for our relations with any of the national republics that were part of the USSR, then, given the fraternal and friendly nature of such relations, they can hardly be regarded as coalition ones.

A coalition is a temporary phenomenon, it is a union created to solve a complex of current problems. And the relations of the Russian Federation with those republics that naturally enter the Russian geopolitical space objectively have such a basic meaning and significance for all of us that here it is necessary to speak of the need not for a coalition, but for a lasting civilization alliance. It is not at all in the plane of an alliance with NATO that a stable and dignified future lies even among the Baltic states: Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. What can we say about the rest of the republics and peoples, which are even more closely connected with Russia? The new indestructible and conscious reunion, and not the "coalition" farce, is necessary for us here.

And the more consistently and far we go along this path, the more relevant will be for us the formula of the penultimate Russian emperor. Only the “coalition” of Russia with its modern Armed Forces, which is based on a nuclear shield, provided, ensures and is able to ensure our national interests. And the mighty Armed Forces are actually created not only and not so much by the military-industrial complex, but by people who are confident in themselves, in their social and historical future, living according to the principle: "The people and the army are one."

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. erased
    erased 28 September 2012 09: 08
    The country has always had only two reliable allies - the army and navy. And they spread rot.
    The rest are only temporary partners and not always. The fate of the Warsaw Pact clearly shows this.
    1. beech
      beech 28 September 2012 15: 16
      satya is good, +
      they say smart learn from the mistakes of fools, but whatever one may say, learning does not work, because in the government usually sit people who are either potential traitors or those with selfish interests above all else !! And the Russian people are paying with blood !!
  2. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 28 September 2012 09: 12
    Russia has no allies. Only the army and navy are our faithful friends and defenders. Although, given the successes of the traitors Gorbachev and Yeltsin, Russia may still have such an ally as Belarus and maybe Kazakhstan and Ukraine. All the rest for us, as history shows, are actually enemies.
  3. Sasha 19871987
    Sasha 19871987 28 September 2012 09: 34
    one hundred percent, want to do something, do it yourself, fact ... our ally, our people ... also a fact
  4. baltika-18
    baltika-18 28 September 2012 09: 40
    The article is interesting, but controversial at some points. Especially when the author cites the opinion of Anatoly Koni about the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-78. Koni was an ardent Westerner, did not accept the actions of Russia in the Balkans. Although he was a talented lawyer, he held high posts, but how Now they would say it was a liberal. He sympathized with the food movement, in 1878 he defended Vera Zasulich, who participated in the attempt on Trepov.
    1. dmb
      dmb 28 September 2012 11: 02
      Please tell me what relation the defense of Zasulich has to the facts stated in the article. General Martynov did not seem to be among the liberals, but said the same thing as Koni. And Tarle's assessments for me, for example, are much more significant than, say, Putin's statements about the lost WWI or the reasoning of "historians" Pivovarov and Svanidze. Try facts, to refute what is written. I understand that it is very difficult for our minds to rebuild ourselves to love the Germans after the Great Patriotic War, and I think that this was inevitable regardless of which coalition we would not join. The main ideology of the Germans was the conquest of living space and their right to this conquest. I think that if the war began later, the coalition would be against us, and would tear us apart from all sides. To be honest, I do not agree that the feeding of Eastern Europe was in vain. Stalin was neither a fool nor a spender. It was cheaper and safer to have groups of troops than to have, as now, NATO divisions 500 km away. from Moscow.
      1. Brother Sarych
        Brother Sarych 28 September 2012 15: 35
        Horses and Svanidze - about the same berry field ...
        1. wax
          wax 29 September 2012 01: 31
          Something like cedar and quinoa.
    2. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 28 September 2012 15: 34
      Yes, there are definitely controversial issues ...
  5. Leisure
    Leisure 28 September 2012 10: 23
    The article is pro-German. They make us friendship with the Germans remembering Koni and Kuropatkin. But the Germans even without us, their interests in bulk. In short, we are manipulated by all and sundry.
  6. apro
    apro 28 September 2012 11: 19
    The article liked the statement so much about Germany, and indeed it is our European partner and interests coincided against Poland and the French, the arrogant Saxons, because in the entire history of the contradictions between our states there are no territorial problems either, and economic ties have brought profit to both states, unlike France and England. Hitler, falling under British influence, caused irreparable harm to Germany, Germany is still a occupied country. About the PRC does not agree, the ally was good but Khrushchev betrayed the PRC to please America, the Chinese fulfilled their obligations in Korea, they fought for us. Our most important allies are our army and our people.
    1. smile
      smile 28 September 2012 19: 43
      You can slightly object.
      In Korea, the Chinese fought for themselves, they were next in line ... in any case, they have repeatedly voiced this ... They still support S. Korea based solely on their own interests.
      The Chinese worked very well with the Americans during the war in Afghanistan. including supplying spirits with weapons and sending instructors ... they always acted on their own interests ...
      1. apro
        apro 28 September 2012 22: 59
        smile You can slightly object to the war in Korea and in the interests of the USSR the weakening of the SGA and the promotion of influence in the southeast corresponded to the interests of the USSR. As for the rapprochement with the SGA, then after the death of the IVS Stalin, Khrushchev actually abandoned the PRC one t / a PRC an unrecognized country, the west recognized Taiwan as China the social camp at the will of Moscow turned away and there was no one to wait for help from the PRC in that situation, and the PRC had to go to the SGA with all the consequences ....
  7. alebor
    alebor 28 September 2012 11: 38
    After reading the article, one gets the impression that the entire foreign policy of the Russian Empire and the USSR was stupid and mediocre, that the stupid rulers of Russia were constantly "led by the nose" and fooled by smarter and more talented leaders of other states. The question involuntarily arises: how in this state of affairs, our country not only survived as a sovereign state, but also grew to gigantic dimensions by European standards?
    As for modern politics, I believe that allies are simply necessary for today's Russia, since in our time Russia is no longer such a large and strong state in comparison with the "probable adversaries" that have appeared. The population of present-day Russia is 3 times less than in the United States, and the economy, both quantitatively and qualitatively, is not even worth comparing, so as not to get upset. The population of the European Union is almost 5 times larger than ours, and in terms of the economy, the lead is also very significant. Our fast-growing eastern neighbor, China, not only has almost 10 times the population, but also in the economic field every year more and more ahead of us (and the power of the economy in the modern world directly determines the strength of the army). Yes, we have large arsenals of nuclear weapons, which force the stronger to reckon with us, but who knows how long this will last, and will not these weapons become ineffective after some time with the current rapid development of technology? In such a state of affairs, it is very dangerous for Russia not to have strong allies; it will not be able to compete with the above countries and alliances alone. Mayakovsky's textbook words come to mind:
    "It's bad for a man
    when he is alone
    Woe to one
    one is not a warrior -
    every hefty
    him lord
    and even weak
    if two. "
    1. Edumog
      Edumog 29 September 2012 16: 53
      +++++++ I agree.
      Unit! -
      Who needs it ?!
      Unit voice
      thinner squeak.
      Who will hear her? -
      Is the wife!
      And then
      if not in the market,
      but close.
  8. volga248
    volga248 28 September 2012 15: 33
    The title of the article is worthwhile, but the content is empty. Russia should always have allies, but allies should be devoted to Russia, which almost never happened in our history. The personality of Emperor Alexander III was not disclosed at all, and he, having stopped all the wars, interrupted the receipt of loans from foreign countries, developed his own economy and brought the country to such a level that it restored all the territories lost before it. It is also worthwhile to recall the lessons of history that, thanks to an alliance with England in the war against fascist Germany, the Red Army managed to stop the advance of Finnish troops on the Karelian Isthmus in 1941. When England declared war on Finland on December 6, 1941, and the governments of the United States and England notified Manerheim and Rutti that if they continued their offensive at the front, these two entities would be declared war criminals and should be hanged after the war ended. This stabilized the Karelian Front from February 8, 1941 to 1944 (until the onset of the Red Army).
    1. smile
      smile 28 September 2012 19: 49
      You spoke well ... but:
      based on the memoirs of Mannerheim. Churchill, published the deep correspondence of Finland with Britain and the USA, as well as Germany until the end, the Finns did not stop where they wanted, but there. where they were stopped. Neither the USA nor the GB were able to exert influence on the Finns ... no ... another thing is that by the year 43 they themselves hadn’t become active - they understood that it smells of fried. Our allies also could not influence them in questions about leaving the alliance with Hitler ... until we greatly helped them make the necessary decision .....
  9. hommer
    hommer 28 September 2012 15: 59
    Quote: alebor
    After reading the article, one gets the impression that the entire foreign policy of the Russian Empire and the USSR was stupid and mediocre, that the stupid rulers of Russia were constantly "led by the nose" and fooled by smarter and more talented leaders of other states. The question involuntarily arises: how in this state of affairs, our country not only survived as a sovereign state, but also grew to gigantic dimensions by European standards?

    Well written, dear alebor. Unions are necessary and important. At the same time, to prioritize the interests of Russia, and not the mythical "Slavic brotherhood", all sorts of international debts, etc. And do not forget that -

    "If a state does not participate in world combinations, after a very short time, the opinion of this state in such combinations is no longer taken into account."

    Peter Stolypin
  10. 1976AG
    1976AG 28 September 2012 18: 38
    Very interesting interpretation! Napoleon did not want to conquer Russia, we just foiled his policy! True, his policy implied the achievement of world domination, and we are guilty because we pursued our independent policy and did not want to dance to the tune of Napoleon! That is our fault! As a result, he had to go to war against us, simultaneously doing robberies and mocking the civilian population! But these are still flowers !!! It turns out that with Hitler Germany we did not have serious contradictions !!! Well, we just again hindered the implementation of Hitler’s policies now! So what if he also dreamed of world domination !!! Anyway, we are to blame! After all, one could swear allegiance to Hitler for good and forget about his sovereignty! And let him calmly destroy two-thirds of the population, and turn the rest into slaves !!!
    Maybe the author is a professor at the US Academy of Military Sciences? That would explain a lot!
  11. retvizan
    retvizan 29 September 2012 00: 35
    I wonder where the professor of the Academy of Sciences got the figure of 200 who died in the war of 000-1878. and weren't those "good honest fellows" the year before that drowned the April uprising in the blood of women and children ... the article is clearly one-sided and not objective
    1. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx 30 September 2012 00: 51

      Military casualties

      Russia: 15 567 killed,
      56 652 injured
      6824 died of wounds
      81 363 died of disease,
      3,5 thousand missing,
      1713 died from other causes
      35 thousand dismissed as incapable [3]
      Romania: 4302 killed and missing,
      3316 injured
      19 904 got sick [4]
      Bulgaria: 15 thousand killed and wounded
      Serbia: 5 thousand killed and wounded
      Montenegro: 5 thousand killed and wounded
      picked up from wiki
      1. retvizan
        retvizan 30 September 2012 18: 38
        and where are the prescribed 200? when the author deliberately falsifies or takes figures from the ceiling in one statement, then he no longer inspires confidence in everyone else
  12. Dovmont
    Dovmont 29 September 2012 09: 00
    The article, although not indisputable, but interesting !!!
  13. Edumog
    Edumog 29 September 2012 16: 32
    Well, "right" - why do we need alliances, coalitions? They tore apart Yugoslavia, Libya, tear Syria, they are going to Iran, and we better keep silent, we don't care, the epiphany will come only when we are dismembered! The impression is that the author is incapable of understanding the concept of geopolitics, the article is saturated with emotions ...
  14. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 30 September 2012 00: 47
    About the Northern War - I do not agree. Sweden at that time is one of the strongest states. After Narva Karl12 drove August across Poland for several years, forgetting about Russia, this gave time for Peter1 to recover. Alexander III is a very clever girl, he delayed the ratification of the union treaty with France for several years. And not in vain, immediately after the ratification he died at the age of 3 (in my opinion) years. He made one gross mistake - he was in no hurry to introduce Nicholas 46 into his affairs and thoughts, he believed that he would still have time, for he himself was young and full of strength. Let us leave the stories about alcoholism and "Mikhail on the tsarstvo" on the conscience of Pikul and similar "pisuns".
    For everyone who is interested in "allies" I can recommend N. Starikov
    "Betrayed Russia". very good.
    The article as a whole is not bad, but somewhat chaotic and superficial. I expected more, the author - continue to work on the material further. Good luck.
  15. marinist
    marinist 30 September 2012 23: 07
    The article is good, but the first coalition in which Russia participated was anti-Turkish; from its submission campaigns were made against the Crimean Khanate under the command of V.V. Golitsyn.
  16. Dmitry.V
    Dmitry.V 1 October 2012 20: 13
    What conclusion did I draw from the article? - Of course, the phrase that already appears as a response to the heading "Russia in search of military alliances" - Russia has two allies, the army and the navy.
    He also concluded that over the centuries they were dying for alien interests mainly due to the stupidity of the rulers and the desire to make Russia "fashionable" and win the respect of those who would never show it, the result for almost everyone for whom we fought Russia is vodka bear and the desire for world domination . I recall "Thunderstorm" where the landowner does not want to do anything, and the peasants are smart, hardworking people but without means and opportunities.
  17. Su24
    Su24 3 October 2012 12: 53
    Who are our allies determined by the Western geopolitics themselves. The famous Huntington had an article entitled "The West and the rest". Rest - the rest, i.e. all who are not-West, incl. And we. Accordingly, our allies are all those who are not-West, ie. most of the world.
  18. zstalkerzz
    zstalkerzz 5 October 2012 10: 08
    eh ... now we would have Gorchakova