Military Review

NATO from afar and inside

129
NATO from afar and insideThe delegation of the State Duma of the Russian Federation took part in the session of the parliamentary assembly of the alliance


The North Atlantic Alliance has long been an equally familiar part of the military-political landscape of Europe, like the ruins of the Colosseum. However, life does not stand still. With the destruction of the USSR, the so-called Soviet threat disappeared, supposedly to counter which in NATO was created in 1949. Formed in the ruins of the Soviet Union, modern Russia lost all its allies, and its army, having lost its combat power in the course of endless reforms, ceased to pose any danger to the “free world”.

It would seem that with the disappearance of the “Soviet threat” and, accordingly, the meaning of the existence of NATO, the bloc should have ceased its activities. However, the NATO bureaucracy did not even think about dissolving itself. Moreover, in 1999, at the jubilee, 50 th summit in Washington, a new Alliance Strategic Concept was approved, which for the first time fixed the possibility of using NATO forces outside of Europe and the United States without UN Security Council sanctions.

From this moment, from a means of reflecting the external danger of NATO, it finally turns into an offensive military alliance. His new essence quite clearly revealed subsequent operations: aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999, intervention in Afghanistan in 2001, invasion of Iraq in 2003, defeat of Libya in 2011.

Undying idea

Meanwhile, even these regional wars do not explain the need to maintain the costly armies of NATO member countries and the continuous improvement in the West of the means of warfare. Therefore, it can be assumed that one of the main objects of global "peacemaking" and "democratization" by NATO is still our country. Moreover, the struggle for natural resources in the world is intensifying, and Russia is the owner of exorbitant (from the point of view of the West) mineral reserves.

Moreover, the difference in military capabilities is such that it literally pushes our Western "partners" to revive the centuries-old idea of ​​invading Russia. To be convinced of the growing military danger for our country due to the weakening of its defense capability, it is enough to look at the ratio of the armed forces of the Russian Federation and NATO. So, according to the total number of troops, the ratio of aircraft is 1: 4, according to tanks - 1: 9, for artillery systems - 1: 3,1, for attack helicopters - 1: 5, for combat aircraft - 1: 5, for combat ships - 1: 6,1.

Comparison of the possible composition of groups in the European theater of operations even more convincingly shows the overwhelming superiority of NATO. Tanks: Russian Armed Forces - 1450, NATO Armed Forces - 13 000 (1: 9 ratio), artillery systems: RF - 3200, NATO - 15 000 (1: 4,67), combat aircraft: RF - 750, NATO - 3800 (1: 5), NATO - 59: 360: 1, NATO - 6,10: 1300, NATO - 1500 (0: XNUMX), combat aircraft: RF - XNUMX, NATO - XNUMX (XNUMX: XNUMX), NATO - XNUMX (XNUMX: XNUMX) ), warships: RF - XNUMX, NATO - XNUMX (XNUMX: XNUMX), sea-based cruise missiles: NATO - XNUMX – XNUMX, Russia - XNUMX.

On the lines of the main strikes, NATO will be able to create a quantitative superiority over the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in 8 – 12 times. By the way, in the Far East, the joint grouping of the United States and Japan exceeds the grouping of the Russian Armed Forces in this region in ships, aircraft and tanks by five times, in combat helicopters - in 7,5 times, and also has full superiority in cruise missiles and in general in high-precision arms. At the same time, one should not forget that NATO troops already have about 60 percent of modern technology (in Russia only 10 – 15 percent) and are constantly improving weapons.

No one should be misled by the fact that the reduction in military expenditures of the countries - members of the bloc, which has emerged in recent years, is supposedly evidence of the growing alliance of the alliance. In fact, this reduction is caused primarily by the crisis that has sharply affected European countries.

Meanwhile, knowledge of NATO’s solely military component (undoubtedly dominant) does not provide a complete picture of what the unit is. After all, it is common to call the alliance a military-political bloc and at some stage (before the start of aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999), the issue of transforming NATO into a predominantly political organization was actively discussed. However, the impunity of intervention in the Balkans prompted, obviously, the NATO authorities to abandon excessively peace-loving sentiments and to keep intact the imbalance in favor of the military component.

The burden of junior members

Nevertheless, the political component has not gone away, so it is useful to understand how non-military structures of the alliance work. I had this opportunity in May, when I participated in the spring session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (PA) in Luxembourg, and then in a meeting with the leaders of the alliance at its headquarters in Brussels. This allowed the inside to become familiar with the functioning of political mechanisms, with the relationship between the countries - members of the bloc and the problems of concern to the alliance.

NATO PA was established in 1955 to provide a link between the politicians, the military leadership of the alliance and the public of its members. The Assembly convenes twice a year for the spring and autumn sessions. In recent years, sessions were held in Romania, Estonia and the Czech Republic. Next will be Croatia and Lithuania. It is easy to see that these countries do not have any significant influence on the strategic decisions of NATO. How, then, to explain that preference in holding such events is given to low-impact members of the alliance?

The point is, obviously, that the citizens of these countries are not thrilled with the duty to maintain defense contributions at the level set for all NATO members at two percent of GDP. Especially heavy burden such expenses are now, in the period of the next crisis, when the government to the limit trim the "social programs" for the population, and without that barely making ends meet. Moreover, the citizens of these countries are not at all eager to send their soldiers to participate in the colonial adventures of the United States. Therefore, such events are used to maintain the authority of NATO in these countries, to instil in new members of the alliance and Europeans in general the whole importance of defense expenditures, as well as to show the importance of “small” states that they trust to host such high-level sessions.

I would like to note that among the invitees to the NATO PA there were many parliamentarians from non-bloc countries, but seeking to join there. Among them are the former Soviet republics - Georgia and Moldova, as well as Macedonia and Montenegro. Now the new members are drawn into the alliance not as an extension of the North Atlantic alliance, but as an open door policy. NATO has not been in a hurry to open the doors to the block so desired. At the same time, however, it is invariably and rigidly emphasized that the admission of new members is the sovereign right of NATO and no objections of Russia will be taken into account.

Search for an external enemy

As for the issues addressed during the NATO PA meetings, they can be divided into internal, affecting only members of the bloc, and external, relating to the international situation as a whole.

The Chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly, Member of the British Parliament, Hugh Bailey, in his speech at the opening of the session immediately raised the topic of military spending, which indicates its special importance for the NATO leadership. He noted that only four members of the bloc (the United States, Britain, the Federal Republic of Germany and Turkey) keep military spending at the proper level. The remaining countries in recent years have allowed a fall in military spending on 10 – 15, or even 20 percent. As a result, the NATO budget has missed approximately 35 billion dollars.

In order to overcome this clearly unpleasant trend for NATO, the political leadership of the alliance insistently called for ever greater transparency in the activities of the bloc. In fact, the talk is clearly about the need for more assertive outreach in order to encourage Western European citizens to fork out for additional military spending. A way known - to frighten this man in the street with a ghost of a threat to his well-being.

The cornerstone of NATO’s ideology is the idea of ​​collective security. But at the same time it is a weak link in the advocacy system of the alliance. The fact is that nowadays no one and nothing threatens Europe militarily. That is why NATO is concerned about finding an external enemy in order to justify its own existence in new conditions.

After the destruction of the Soviet Union, international terrorism was the main scare. However, there is growing evidence that the same sinister Al-Qaida is nothing more than a product of the US special services. Therefore, now NATO has started talking about cybercrime and, accordingly, cybersecurity. Indeed, not only banks and corporations, but also military departments are becoming increasingly targets of attacks in the cybersphere. In the US, they do not stop talking about hacker attacks from China on the Pentagon. All this worries the top NATO. However, it is not so easy to put a cyber threat under the gravy of a threat to all mankind, because it does not directly affect the well-being of ordinary Europeans.

Therefore, a particularly joyful (albeit hidden) excitement of the North Atlantic bloc caused an increase in defense spending in Russia. This was an additional argument in favor of the need to preserve the military allocations of the countries-members of the alliance of two percent of GDP. Russia is not yet being served openly as a source of military danger, but in NATO this trump card is clearly held in reserve.

And this is seen not only in political and diplomatic rhetoric, but also in very specific actions. In particular, the largest military exercises of the alliance called “Stadfast Jazz-2013” under the scenario of repelling aggression against one of the NATO member countries are scheduled for November of this year. And they will take place not at the usual ranges of Germany, France or Italy, but in Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The alliance does not particularly hide the fact that the winding down of operations in Afghanistan can lead to troops being tense. It was in Brussels that they decided to train themselves in deploying their forces near the Russian borders, confirming that our country is still considered to be the main opponent of NATO.

The main themes

During the meetings of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, two themes prevailed. The first is an operation in Afghanistan, from where the forces of the block are forced to ingloriously leave. But in order to justify in the eyes of the public the huge amounts of money spent on “peacemaking” in Afghanistan and considerable losses in personnel, the country's considerable achievements during the stay of NATO troops on its territory were strongly emphasized.

The report of NATO Secretary General Mr. Rasmussen was entirely devoted to the praise of the noble mission of the alliance in Afghanistan. In his speech (obviously intended for the average man in the street), figures and facts were cited that should convince the public of the expediency and necessity of spending on these goals. But a clear discord was the speech of the representative of Afghanistan, who for some reason did not share the general optimism. On the contrary, in his statements there was some kind of doom from what could happen to pro-Western Afghan leaders after NATO’s withdrawal from this country.

The second theme is the military operation of the alliance led by France in Mali. Here they talked with pleasure about the successful dispersion of rebels in the north of the state. However, anxiety sounded implicitly about the fact that if urgent political and economic reforms were not carried out urgently, the rebels would again come out of their refuges in inaccessible mountainous and desert areas and everything would start all over again. So many times already happened in stories colonial wars in africa.

But the most acute topic of the war in Syria is now carefully avoided. The former euphoria observed at last year’s NATO event in Marseille, in which I had to participate, was not even mentioned. Still, despite all the efforts of the West and its allies in the Persian Gulf, financing the rebels, the legitimate government of Bashar al-Assad not only keeps, but also gains one victory after another. Moreover, despite all the economic and political sanctions, the government continues to enjoy the support of the overwhelming majority of the population. Even the North Atlantic Alliance has to admit it. So, in a recently published NATO report, it is reported that 70 percent of Syrians support official Damascus, 20 percent are neutral and only 10 percent express support for the opposition.

Stay true to the government and the army of Syria, which is quite successfully smashing gangs of mercenaries from around the world. Therefore, the prospect of being drawn into another “peacekeeping” war after a clear failure in Afghanistan and Iraq does not deceive anyone into NATO.

Among the internal problems of the alliance, which are trying not to advertise, but which implicitly sounded in a number of speeches at the session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, were the relations between the two key components of the bloc - Europe and the United States. They said that America, they say, is more engaged in Asia, and Europe - the Middle East. And in this supposedly there are no contradictions. However, the contradictions (especially on the issue of military spending) were guessed very clearly.

Inconvenient Questions

It is noteworthy that the delegation of the US Congress in Luxembourg was, but kept surprisingly restrained, without interfering anywhere. And despite the fact that the Americans bear the lion's share of the costs and efforts of NATO, they therefore have the right to consider themselves a key element of the alliance. However, Americans prefer to have in their hands real, rather than ostentatious instruments of influence.

From Luxembourg, we moved for two days to Brussels, where NATO headquarters are located. It immediately became clear where the real work is being done. The headquarters of the alliance is a model of efficiency and discipline. All events are organized clearly. The program of our meetings in Brussels was literally scheduled by the minute.

I note that of the seven meetings that we had at NATO headquarters, four were with American and Canadian representatives in support of the idea that America (US plus Canada) firmly holds the levers of power. The very first conversation took place with NATO Deputy Secretary General, former US Ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow. Then, Assistant Secretary General of the Alliance for Political Affairs James Appathurai (Canada) spoke with us. Then our interlocutor was another assistant deputy secretary (and also a Canadian) Richard Froe. And in the end, we met a whole delegation led by US Permanent Representative to NATO Ivo Daalder.

At these meetings, NATO’s aspiration to have good relations with Russia was strongly reaffirmed, the non-directionality of the American missile defense system towards Russia was noted, and successes in the struggle (mostly imaginary) against the drug mafia were emphasized. Of course, the ostentatious peacefulness of our interlocutors did not mislead anyone in the Russian delegation.

We asked the representatives of the alliance a lot of different, including unpleasant questions, including the question of the nature of the upcoming NATO exercises in the Baltic States. We have raised doubts and the assertion of our partners that one of the main areas of cooperation between Russia and NATO is the fight against drug trafficking. Then, we wondered, how can we explain that in fact the main flow of drugs to Russia comes from Afghanistan, occupied by the troops of the alliance? As for terrorism, why in Libya is the friendly Russian regime of Muammar Gaddafi overthrown by NATO with the active help of Al-Qaeda? And why are NATO countries now cooperating so vigorously with al-Qaeda and other proprietary terrorist organizations in an effort to overthrow the legitimate government of Syria? Of course, our partners gave some rounded answers. But they sounded somehow unconvincing.

On the whole, the sensation was created: in the political field there are quite a few disagreements among NATO members. The main reason for this, in my opinion, is that the expansionist goals of the alliance, which are actively promoting its most hawkish part led by American neo-cons, are less and less in tune with the true needs of the peoples of the member countries. They are not particularly in need of collective security, because no one is going to attack them. But the cost of security (masking all the same aggressiveness) like the people of NATO countries, especially Europeans, less and less.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/
129 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Canep
    Canep 10 July 2013 07: 14 New
    17
    In this situation, only nuclear weapons can save Russia from destruction. As well as propaganda aimed at splitting NATO.
    1. bomg.77
      bomg.77 10 July 2013 07: 29 New
      +9
      They do not consider Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Ukraine, I think for a long time, they won’t think which side they will take.
      1. domokl
        domokl 10 July 2013 07: 51 New
        11
        Quote: bomg.77
        They do not consider Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Ukraine, I think for a long time, they won’t think which side they will take.

        Even in total terms, we are inferior in all positions at least 2-3 times
        1. bomg.77
          bomg.77 10 July 2013 08: 11 New
          +1
          Quote: domokl
          Even in total terms, we are inferior in all positions at least 2-3 times
          It’s clear that we are giving way, so why else belittle it?
          1. domokl
            domokl 10 July 2013 10: 19 New
            +5
            Quote: bomg.77
            It’s clear that we are giving way, so why else belittle it?

            But what was it downgraded? In quantity? So the author has not yet begun to compare weapons and equipment. For the time being, we are only reporting on great achievements. And our army is still armed with junk and how far it is to solve this problem.
            In general, the leadership acts in strict accordance with the BUSV regarding the actions of the commander when making a decision and issuing a combat order.
        2. evgenii67
          evgenii67 10 July 2013 09: 16 New
          14
          Hello everyone! The main emphasis for Russia should be on nuclear weapons and their means of delivery, as well as strengthening the alliance (in the best sense of the word) with Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan .... getting involved in an arms race in all positions will be stupid because it is deplorable it can affect the economy and the country as a whole, but it is impossible to stand still, it is necessary to systematically develop.
          Quote: domokl
          Even in total terms, we are inferior in all positions at least 2-3 times

          If we take the total numbers and remove the nuclear weapons, then yes, but let's take the NATO bloc against Russia and say Belarus (without nuclear weapons) The bulk of the weapons and people of NATO is in the United States, but what about Europe ?! In general, while the United States plans to transfer forces and means to Europe, our paratroopers will bathe in the fountains of Paris, take pictures in London against the backdrop of the Big Ben and write in the English Channel. (Exaggerated a little, but everything is possible, we are Russian)
        3. Geisenberg
          Geisenberg 10 July 2013 21: 46 New
          +3
          Quote: domokl
          Quote: bomg.77
          They do not consider Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Ukraine, I think for a long time, they won’t think which side they will take.

          Even in total terms, we are inferior in all positions at least 2-3 times


          Except for one thing - we have nothing to lose, our country will not have one and the other on this and the fight will be fierce. According to this position, given their sodomic way of thinking - they think more about zhp, they suck out completely.
          1. Bekzat
            Bekzat 12 July 2013 17: 58 New
            0
            Greetings to all, for Demetrios,
            “Apart from one thing, we have nothing to lose, one country and the other will not be on this and the fight will be fierce.” This reminds me of “You can’t retreat, Moscow is behind”, and “You cannot retreat, there is no land for us behind the Volga.” And I support you, + To you Dear !!!
        4. Shaitan
          Shaitan 14 July 2013 01: 15 New
          0
          According to the First World War and the Second, there are also statistics that say that the advancing party spends 2–3 times more human and material resources than the defending one. This means that after the military action of the troops they will have the same as ours. And this will be an unacceptable result for Europe!
          and with the conquered territories what? for example, I’ll immediately go to the partisans, I will burn oil rigs and slaughter fascist capitalists of all nationalities, who have rushed to us!
      2. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 10 July 2013 08: 06 New
        +8
        Quote: bomg.77
        Yes, and Ukraine, I think, will not think for a long time which side to take

        Of course it will not, but not ours.
        1. bomg.77
          bomg.77 10 July 2013 08: 40 New
          +7
          Quote: Vladimirets
          Of course it will not, but not ours.

          The western one may yes, and the eastern one will definitely be with us.
          1. Vladimirets
            Vladimirets 10 July 2013 09: 27 New
            10
            Quote: bomg.77
            The western one may yes, and the eastern one will definitely be with us.

            If such a war does not directly affect Ukraine, then few people will voluntarily want to get into the slaughter, alas, this is life and the instinct of self-preservation. Volunteers, of course, will be, some kind of unshared assistance is possible, but the fact that Ukraine will bristle with bayonets at once and will break to defend, for example, I doubt very much Murmansk.
            1. bomg.77
              bomg.77 10 July 2013 10: 04 New
              +7
              So we can argue for a long time and everyone will remain in their own opinion, I still hope for the best. If the war suddenly happens, it will be not only the seizure of the territory, but also the destruction of the Slavs, Ukrainians will not stand aside. This we call each other Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian or Tatar, and for them we are all Russian. Regards!
              1. Vladimirets
                Vladimirets 10 July 2013 10: 14 New
                +5
                Quote: bomg.77
                This we call each other Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian or Tatar, and for them we are all Russian. Regards!

                It `s naturally.
                hi drinks
          2. domokl
            domokl 10 July 2013 10: 23 New
            +3
            Quote: bomg.77
            The western one may yes, and the eastern one will definitely be with us.

            Alas, Ukraine is not divided into Western and Eastern. Ukraine is an independent, united state. Sympathies are of course important, but the decision of the President and the Rada is the Law. And in wartime, for violating the Law, execution ... So ...
            1. alex13-61
              alex13-61 10 July 2013 10: 34 New
              +3
              Quote: domokl
              .Ukraine is an independent, united state

              Independent - yes ... One - ????
            2. bomg.77
              bomg.77 10 July 2013 10: 54 New
              +4
              Quote: domokl
              Quote: bomg.77
              The western one may yes, and the eastern one will definitely be with us.

              Alas, Ukraine is not divided into Western and Eastern. Ukraine is an independent, united state. Sympathies are of course important, but the decision of the President and the Rada is the Law. And in wartime, for violating the Law, execution ... So ...
              In the event of war, Ukraine will have to take sides and as soon as it does, it will split. Even in peacetime they begin to pull the rope, some towards Russia and others to the west, then time passes, they agree until the next time, and in case of a conflict they will not agree and pull in Parliament in hair. Ukraine is one until it takes someone's side.
          3. Algor73
            Algor73 10 July 2013 13: 13 New
            +1
            And the western, and eastern, and southern, and central will support, God forbid, of course, conflicts, still once fraternal republics. I admit that, as during the Second World War, part of the population supported the other side, they will support it now if there is a conflict. But during the Second World War both Russians and Belarusians supported (SS divisions were in all republics, in direct proportion to the population, with the exception of the Baltic states). But the conflict with NATO countries itself is unlikely, or even unbelievable - there are no mutual claims and such are not outlined. Just out of habit, we see the enemy in them. The true enemy, or rather, the enemy, is the South and Southeast. And Europe in Russia and the former republics sees only an economic competitor. And America has no reason to attack. But whatever it is - you need to stick together.
            1. alex13-61
              alex13-61 10 July 2013 13: 34 New
              +2
              Quote: Algor73
              (SS divisions were in all republics, in direct proportion to the population, s

              And without the Baltic states, there were ethnic groups ...
              1. Mikhail
                Mikhail 10 July 2013 15: 49 New
                -2
                Yes, those ethnic groups that were later deported.
          4. silver_roman
            silver_roman 10 July 2013 17: 42 New
            +1
            Be sure of that!
            I'm talking about the east!
        2. stroporez
          stroporez 10 July 2013 08: 42 New
          +1
          I’m glad, the government --- yes, not ours. I am convinced that with a noble "schukher" the people will be on our side, with the exception of the Nazis .............
          1. domokl
            domokl 10 July 2013 10: 25 New
            +2
            Quote: stroporez
            I am convinced that with a noble "schukher" the people will be on our side, with the exception of the Nazis .............

            For betrayal of the state in wartime, execution is to be relied upon. Citizens of a state MUST fulfill the laws of that state
      3. valokordin
        valokordin 10 July 2013 08: 32 New
        0
        Quote: bomg.77
        They do not consider Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Ukraine, I think for a long time, they won’t think which side they will take.

        Ukraine, unequivocally, will side with NATO, and Bandera will be the Ukrainian guard.
        1. alex13-61
          alex13-61 10 July 2013 10: 37 New
          +2
          Quote: valokordin
          Ukraine will definitely side with NATO,

          And what, Crimea too? ...
      4. avdkrd
        avdkrd 10 July 2013 12: 04 New
        0
        Belarus, yes, Kazakhstan - if only as a safe destination. Ukraine is a very controversial issue ... The orders of the army are given by politicians, and the politicians there evoke associations with "warm and soft", the society is split and one has only to guess on whose side Ukraine will politically act, and militarily its use is doubtful. Rossi’s withdrawal from the CFE Treaty suggests that awareness, although belatedly, has arrived. Just to catch up.
      5. smile
        smile 10 July 2013 16: 04 New
        +3
        bomg.77
        I doubt very much that someone other than Belarus will stand shoulder to shoulder with us in the event of a fight. and even then, Belarusians will only defend their territory in the event of an attack ... Ukraine is unlikely - and not only because a significant part of Ukrainians will welcome the attack on us - they simply will have nothing. as I understand it, they brought their army to a much worse state than ours ... Yes, and Kazakhstan. in my opinion, even if it will participate, which is doubtful, it will only be a supply of resources ... but this was relevant during the Second World War ... now transience will not allow us to use ... And Armenia will be too busy fighting for its existence ... you know with whom ... so. that there is simply no one to rely on except yourself ... except that the Europeans, and in a terrible dream, do not dream of a war with us, because this is the end of their entire economy, I'm not talking about the prospect of nuclear armageddon ...
      6. Theophanes
        Theophanes 10 July 2013 16: 14 New
        +3
        "They do not consider Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Ukraine will not think for a long time ..." Belarus and Kazakhstan, yes! But Armenia and especially Ukraine are in doubt. Ukraine is becoming more and more nationalistic. The fascists enthusiastically entered the parliament, Bandera rule the ball not only in Western Ukraine, but also in the central part and Kiev. The President and the government are eager for NATO and the European Union! So there are few hopes for Ukraine. Almost the same with Armenia. Believing NATO or Amerokos is the same as believing in Hitler’s love for Jews or believing Chubais with the Chubais. So you need to believe only in Russia, its army and navy!
        1. bomg.77
          bomg.77 10 July 2013 23: 29 New
          0
          Quote: Theophanes
          So there are few hopes for Ukraine. Almost the same with Armenia.
          Armenia will not be able to exist without an alliance with Russia, so it is not necessary to guess on whose side it will be, and in Ukraine it is not so simple.
          1. alex13-61
            alex13-61 12 July 2013 11: 34 New
            0
            Quote: bomg.77
            in Ukraine, not everything is so simple.

            I agree ... There is no single Outskirts ...
    2. buzuke
      buzuke 10 July 2013 08: 25 New
      +2
      all empires collapsed from within, you just have to wait a bit. they are unlikely to trample on us, the point is not iron, you have already mentioned about yao. the main thing is for us to conduct the right policy ourselves and to convey it correctly to the world community (and in this we are limping strongly)
    3. user
      user 10 July 2013 10: 21 New
      +2
      While our tactical nuclear weapons do not fall under any restrictions, no one will seriously fight with us
    4. beech
      beech 10 July 2013 13: 48 New
      +2
      Russian Armed Forces - 1450, NATO Armed Forces - 13 (000: 1 ratio), artillery systems: Russian Federation - 9, NATO - 3200 (15: 000), combat aircraft: Russian Federation - 1, NATO - 4,67 (750: 3800 ), warships: Russia - 1, NATO - 5 (59: 360), sea-based cruise missiles: NATO - 1-6,10, Russia - 1300.
      REFORMED REFORMED YES REFORMED!
    5. beech
      beech 10 July 2013 13: 58 New
      +1
      hammer on NATO, this bunch of fagots do not know how to fight (except Germans), they only know how to press buttons ... turn your eyes to China better ... these comrades can have very tough problems because the heels of the brigades will not protect the Far East from them
      1. Dejavu
        Dejavu 11 July 2013 07: 27 New
        +1
        China is not an enemy of Russia. The Chinese are Jews with narrow eyes. They are more pleased to trade with the whole world by purchasing resources from us. What for them to wage a total war with Russia, to spend wild money on the joy of the West? After the potential victory of China, which is impossible in the light of the presence of nuclear weapons, but still, spending on restoring infrastructure and fighting Russian partisans will be prohibitively unprofitable. Therefore, all this nonsense about the Chinese intervention is an idle talk and fears of the townsfolk.

        Yes, friends living in China unequivocally argue that the Chinese are 3 orders of magnitude more respectful of the Russians and our leader than the gay people and the USA.
    6. iSpoiler
      iSpoiler 10 July 2013 17: 22 New
      -1
      I would say a lot a lot of nuclear weapons)
    7. silver_roman
      silver_roman 10 July 2013 17: 41 New
      +2
      NATO will not attack Russia just like that. a really real reason should appear for this. And not like that. as in Syria, such as the lack of democratic norms, and, for example, the lack of natural resources. In fact, the entire geyropa and the United States is built like a house of cards. All of their benefits will begin to crumble very quickly, as soon as a light breeze blows. This is evidenced by the 2008 crisis. And so the war with the Russian Federation is not an option for them. Or they will have to understand that even if they win, they will recover sooo long, and half will completely disappear from the face of the earth.
      Indeed, the numbers do not lie on technology. they have a serious superiority in technology, but the example of the war in Libya shows that they simply did not have enough ammunition. And 100500 tanks, ships and aircraft without armament are MIXTURE. And we have a lot of this stuff. Although old, but if it shoots, then for sure.
      And the moral image of the troops will play a huge impact. At NATO, he is clearly not up to par. So, militarily, I would be calm.
      If they were confident in their victory, they would have attacked. And I am almost sure that we will not be at war alone. All the same, the same China will not stand aside ... although who knows whose side it will take ...
      1. Corsair
        Corsair 11 July 2013 02: 19 New
        0
        Quote: silver_roman
        NATO will not attack Russia just like that. a really real reason should appear for this. And not like that. as in Syria, such as the lack of democratic norms, and, for example, the lack of natural resources.

        But will NATO "survive" to this point?
    8. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 10 July 2013 21: 43 New
      +1
      Quote: Canep
      In this situation, only nuclear weapons can save Russia from destruction. As well as propaganda aimed at splitting NATO.


      We also need an active position, without it, even with nuclear weapons we will be thrown in slippers.
  2. bomg.77
    bomg.77 10 July 2013 07: 25 New
    +4
    Something I can’t believe is that in Russia there are only 1450 tanks and NATO has 13000.
    It was necessary to compare then nuclear weapons.
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 10 July 2013 07: 45 New
      12
      Quote: bomg.77
      Something I can’t believe is that in Russia there are only 1450 tanks and NATO has 13000.

      With the number of tanks, the author is clearly overdone, 1450 tanks throughout Russia what As I understand it, the author used google maps and counted those that are on the street, well, or those that managed to lol
      With regards to the fleet, and why doesn’t take into account the submarine fleet of the Russian Federation or speech and is only about submarines ???
      And on aviation, how much NATO, and with what creak, gathered aircraft to participate in Libya hi
      We have a problem with cruise missiles, but there will be nothing left of Japan in the event of a nuclear strike by Russia. But in any case, the world will sooner or later begin to divide, and without a warrior it won’t be offended request
      1. feanor
        feanor 10 July 2013 07: 57 New
        +3
        It seems that the author on the part of Russia considered only what is in the western part, while NATO considered everything. In general, Russia ranks first in the world in terms of the number of tanks, we won’t go into details about its state, but parity with NATO is obvious in this matter, given that when the NATO professional military blocs end, ordinary gay men and mattresses will go to war, but not make laugh my slippers ...
      2. bomg.77
        bomg.77 10 July 2013 08: 08 New
        +7
        I also think that the ratio is not true
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        But in any case, the world will sooner or later begin to divide, and without a warrior it won’t be offended
        Let Russia wait until it’s ready
        laughing
      3. Tersky
        Tersky 10 July 2013 09: 57 New
        +8
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        With the number of tanks, the author is clearly too clever

        Sasha, what can you do, the author is complexing, from there the low self-esteem;In the Russian army, the most modern tank is the T-90. In total, the armed forces have about 500 such MBTs in versions of the T-90A and T-90AK. That is, for the most advanced tanks in the armies of the two countries there is a certain parity. At the same time, the Russian army has about 4500 of thousands of T-80 tanks of various modifications that are undergoing major repairs (for 2010 year). Also in the troops and at the storage bases there are about 12 500 T-72 tanks of various modifications. Thus, even if at least a third of these vehicles are on the move, refueled, crews are loaded into the tanks and ammunition is loaded, their number will exceed the number of the American tank fleet. It is easy to calculate the total ratio of RUSSIA-NATO http://www.amic.ru/news/216446
        1. smile
          smile 10 July 2013 16: 14 New
          +1
          Tersky
          Well, thanks, because I was in some bewilderment, because how I came across other numbers, more than the author’s.
        2. Dober
          Dober 10 July 2013 17: 19 New
          +3
          Quote: Tersky
          It is easy to calculate the total ratio of Russia-NATO

          It's like that. Here parity - there is not parity. There is nuclear weapons. All computer simulated. And those and others. The results vary, but this is within the "margin of error."
          The French and Germans, too, seem to have "modeled." But they did not take into account several main factors when maintaining a database in Russia.
          PARTICIPATION, PARTICIPANTS, UNDERGROUND!
          But this is really a problem. With the current military-patriotic education of youth. After films like “Bastards”, “May 45th”, “Shtrafbat” spirit does not increase, especially love and devotion to the country.
          It seems that they want to introduce the previously deleted subject of GNP into the school curriculum. But this is not enough. It is not enough to know the device of the machine and be able to quickly put on a gas mask. We need motivation for these actions in certain conditions. Well, I think everyone understood what I mean.
          In the end, I’m not talking about providing the same militia with uniforms, weapons, or a trench tool. It is clear that commerce will not seek to provide all of this. They have different priorities ...
      4. JIaIIoTb
        JIaIIoTb 10 July 2013 10: 07 New
        +4
        With any aggression of our "partners" towards Russia, the first strike of nuclear weapons will be inflicted on the Tokyo economic hub. And the Japanese know this. In general, everyone knows this. A blow to Japan implies a first blow to the US economy. Because the United States will not be able to fight without money, unlike us.
        Sincerely.
        1. a
          a 10 July 2013 10: 14 New
          +1
          Quote: JIaIIoTb
          Because the United States will not be able to fight without money, unlike us.



          Tell me how to fight without money then? money is just a kind of exchange mechanism. that is, it is a derivative of the economy, a secondary quantity. when the global war begins, the value of money will be extremely low. but the value of economic potential will increase many times
          1. JIaIIoTb
            JIaIIoTb 10 July 2013 10: 31 New
            0
            Have you carefully read my post or just the last line?
            Reduced to money to simplify the understanding of readers, not all super economists like you.
            On account of the blow to the ECONOMY and the actual potential is also described in my post.
            Sincerely.
            1. a
              a 10 July 2013 10: 37 New
              -1
              Quote: JIaIIoTb
              not all super economists are like you.


              as you briefly described everything. not all strategists are like you. describe in more detail the mechanisms of the impact of the destruction of the Tokyo technology park on the US economy
      5. Natalia
        Natalia 10 July 2013 11: 34 New
        +2
        just look at the ratio of the armed forces of the Russian Federation and NATO. So, according to the total number of troops, the ratio of aircraft is 1: 4, for tanks - 1: 9, for artillery systems - 1: 3,1, for attack helicopters - 1: 5, for combat aircraft - 1: 5, for combat ships - 1 : 6,1.

        Better less is better, or as they say: "One lion will tear ten sheep."
        1. psv910
          psv910 10 July 2013 11: 56 New
          +2
          Quote: Natalia
          Better less is better, or as they say: "One lion will tear ten sheep."


          Right As A.V.Suvorov (notResun) said, "you need to fight not by numbers, but by skill." "The bullet is a fool, and the bayonet is well done!"
    2. domokl
      domokl 10 July 2013 10: 26 New
      0
      Quote: bomg.77
      and all 1450 tanks and NATO has 13000.

      In nuclear weapons, we are inferior to the United States about 2 times. Look in the archive. There is such an article, I just don’t want to climb the footnote
      1. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 10 July 2013 10: 33 New
        +3
        Quote: domokl

        In nuclear weapons, we are inferior to the United States by about 2 times

        And which missiles carry nuclear weapons are at the amers? Most 40-50 year old trash hi
      2. alicante11
        alicante11 10 July 2013 11: 44 New
        +1
        In nuclear weapons, we are inferior to the United States about 2 times. Look in the archive. There is such an article, I just don’t want to climb the footnote


        And what's the difference, 20 and 40 times destroy life on Earth? Stop sprinkling ash on your head. We have many real problems to invent non-existent.
    3. andrejwz
      andrejwz 10 July 2013 11: 04 New
      0
      Quote: bomg.77
      Something I can’t believe is that in Russia there are only 1450 tanks and NATO has 13000. It was necessary to compare nuclear weapons then.

      Comparison of possible groupings at the European theater of operations even more convincingly shows the overwhelming superiority of NATO. Tanks: RF Armed Forces - 1450

      Read carefully: at the European theater of operations
      1. feanor
        feanor 10 July 2013 14: 39 New
        +1
        So where is NATO at the European theater of operations 13 tanks, where ???
      2. bomg.77
        bomg.77 10 July 2013 20: 58 New
        +1
        Quote: andrejwz
        Read carefully: at the European theater of operations
        Then the comparison is not correct. NATO calculated all the weapons and in Russia only what is located in the west. If you need to compare, you must compare the same values, that is, a military block with a military block, NATO-CSTO, and not NATO against a piece of RUSSIA!
  3. tronin.maxim
    tronin.maxim 10 July 2013 07: 27 New
    12
    To be convinced of the growing military danger for our country in view of the weakening of its defense capability, it is enough to look at the ratio of the armed forces of the Russian Federation and NATO. So, according to the total number of troops, the ratio of aircraft is 1: 4, for tanks - 1: 9, for artillery systems - 1: 3,1, for attack helicopters - 1: 5, for combat aircraft - 1: 5, for combat ships - 1 : 6,1. Hitler also believed that it turned out we all know.
    1. domokl
      domokl 10 July 2013 07: 48 New
      11
      Quote: tronin.maxim
      . Hitler also believed that it turned out we all know.

      Well, yes ... Fine logic. Let's put a bunch of millions back into Russian land, lose a bunch of cities, villages, villages, but someday, in the end we will win ...
      Only the situation has changed, not only for the Americans or the Japanese. They lived hell knows where and were not afraid of strikes on their territory. The situation has changed for us. Distances have ceased to be a factor in increasing defense capability. Rocket, in principle, where to fly the drum.
      Yes, these millions of these have become much less than under Stalin.
    2. SASCHAmIXEEW
      SASCHAmIXEEW 10 July 2013 07: 57 New
      +6
      Then in Russia there were no Jewish oligarchs, and there was Stalin, and the people were a little different, they prayed to other Gods !!!
      1. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 10 July 2013 08: 07 New
        +4
        Quote: SASCHAmIXEEW
        Then in Russia there were no Jewish oligarchs,

        Yes, they were in government, what has changed now wink
        1. Xnumx kopeek
          Xnumx kopeek 10 July 2013 08: 33 New
          +2
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          Quote: SASCHAmIXEEW
          Then in Russia there were no Jewish oligarchs,

          Yes, they were in government, what has changed now wink

          - besides Kaganovich, the business owner didn’t beat.
          1. Alexander Romanov
            Alexander Romanov 10 July 2013 09: 40 New
            +4
            Quote: 20 kopeek
            - besides Kaganovich - a business executive

            Put dash Dvorkovich hi
            1. Xnumx kopeek
              Xnumx kopeek 10 July 2013 10: 04 New
              +1
              Quote: Alexander Romanov
              Quote: 20 kopeek
              - besides Kaganovich - a business executive

              Put dash Dvorkovich hi
              -
              and Chubaisovich? Nan Nanich
            2. Xnumx kopeek
              Xnumx kopeek 10 July 2013 10: 11 New
              +1
              Quote: Alexander Romanov
              Quote: 20 kopeek
              - besides Kaganovich - a business executive

              Put dash Dvorkovich hi
              -
              - like a joke -
              -the bishop calls to the same church, speaks with the bishop of the church - "There is one young St. John appointed to you, like talents, vi, Father John, prepare him a decent vestment already ..." ...
              - "Well, Your Majesty, - everything will be. Right now I’ll call our supply manager Father Lifshitz
              belay
        2. valokordin
          valokordin 10 July 2013 08: 36 New
          +2
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          Yes, they were in government, what has changed now

          What kind of Jews were in the government? After 39, there was only one Lazar Kaganovich, so Stalin knew who to fear. A wise man was a true master of the kingdom to him.
        3. Mikhail
          Mikhail 10 July 2013 15: 36 New
          -1
          It was a lot in the 1920s. There were, yes sailed ...
          After purging them, there were not so many among the members of the Central Committee, the Politburo and the ministers. The most famous who survived are Litvinov and Kaganovich. Although I can’t say that these two were angels. To put it mildly, not.
    3. stroporez
      stroporez 10 July 2013 08: 46 New
      +1
      Of great importance (if not decisive) is not only the number of tanks. But who is sitting in them. And we have no other way but to withstand it and will not .........
      1. domokl
        domokl 10 July 2013 10: 33 New
        +2
        Quote: stroporez
        of great importance (if not decisive) is not only the number of tanks. but who is sitting in them

        Exactly .. And the soldiers who have served a year and will once go to the firing range will sit
  4. cobalt
    cobalt 10 July 2013 07: 36 New
    +8
    NATO is that mad dog, to treat a senseless thing, only to put to sleep. After all, the greed of the Western bourgeoisie has no boundaries and does not dissect.
  5. domokl
    domokl 10 July 2013 07: 38 New
    +5
    The article is an answer to our Internet heroes. They call for resolving issues by force, showing teeth and fighting. I repeatedly argued about this, but there was not enough time for such work. Thank you to the author.
    1. nokki
      nokki 10 July 2013 10: 10 New
      +5
      Domocles! In today's world, the principle - "my hut with the edge" - well, does not roll! It’s just that they won’t be able to sit back, have fun diplomatically. The question is not to immediately bomb, let’s say Qatar, etc. Most site visitors do not mean open aggression. I think they are talking about something else. While the Army and Navy are being reequipped and rehabilitated, one cannot sit idly by: one must “bite,” “pinch,” drive “splinters” into the ass of a potential enemy, wherever possible.

      There are many means for this: it is cyber attacks, and an information war to split NATO (for example, Snowden), and attracting opposition forces in the satellite countries of the West to create internal tension there, using the factor of Islamization and Africanization of Western Europe to creating permanent centers of instability there, etc. In general, turn their own weapons against them. Or, as the saying goes, "grease them with bacon".
      1. domokl
        domokl 10 July 2013 10: 48 New
        +2
        Quote: nokki
        ! In today's world, the principle - "my hut with the edge" - well, does not roll

        And who called to live by this principle? You’re not giving a slander to me. And then, as a military man, I’m used to not just yelling -Attack forward! I’m used to carry out reconnaissance, compare forces, analyze all the data received and only then, give orders and fulfill it.
        And the conversation is not about what’s desired then, but about what’s existing now. There’s a clear task set by conscience and honor to save the homeland. Of course, it’s possible to attack .. Only then who will get the homeland? So the task is simple-to ensure the country's defense without taking the civil to equip the army and navy with such weapons, which it would be difficult to resist, to reform the army in accordance with the prevailing demographic situation.
  6. pensioner
    pensioner 10 July 2013 07: 55 New
    +2
    Thanks to the author! The article is great! Well, such a loose multinational structure like NATO cannot be united. End up as the builders of the Tower of Babel. Yes, the money will run out.
  7. pensioner
    pensioner 10 July 2013 07: 59 New
    +1
    But is the factor of NATO’s overwhelming superiority in conventional weapons taken into account when calculating Russia's nuclear deterrence forces? Or in their calculation takes into account only the number of nuclear charges of the enemy? Enlighten.
    1. domokl
      domokl 10 July 2013 10: 55 New
      0
      Quote: retired
      Is the factor of NATO’s overwhelming superiority in conventional weapons readable when calculating Russia's nuclear deterrence forces?

      The whole point is that when it is used (naturally, our nuclear weapons) it will be destroyed almost immediately. Even at start-up, nuclear submarines and railway complexes will be damaged. Some percentage of a Topol-type system.
      That is why systems like Iskander (modernized) and the rest of medium range come first in ETVD. Until we foolish, Europe was panicky afraid of short-range missiles ...
      But, this is already the secret of the General, in the classic war, modern ground forces are not able to independently conduct long battles. Repairability and other attendant in complex machines to hell
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 10 July 2013 11: 47 New
        +1
        This is how you can destroy nuclear weapons "in its application" ??? !!! I can still understand. "Before use", in mines and areas of movement of mobile complexes. But even here I wouldn’t be so sure that “them” will give everything a ride.
  8. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 10 July 2013 08: 05 New
    0
    Allies need to start .. (China India) if the mess begins to knock us off ..
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 10 July 2013 08: 08 New
      +8
      Quote: MIKHAN
      Allies need to start

      The Army, Air Force and Navy are our allies, there were no other spawn!
    2. MstislavHrabr
      MstislavHrabr 10 July 2013 09: 37 New
      +2
      Not only allies should be thought of. We have lost a huge lever of pressure in the face of the international anti-imperialist movement. The struggle against imperialism must be directed !!! America is not shy about creating militant units, arming them, directing their work, under the slogans of jihad or nationalism, etc. There is a lot of combustible material in Europe now. Just push, tell me what to do ... Europe should be so busy with its internal problems that it could not even enter her head to press on Russia! And the United States should get problems in those countries where they are used to feeling like masters ...
    3. smile
      smile 10 July 2013 16: 23 New
      +1
      MIKHAN
      Yes, we won’t force anyone to fight China or India for themselves or for our interests ... such things will not go through with them ... the main thing is that they don’t get us anywhere, it will become.
  9. Master Taiga
    Master Taiga 10 July 2013 08: 09 New
    +3
    The author forgets that after the collapse of the USSR and the financial crisis, NATO greatly reduced the number of vehicles. Maintaining a large army in the absence of a visible enemy is very expensive.
  10. regdan
    regdan 10 July 2013 08: 17 New
    +1
    Put article minus. NATO is a coordinated management. It’s one thing to gather for all sorts of exercises and drink champagne, another thing is fighting. Let the author say how some Greek generals who do not know the German language and German generals who do not know the Greek language will coordinate joint military operations. NATO is a bunch of ragged people. If you consider NATO as a fighting force, you need to consider only 3 NATO countries Germany, France, England. You can also add Italy and Spain, the rest of the country is ballast that will pull all of NATO to the bottom in the first days of hostilities. Comparing the amount of technology is stupid. I don’t remember what kind of parade the countries of NATO saw on YouTube, but the announcers said at the end were well remembered, “And we also have 3 tanks, but we leased out one.” This parade was in one of the Baltic countries.
    1. vlad767
      vlad767 10 July 2013 09: 58 New
      +5
      This parade was with us, in Latvia. Yes, 1 out of 3 tanks was actually leased to Estonians. Perhaps I’ll add that our Navy consists of several boats and patrol ships, and the Air Force consists of a pair of cornmen and helicopters without weapons.
    2. domokl
      domokl 10 July 2013 10: 58 New
      +2
      Quote: regdan
      . Let the author say how some Greek generals who do not know the German language and German generals will coordinate joint military operations

      Look at the composition of Hitler’s army in World War II, and then write nonsense.
      1. regdan
        regdan 10 July 2013 11: 52 New
        0
        The main strength of the Germans in 41-45, the Germans themselves were.
    3. fzr1000
      fzr1000 10 July 2013 11: 15 New
      +4
      If you consider NATO as a fighting force, you need to consider only 3 NATO countries Germany, France, England.

      You somehow did not “notice the elephant” -Turkey. Well, the United States, in fact.
      1. regdan
        regdan 10 July 2013 11: 55 New
        -1
        We must take into account that the Turks do not like rockets flying overhead; for the USA, one must take into account submarines secretly floating off the coast of democracy, which will turn all of North America to ashes. The article is about nothing. NATO rabble rabble.
  11. makst83
    makst83 10 July 2013 08: 18 New
    0
    In Nato they can only fight: Americans, Turks, partly French and Germans and all, that is, countries that can suffer damage, up to a certain point-level. The rest of the rabble from Geyropa is not accounting. But we have tactical nuclear weapons, the main thing is not to be afraid to use it!
    1. a
      a 10 July 2013 09: 28 New
      +3
      Why did you write down the Germans as partly able to fight? history shows that Germans in Europe fight better than anyone.
      in general, it seems to me that here it is necessary to consider the issue of not who knows how to fight, but which countries will generally rise to war with Russia. because much will depend on the political leadership of countries, on the state of their civil society
      I’m thinking that if there is a war tomorrow (not God of course), then Poland, Hungary, Romania, France, England, Denmark will go to fight with us. in these countries there is essentially a consensus between the political elite and the people in their views on Russia. Take at least the same Poland. you look how angry they are at us. they would like to take our place as a great eastern power. however, it did not happen and on the other side of the Bug the grinding of teeth is still heard.
      Balts most likely will not get involved in the war. These people are already very few, and even are located on the border with Russia. So if what they suffer the most. and in general, participation in aggression against Russia threatens them with extinction.
      Germany, I think that the vaccine he received in the east in 41-45 years has not yet ended, and therefore it is unlikely that they will go to war. Spain, Italy, Greece - I have no idea how these southern sissies will fight with us. and the society in these countries is not at all eager to get to know our winter better.
      and indeed, I believe that without the army of Germany, Europe would not go to Russia. therefore, Germany as a key element of all European wars remained so to them. therefore, our efforts to prevent war should primarily be aimed at strengthening the economic, and, if possible, political alliance with Germany
      1. bomg.77
        bomg.77 10 July 2013 21: 23 New
        0
        Quote: uno
        Germany, as it was a key element of all European wars, remained so. therefore, our efforts to prevent war should primarily be aimed at strengthening the economic, and, if possible, political alliance with Germany

        This, I think, is what is needed, an alliance with Germany.
    2. MstislavHrabr
      MstislavHrabr 10 July 2013 09: 41 New
      +2
      I would not discount Poland ... They have enough gonar for 10 countries. Plus the perfect cannon fodder-Albanians and Croats ...
      1. a
        a 10 July 2013 09: 56 New
        0
        Quote: MstislavHrabr
        Plus the perfect cannon fodder-Albanians and Croats ...


        well no. these are not even suitable for the role of cannon fodder. cannon fodder will be Poland, Romania, Hungary.
        Albanians in general are little of themselves as organized armed groups. their whole story is the story of partisan wars.
        Croats .. what could be the 4 millionth people, most of which are essentially loafers?
        for meat, I think Europeans will buy Arabs and blacks. the same French. they don’t get used to it. in Africa there is an overabundance of human resources, they are extremely cheap.
  12. ups
    ups 10 July 2013 08: 26 New
    +2
    And why does the author not take into account the Belarusian army or is it not our ally. Their potential must also be taken into account, but on our side, in other matters, Kazakhstan can be pulled up to this Hamburg account.
    For me, in spite of such a seemingly terrible advantage in the direction of NATO, by and large this advantage is more on paper. Since now, only the USA can pose a threat to us. But for the threat to exist, the amers must pull their divisions to our borders, and to do this in the modern world unnoticed is simply not possible. From here, my conclusion is that this threat at this stage is an empty phrase. BUT PREPARE NECESSARY. And do not forget the saying, if you want peace, prepare for war and keep the gunpowder dry.
  13. valokordin
    valokordin 10 July 2013 08: 39 New
    +2
    Quote: ups
    From here, my conclusion is that this threat at this stage is an empty phrase. BUT PREPARE NECESSARY. And do not forget the saying, if you want peace, prepare for war and keep the gunpowder dry.

    Yes, to prepare, and once again to prepare, the Goose pig is not a friend, America and Russia are not partners.
  14. serge-68-68
    serge-68-68 10 July 2013 08: 49 New
    +2
    I remembered a joke: he collected a rooster of hens, rolled an ostrich egg in the middle and asked: "Well, what answer will we give to a foreign producer?"
  15. Sharingan
    Sharingan 10 July 2013 09: 02 New
    -1
    It is clear that in the number we lose, it cannot be otherwise. It is not realistic for one country to have armed forces superior to the forces of a large military bloc.
    Moreover, the advancing side should have 6 times superiority, so for now, everything is fine. It is necessary to build a powerful layered air defense system (and not just cover Moscow) in the areas of possible attacks, without mastering the sky, all NATO superiority will turn into piles of scrap metal and piles of corpses.
    1. MstislavHrabr
      MstislavHrabr 10 July 2013 09: 47 New
      +2
      The advancing side must have a superiority of 6 times if it storms the fortress. In a real situation, when the enemy chooses the direction of the attack, which the defending side does not know the other way around ... This, in part, was the reason for the defeat of the Red Army in 41 years.
  16. KazaK Bo
    KazaK Bo 10 July 2013 09: 10 New
    0
    It is easy to see that these countries do not have any significant influence on the adoption of strategic decisions by NATO.

    Is not a fact! Putting all transport and other infrastructure at the disposal of NATO will be expensive. This is one side of the issue. And the other lies in the fact that we have to open new fronts, new areas of defense - we will be surrounded by a solid front of confrontation.
    Under these conditions, we need to stop holding the stance of a noble and proud sovereign for a long time and withdraw from the treaty of arms and confidence restrictions in Europe (sorry, I don’t remember what it is called for sure) ... Our leadership has repeatedly stated through the mouth of the President and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that Western Europe countries do not fulfill its conditions ... then why do we "boggle" with them? Why should we keep our most trained troops outside the Urals? Why not directly and openly warn new applicants under the “umbrella” of NATO defense that let NATO troops enter its territory, we are not responsible for the weapons that will be used to destroy them - conventional or nuclear. Including in the preventive order of its application. And what are the consequences of the use of these weapons. Approximately such a statement very quickly sobered up the leadership of the CZECH REPUBLIC in their desire to deploy missile defense on its territory. Yes, and the Poles are very much "combed" in stomata, after information about plans for accommodation in the Kaliningrad region. "ISKANDER"! Already thinking. The Romanians published their test statements that the deployment of missile defense on their lands is not against Russia. They are waiting for our reaction, obviously ... Political correctness is good, but sometimes the lack of firmness and consistency - sometimes it only hurts.
    When necessary, it is necessary to say bluntly what the population of those countries where the weapons of our probable adversary will be placed can get ... at the same time give public guarantees that the statehood is not touched by those countries that will refrain from confronting us.
    Everywhere and always respect only the strong ... first of all - strong in spirit. To the strength of mind, we have something to offer something and more specifically.
  17. alicante11
    alicante11 10 July 2013 09: 11 New
    +5
    The article instills a sense of danger. In this case, I would say that it pumps up unnecessarily.
    Firstly, among the Russian weapons, the author clearly takes only deployed weapons. Since there are, for example, not one tens of thousands of T-72 tanks at the reserve bases. The same can be said of artillery, perhaps we are seriously behind the opponents in the air. But, on the other hand, Russia has the best air defense in the world, so NATO is not shining to seize air supremacy either.
    In addition, the author points to all the superiority of NATO, but does not indicate where we can meet with this NATO to organize a mess using conventional weapons. From the land border with NATO, we have only a very short section of the border with the Baltic states, which, as a springboard for deployment, looks as ridiculous as our Kaliningrad region. Since when large forces are deployed on this bridgehead, they will be amazed at the entire depth of the combat formation by all kinds of fire and missile weapons. This situation reminds me a lot of the German operation "Hunting bustard". How it ended for the armies of the Crimean Front, I think you can not tell. You can, of course, talk about the deployment of NATO troops in Georgia. But again, a reasonable question of logistics arises when deploying and supplying this grouping. And the size of the border with Georgia is not such that NATO could realize its numerical superiority there.
    Well, in fact, this is all ground theater of such a hypothetical collision.
    Of course, one cannot but take into account the capabilities of landings on the Black Sea coast, in the north and in the Far East. However, in all of these areas, landings will have to overcome the resistance of the fleets and land-based aviation. I’m afraid that even for the World Cup, the landing for NATO will not be an easy walk and a significant time will pass before the landed troops can conduct large-scale offensive operations. Moreover, in the north there will be a full-time question for the use of a short summer period, favorable for landing operations and deployment on the coast, and in the Far East - the dimensions of the theater are huge, given the layer cake from the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin that must be overcome US-Japanese forces. In this situation, the enemy will take even more time to get to the mainland. However, in the north, in the Far East, even landing on our coast will not greatly please our sworn friends because of the poor means of communication, which may allow small forces to delay significantly superior enemy forces to concentrate attack groups on other fronts.
    Also, do not forget about the possibility of maneuver by forces over secure land communication - the Trans-Siberian Railway (hello to Schlieffen). Of course, our communications will be under attack from high-precision weapons of the enemy. But for some reason, there are railway troops, and NATO’s reserves of precision weapons are not unlimited.
    T.O. not to say that we should rest on our laurels, we must nevertheless honestly say that Russia has a significant potential of conventional weapons to defend its territory to help nuclear deterrence forces.
    1. a
      a 10 July 2013 09: 36 New
      +2
      and Belarus? Do you think they will regret it? Poland will be happy to get involved in a fight.
      and I think that there may be no invasion as such. even if they manage to somehow cling to our territories on the land theater, then these will become a “penny” of dying Europe. I mean, they will suffer unacceptable human losses. try to apply the Yugoslav scenario - bombardment, shelling by cruise missiles, causing damage to the military and, above all, economic infrastructure
    2. MstislavHrabr
      MstislavHrabr 10 July 2013 10: 04 New
      +2
      SCENARIO: In Russia, terrorist groups, unknown to anyone subordinate, launch a massive attack on national economic facilities (power plants, airfields, communication centers, including an attack on Topol, Yars, etc.) Under the pretext of repelling such a threat, the armed forces of Europe are being put on alert. The US Navy forces enter the Black Sea, which, at the request of Ukraine, landed troops on its territory (accidentally finding themselves in the Mediterranean Sea and heading for this, for example, to Africa), in order to ensure the safety and security of national economic facilities ... Note that there is no war ... But with the correlation of forces there have been big changes ... With Ukraine we have a large unreinforced border. And if it does not become our ally, we cannot talk about any security of our country ...
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 10 July 2013 11: 09 New
        0
        In principle, for disrupting such a scenario, the FSB is working quite well. Since large gangs are operating in the whole territory of Russia, it is necessary to create a base for them. Armament, supply, recruitment, training, training. All this cannot be done unnoticed. They still cannot swing the Caucasus normally. Chechnya is not an example - it was specially betrayed by traitors in the EBENya government, but with Dagestan after the First Chechen it has not passed. Therefore, here we can talk about the abandonment of ready-made sabotage groups. Which, however, also cannot go unnoticed by actions on such a scale, especially since they also need to prepare the bases for actions, this is not Bardenburg, whose task was on the 2-3 of the day in the border zone.
        Naturally, the NATO landing on the territory of Ukraine seriously changes the military situation in the event of a NATO-Russia collision. However, for the effective operations of NATO troops from the territory of Ukraine, they also need to create a logistics network. Given that its main part will be located in eastern Ukraine, the effectiveness of its work does not seem to me very good. Given this situation, this group is the first in the distribution to concentrate forces after the Baltic grouping of NATO is thrown into the Baltic Sea. Also, let's not forget that NATO’s resources are also not unlimited. Therefore, the landing in Ukraine, most likely, will make it impossible / unnecessary to land on our coasts. From where it will be possible to remove additional forces.

        Regarding Belarus. I said the words of Comrade Sukhov. Those. I understand that they are unlikely to be left alone. But at least to cover this direction for the time of concentration of forces in other sectors, the Belarusian army, I think, should be enough. Nevertheless, the Old Man, as a true collective farmer, is a thrifty person and should have enough troops in the fence.
        1. MstislavHrabr
          MstislavHrabr 15 July 2013 16: 55 New
          0
          Participants in the Ukrainian-American tactical exercises involving the Rapid Trident-2013 troops, which take place on the territory of the International Center for Peacekeeping and Security of the Peter Sagaidachny Academy of Ground Forces, began preparations for the beginning of the active field phase. During the day, the co-director of the exercises, Major General Vyacheslav Nazarkin, and the American leader, Colonel Alfred Renzi, reviewed all training points. In general, the high and high-quality preparation of the International Center for Peacekeeping and Security for specific exercises was determined.
          Units of the military of the Republic of Poland, Moldova, Romania, England and Ukraine, which will play the role of mobile defense companies, went to the places of future "hostilities", where they reconnoitered and agreed on many issues regarding the interaction of multinational units. Also, the officers of the headquarters of the multinational brigade "Center", the headquarters of the battalion tactical group and command and observation posts of multinational companies began their work.
          Logistics testing is already underway ...
    3. Theophanes
      Theophanes 10 July 2013 17: 30 New
      0
      Moldova has already essentially entered NATO, having signed an agreement with Romania. So we should expect a flurry first of all with Transnistria and beyond Transnistria! Ukraine is silent, although the Romanians chopped off the most oil-bearing piece from them. The Romanians also want to regain part of the Odessa region and completely the Danube. It is necessary to get out of the bondage treaty named after the hunchbacked and drunk. Yes, and think about it: what can one-year-olds - soldiers know or what skills to acquire during the service? The storage bases for the most part were disbanded by the glorious holder of the harem Serdyukov. So it’s better not to remember them! The size of the army is clearly small for our open spaces. Mobilization in the pen. Removal of personnel and equipment has not been worked out. Military commandants are cut down to nowhere. Poor Shoigu!
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 11 July 2013 03: 11 New
        -1
        Moldova has already essentially entered NATO, having signed an agreement with Romania. So we should expect a mess, first of all, with Transnistria and Transnistria!


        There are no options. Only glorious death, as in Kaliningrad.

        The storage bases for the most part were disbanded by the glorious holder of the harem Serdyukov. So it’s better not to remember them!


        You know, I thought so too. However, it turns out that just the bases have been preserved, the cadet units disbanded. And their weapons were transferred to the reserve base just.

        The size of the army for our open spaces is clearly small. Mobilization in the pen. Removal of personnel and equipment has not been worked out.


        And what is the size of the army normal for "our open spaces"? We have a population of 150mln. And the military budget is far from Chinese and not American. We must proceed from the real possibilities of the country and the appetites of the oligarchs for the construction of new yachts and villas.
        Regarding the mobilization and transfer of equipment. We have to work on this. I don’t know about mobility. But here with the transfer - in that year or two years ago there were exercises on the transfer of troops by air from the European part of Russia to the Far East. So the work is going on. Of course, the Russian Federation will not reach the level of the USSR in any way because of its economic system, but within its framework the army model is more or less adequate.
        1. Essenger
          Essenger 11 July 2013 15: 25 New
          +2
          Quote: alicante11
          We have a population of 150 million.


          you have 10 million less than the indicated figure.
          1. alicante11
            alicante11 11 July 2013 16: 36 New
            0
            And this greatly affects the ability to put the number of people in the army?
            I just mean that the peacetime army should not exceed 1% of the population. Otherwise, it begins to affect the economy negatively.
  18. alicante11
    alicante11 10 July 2013 09: 20 New
    +2
    I would like to add a couple of thoughts. Here the people pointed to the presence of allies of Russia in the form of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Armenia. I would not particularly count on them. The best solution would be their neutrality. However, "this is unlikely" (c).
    Plus, as I already mentioned, the amount of modern and high-precision weapons in the NATO forces, although impressive, is nevertheless insufficient for long-term military operations, and even on such a scale as operations against Russia. As a result, in just a couple of weeks or a month, the arsenals of old weapons and mobilized armies will be used. And if we have no problems with the first, then our military leadership must carefully take care of the second moment. Moreover, this may be our advantage over NATO, which has professional armies, i.e. It has weak reserves, with the exception of the United States and its National Guard. It is in this direction that we need to develop our mobilization capabilities.
    1. stalkerwalker
      stalkerwalker 10 July 2013 15: 18 New
      +4
      Quote: alicante11
      As a result, in just a couple of weeks or a month, the arsenals of old weapons and mobilized armies will be used.

      Do not get carried away ...
      If there will be an invasion (motivated by hype in the press, similar to the one that was before the attack on Yugoslavia), then only after the destruction of 90% of military infrastructure, including ALL communication and communication centers, including the notorious "dead hand". And this requires the entire operation (destruction) within 1-2 days, if not faster.
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 10 July 2013 16: 38 New
        +1
        And will the NATO people have enough precision munitions and their carriers for this? Without a ground operation, even in the case of a successful first strike, the rear areas of the Air Force and Air Defense, which cannot be attacked directly, will begin to cut NATO missiles and planes in commercial quantities. Moreover, the maximum air defense forces just guard these same communication centers, communications, etc., etc.
        It's just that Russia is a little bigger than Libya or Yugoslavia. And has a slightly more advanced air defense. So NATO will not be able to piracy in our skies with impunity. And the losses that they will suffer in the event of such an operation can very seriously affect the further course of hostilities, giving us an advantage in the air.
        1. stalkerwalker
          stalkerwalker 10 July 2013 16: 53 New
          +3
          Quote: alicante11
          And the losses that they will suffer in the event of such an operation can very seriously affect the further course of hostilities

          I wrote if ...
          Of course, without ground operations it is impossible.
          Quote: alicante11
          It's just that Russia is a little bigger than Libya or Yugoslavia. And has a slightly more advanced air defense. So NATO piracy will not succeed with impunity in our skies
          1. alicante11
            alicante11 10 July 2013 17: 27 New
            0
            Then I did not understand why I was "addicted". The option of Libya and Yugoslavia that you described will not work in Russia. and if there is an attempt to realize it, then this is only at hand for us.
  19. pa_nik
    pa_nik 10 July 2013 09: 35 New
    +2
    I would not escalate the situation (and so - sickeningly laughing ) ... On the one hand - yes there are many recourse BUT! Do not forget about the elementary disagreements that exist in the block. I mean, there are often skirmishes even between Germany-France paravozos, not to mention more modest members. Indeed, their languages ​​are different (but joint exercises are on schedule). 100% agree that the shotgun on stage should fire request Question - to whom? In us - we are closer, and to drape from us is more familiar fellow The Chinese are tastier, but have already pumped up so much militarily that bench press ... Looking at what is happening around and inside Russia, I am inclined to believe that the main enemy, and later the victim, will be made of us hi
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 10 July 2013 09: 42 New
      +4
      Quote: pa_nik
      On the one hand - yes there are many BUT!

      But-we are in t-shirts laughing We are in vests, BUT we are few wassat
  20. Smersh
    Smersh 10 July 2013 09: 53 New
    +3
    At the same time, the difference in military capabilities is such that it literally pushes our Western "partners" to revive the centuries-old idea of ​​invading Russia. To be convinced of the growing danger of war for our country in view of the weakening of its defense capability, it suffices to look at the ratio of the armed forces of the Russian Federation and NATO. Thus, in terms of the total number of troops, the 1: 4 aircraft ratio, on tanks - 1: 9, on artillery systems - 1: 3,1, on attack helicopters - 1: 5, on combat aircraft - 1: 5, on warships - 1: 6,1: XNUMX: XNUMX: XNUMX: XNUMX: XNUMX: XNUMX: XNUMX: XNUMX: XNUMX; .

    Comparison of the possible composition of groups in the European theater of operations even more convincingly shows the overwhelming superiority of NATO. Tanks: Russian Armed Forces - 1450, NATO Armed Forces - 13 000 (1: 9 ratio), artillery systems: RF - 3200, NATO - 15 000 (1: 4,67), combat aircraft: RF - 750, NATO - 3800 (1: 5), NATO - 59: 360: 1, NATO - 6,10: 1300, NATO - 1500 (0: XNUMX), combat aircraft: RF - XNUMX, NATO - XNUMX (XNUMX: XNUMX), NATO - XNUMX (XNUMX: XNUMX) ), warships: RF - XNUMX, NATO - XNUMX (XNUMX: XNUMX), sea-based cruise missiles: NATO - XNUMX – XNUMX, Russia - XNUMX.


    We also have allies, we are not alone. For example, China will not mind to crack down on a competitor, or South American countries.
    1. GELEZNII_KAPUT
      GELEZNII_KAPUT 10 July 2013 12: 24 New
      0
      Yes, 4-world, will draw everyone in!
      1. Tersky
        Tersky 10 July 2013 17: 37 New
        +1
        Quote: GELEZNII_KAPUT
        well, 4-world will draw everyone in!

        what ... already .. belay .? third world took place? belay ! Damn, I slept again .... recourse what I went to collect stones and sticks, because he warned:"I do not know what weapons the third world war will be in, but the fourth with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein. yes
  21. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 10 July 2013 10: 09 New
    +4
    I haven’t heard of a single victory of NATO over anyone. NATO, like an elephant, can tumble down to destroy dishes and disgrace away. Yes, and then the Americans must understand that in case of war they will have to pay a very high price, Russia even in its present deplorable state , this is not Vietnam or Iraq, I think the Americans in the event of such a war reckon that the US Air Force will ensure air supremacy, leaving the war on the ground for "cattle." And then when coffins and funerals begin to arrive in Europe hundreds of days, they will probably think, What the hell do we need? Plus, every night the fear of waking up from a nuclear explosion over their warm and cozy home will add Europeans to their senses and we also forgot about the crowds of migrants who came to Europe fleeing the war in their homeland, so what? Do you think they will sit still? Plus, interruption in energy supplies, you will have to sit without gas and light. Plus huge, just huge holes in budgets, forgive benefits and allowances, especially the same the gamers will rejoice. Let's see who needs it: the French? Don’t tell them a lot of problems, and can’t solve them by the war, why did they give up this distant cold steppe? Can they send migrants there? Spain? It’s stupid, what the hell do they need it for? When did Spain fight the Great Country for the last time? And what did it fight for THIS? Italy? C'mon, I never met a warmer and good-natured attitude towards the Russians if Mussolini hadn’t driven the Italians near Stalingrad, they would not have taken a step in the USSR. Germany? Yes, this is our main trading partner, suicidal, they are so good, and I'm sure the surviving veterans will not allow them to do this. They themselves were sitting in the snow near Moscow, they know what it is. Yes, and Bismarck will come out of the grave to set the brains on the German leadership. So think of the United States to fight with Russia and tell your NATO partners about it, the next day we will hear about 13% of countries leaving the alliance, but the Baltic states and Poles will remain .And we forgot about China, do you really think that it will calmly watch how the riches they hold under their noses take over, which Russia supplies them for a moderate fee. NATO is a relic of the Cold War, a kind of living corpse, a US-supported collar in Europe.
  22. Xnumx kopeek
    Xnumx kopeek 10 July 2013 10: 25 New
    -2
    Quote: bomg.77
    So we can argue for a long time and everyone will remain in their own opinion, I still hope for the best. If the war suddenly happens, it will be not only the seizure of the territory, but also the destruction of the Slavs, Ukrainians will not stand aside. This we call each other Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian or Tatar, and for them we are all Russian. Regards!
    -
    “Scratch the Russian, and you will find a Tatar,” as Genghis Khan used to say.
    1. alex13-61
      alex13-61 10 July 2013 10: 44 New
      +1
      Quote: 20 kopeek
      Scrape the Russian, and you will find a Tatar, as Genghis Khan used to say

      Ukrainians are closer to the Tatars (in genetics) ...
      1. Xnumx kopeek
        Xnumx kopeek 11 July 2013 01: 03 New
        0
        Quote: alex13-61
        Quote: 20 kopeek
        Scrape the Russian, and you will find a Tatar, as Genghis Khan used to say

        Ukrainians are closer to the Tatars (in genetics) ...
        -
        - ancestor of Ukrainians - Dill.
    2. fzr1000
      fzr1000 10 July 2013 11: 06 New
      +3
      Klyuchevsky, if that ...
      1. psv910
        psv910 10 July 2013 11: 52 New
        +1
        Quote: 20 kopeek
        “Scratch the Russian, and you will find a Tatar,” as Genghis Khan used to say.

        Quote: alex13-61
        Ukrainians are closer to Tatars (in genetics) ..

        Quote: fzr1000
        Klyuchevsky, if that ...


        And also Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Karamzin, Turgenev, and even Napoleon Buonoparte belay
        Here, someone wrote interestingly about this:
        http://mamlas.livejournal.com/1232163.html
        1. fzr1000
          fzr1000 10 July 2013 11: 59 New
          +2
          But not Genghis ..
        2. Mikhail
          Mikhail 10 July 2013 15: 43 New
          +1
          This is all nonsense, fabrications. The Russians are Slavs, no matter how the internationally concerned ones would want to prove the opposite.
          Incidentally, the modern Kazan Tatars should be called Bulgars. They don’t have anything common with the Mongol-Tatars.
        3. Xnumx kopeek
          Xnumx kopeek 11 July 2013 01: 01 New
          0
          [quote = psv910] [quote = 20 kopeek] -And also Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Karamzin, Turgenev, and even Napoleon Buonoparte belay
          Here, someone wrote interestingly about this:
          http://mamlas.livejournal.com/1232163.html[/quote]-
          -Aksakov, Kuprin, Turgenev - of Tatar roots. Karamzin too. -Napoleon - Georgian from Fr. Korsika. -And Pushkin, Obama’s cousin in general.
    3. smile
      smile 10 July 2013 16: 35 New
      +2
      Xnumx kopeek
      According to recent studies of the Russian human genotype, it turned out that there are no traces of Tatars comrades and all sorts of different Mongoloids ... based on this, conclusions can be drawn. that it’s just a cool phrase. which for some reason our tiligence loved, including historical, as well as the propaganda of Europeans in the last two hundred years. trying to introduce us to the Central Asian and Mongolian savages .... to Comrade Goebbels liked this version .... and the arguments on this topic grandfather Chingiz look ... not even funny ...
      1. Mikhail
        Mikhail 10 July 2013 16: 47 New
        +1
        You are absolutely right. The motives of Western "friends" in this question are understandable. Intelligence is generally a separate issue.
        “If science says that the Russians are Slavs, it’s worse for science,” is the credo of Dr. Goebbels and all his followers.
  23. papss
    papss 10 July 2013 10: 32 New
    +5
    Since then, when there is no USSR, it has been constantly affirmed and imposed
    NATO’s desire to have good relations with Russia, the US missile defense system was not oriented toward Russia
    ... but in fact, what?
    Expansion of the NATO member states, drawing the countries of Russia's neighbors into their orbits, militarization, missile defense ... We cannot have good relations with NATO ... this is a military bloc defending the interests of the Anglo-Saxon world! And with him like that ... either in his orbit, or against him ...
  24. fzr1000
    fzr1000 10 July 2013 10: 53 New
    +4
    A little off topic, but generally good news ...

    Yesterday.

    Members of the intelligence committees of the Senate and House of Representatives of the US Congress blocked the decision of President Barack Obama to provide military assistance to the armed Syrian opposition. They also imposed severe restrictions on the financing of this program.

    The reason for this step was fears that weapons could fall into the hands of terrorist groups, including those associated with Al-Qaida, ITAR-TASS reports. Congress had previously opposed rebel assistance. In particular, at the end of June, they received a proposal to adopt a resolution prohibiting the White House from sending weapons to Syria without the approval of the congress.
  25. Alexanderlaskov
    Alexanderlaskov 10 July 2013 11: 29 New
    +3
    The threat from the west is great. Recall the story. Beat and not such adversaries.
    1. GELEZNII_KAPUT
      GELEZNII_KAPUT 10 July 2013 12: 29 New
      0
      Duc, you are NATO! wink
      1. GELEZNII_KAPUT
        GELEZNII_KAPUT 10 July 2013 13: 52 New
        0
        Oh already changed the flag that moved from Poland to the USSR? laughing
  26. psv910
    psv910 10 July 2013 11: 31 New
    +3
    NATO is an evil empire.
  27. Kurkin
    Kurkin 10 July 2013 11: 39 New
    +2
    Many have already written a lot in the discussion. I would like to summarize. The main battle-worthy members of NATO in the European theater of war are the Bundeswehr, the French and the Vikings (Scandinavians), I don’t take the British into account since they never had normal battle-worthy ground forces for a real war with a strong enemy. Of all the above, no one wants an open war with Russia, since everyone understands that for Europe it will be a nuclear end. You and Tommy do not know how to fight at all, only colonial wars with a knowingly weak enemy. They then opened the second front with a fright that the Red Army in the English Channel would wash their boots by the end of 1945.
    1. fzr1000
      fzr1000 10 July 2013 12: 00 New
      0
      The Scandinavians are not members of NATO. They are either partners, or someone else.
      1. Essenger
        Essenger 10 July 2013 12: 46 New
        +4
        Denmark and Norway are members of NATO.
        1. fzr1000
          fzr1000 10 July 2013 12: 51 New
          +1
          Denmark is about nothing. Norgi - here and there. The real force that the Finns could fight with us, and they and the Swedes are not in NATO.
          1. Essenger
            Essenger 10 July 2013 17: 01 New
            +2
            Quote: fzr1000
            Scandinavians are not members of NATO


            I answered this statement. Who is real power and who is not your way is not to bother me.
            1. fzr1000
              fzr1000 10 July 2013 21: 17 New
              +1
              Nothing that I'm with you on the same forum, oh great?
  28. Yuri Y.
    Yuri Y. 10 July 2013 12: 12 New
    +1
    Quote: Standard Oil
    NATO is a relic of the Cold War, a kind of living corpse, a US-backed collar in Europe.

    NATO was originally created to deter Russia's entry into
    Europe. It still performs the same function. I do not think that they will be solved
    into armed conflict with Russia. They in Syria seem to have decided this
    not to do. Great danger for us, as always, inside Russia. Will be
    sawing from the inside. Of course, weakness can cause, especially the United States.
    They like to attack those who are much weaker. For any you need your army
    arm and support. soldier
  29. fedorovith
    fedorovith 10 July 2013 12: 28 New
    +1
    I read the article and the reviews and thought about what they were talking about? Let them gather there, discuss, in short, a bigger organization of officials of all these countries living on taxes. They will climb into Russia in the form of a military invasion, they will climb into the swamps and forests. general organization to work with its population. Blah blah about what?
  30. Alexanderlaskov
    Alexanderlaskov 10 July 2013 12: 46 New
    0
    It is bad that people in Russia are not told from television channels and the media about such a threat from Western countries. Most of the population of our country live in complete ignorance. Already overslept the collapse of the USSR.
  31. Russ69
    Russ69 10 July 2013 12: 50 New
    0
    Oh ..., I doubt that Geyropa wants to fight with us voluntarily.
    There are different guidelines, but not for war. Something makes me vague doubts that some kind of respectable burgher will want to give up his warm little place. Pull on a beer tummy, camouflage and go look for the grave of your grandfather or great-grandfather. To have great chances, it will be attached nearby.
  32. Essenger
    Essenger 10 July 2013 13: 02 New
    +1
    In a hypothetical conflict between NATO and the Russian Federation, the main striking forces against the Russian Federation will be in my opinion the United States, Canada, England, Turkey, France, Poland, Romania, Hungary and possibly Germany and the Czech Republic. At the same time, hostilities in Transnistria and Abkhazia are likely to begin. On the second day after the outbreak of war, the CSTO will probably be dissolved, except for Belarus, the remaining countries are unlikely to participate. In principle, the participation of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan or Armenia is unlikely to be worthwhile. These countries are more ballasts than allies. The likelihood of Kazakhstan joining the war is very low.
  33. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 10 July 2013 14: 11 New
    0
    I don’t understand where these NATO weapons come from. According to recent publications, England will have only 200 tanks, Germany will have two brigades (NATO’s main striking force). The rest have roughly the same (from 50 to 200), and half of the members have nothing at all. Afghan heavy equipment will not be exported (it will be donated sold or destroyed. And the figures are comparable to the times of the Cold War. Next year the United States will remove the last tanks from Europe. This also applies to other weapons. Of course, you need to keep your eyes open, but also do not cry necessary.
  34. papss
    papss 10 July 2013 14: 14 New
    0
    I think that talking about countries, hypothetical aggressors (and I put it this way, because Russia does not play this role ... whatever they attribute to it), is premature and reckless ... History knows many examples where yesterday’s allies became enemies and vice versa ... For today's reasons, NATO (read, all member countries are members) is a possible and main, hypothetical conditional opponent ...
  35. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 10 July 2013 14: 21 New
    +1
    By the way, maybe the author had in mind tanks in storage, but then Russia did not have 1950, but about 12000.
  36. honest jew
    honest jew 10 July 2013 14: 24 New
    -1
    Quote: Canep
    In this situation, only nuclear weapons can save Russia from destruction. As well as propaganda aimed at splitting NATO.
  37. honest jew
    honest jew 10 July 2013 14: 28 New
    -2
    beat off the Russian spirit !!! soldier
    1. regdan
      regdan 10 July 2013 14: 31 New
      0
      Provocateur?
      1. Mikhail
        Mikhail 10 July 2013 15: 46 New
        -5
        Rhetorical question ...
        Although, maybe, he is out of good motives.
        I’m interested in what kind of troops the "soldiers" served on the demotivatorѣ.
  38. Naval
    Naval 10 July 2013 16: 51 New
    +1
    So, according to the total number of troops, the ratio of aircraft is 1: 4, for tanks - 1: 9, for artillery systems - 1: 3,1, for attack helicopters - 1: 5, for combat aircraft - 1: 5, for combat ships - 1 : 6,1.
    Not everything lends itself to arithmetic calculations. According to military science and arithmetic calculations, the 6th company of the Pskov paratroopers had to retreat or be defeated in a few hours, but it turned out like this. The battalion of paratroopers who captured the airfield in Pristina should have been horrified by the NATO forces and scattered, but it turned out the other way around. The army is strong not only in weapons but in spirit, but there’s just no spirit in the geyrop, just one FUEL!
    1. Denis
      Denis 10 July 2013 18: 32 New
      0
      Quote: Naval
      there’s just no spirit in geyrop
      You are not right! There is a real and persistent homosexual darling
  39. Odysseus
    Odysseus 10 July 2013 17: 37 New
    0
    There will be no “land invasion” of Russia by NATO. They have no reason and nothing to invade. The real threat is a massive disarming strike with the help of the Kyrgyz Republic and other high-precision weapons against carriers of Russian nuclear weapons with subsequent air strikes on the infrastructure (thermal power station, hydroelectric power station, and. etc.) Only airborne assault is hypothetically possible at the final stage of the operation to oil and gas fields in Western Siberia and to the largest nuclear power plants.
    To counter this threat, the Strategic Missile Forces, air defense and aviation must be maintained at the proper level.
    And yet, categorically and definitely, agreements between China and the United States on a joint division of Russia should not be allowed. Interaction between China and the United States in this matter will mean a complete and unconditional crap.
    They need to be kept on opposite sides of the ring.
  40. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 10 July 2013 17: 52 New
    +2
    The amount of weapons even of very high quality and accurate to Russia is not applicable .. And in the West they know it! We are too unpredictable and know how to unite ALL and EVERYTHING at critical moments !! The worst thing for Russia is when it starts to be picked from the inside (which has been done at all times and especially now ..) I think this article has been picked by many (like where you are against us ..))) And how they like to accuse us of "hatred" correctly throw the whole planet with "bast shoes" if angry. And we will have a super-modern weapon that our enemies never dreamed of (and it almost exists ..)
  41. Theophanes
    Theophanes 10 July 2013 18: 08 New
    0
    It is a pity that 41 did not teach and did not protect against the cap of bribes!
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 11 July 2013 03: 17 New
      0
      It is a pity that you did not learn history, but for some reason they let you on the Internet.
  42. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 10 July 2013 18: 17 New
    +1
    Quote: Theophanes
    It is a pity that 41 did not teach and did not protect against the cap of bribes!

    You don’t have to jerk .. Russia has such a fate to fight back to punish vaginas (too arrogant) and become even stronger .. This is not pathos, just the story speaks for itself. (No matter how it was rewritten ..) These are the things ...
  43. wolk71
    wolk71 10 July 2013 18: 55 New
    +1
    Actually, there will be about 22000 tanks in the Russian army.
  44. regsSSSR
    regsSSSR 10 July 2013 18: 56 New
    0
    . Moreover, in 1999, at the jubilee 50th summit in Washington, a new Strategic Concept of the alliance was approved, which for the first time fixed the possibility of using NATO forces outside Europe and the United States without the sanctions of the UN Security Council. NATO’s external danger is finally turning into an offensive military alliance.


    Well, who wrote there that there will be no war and what is it then called? of course their aggression may be and not directed directly against Russia, all the same, they are still afraid to contact us (otherwise China will be connected not entirely on their side), but it will not be easier for us if these puppeteers, peacekeepers spread their hands from the UN bonds, unleash a war under our noses !! Of course they are unpleasant when we shove them sticks in their ambitious wheels of global democratization! that’s the current how it all ends even they think they don’t understand completely, but the mechanism is already running anyway, it remains to be hoped that we will be able to withstand this threat!
  45. honest jew
    honest jew 10 July 2013 22: 39 New
    -3
    No one will bomb Russia, and why ... In Russia, the Russian Kholuy elite, which was placed by the World Government, is in power!

    Therefore, all these pseudo-drops are about how we show the Yankees, Europe, etc. Russian Kui is just a child’s hysteria ...

    All foreign exchange reserves and reserves of the Russian Federation are in US banks, the stabilization fund is also in, all bank accounts of our “servants of the people” are in Swiss banks and various offshore companies (the history of the Cyprus offshore is an easy hint to Russian lackeys so that they don’t lift their noses and forget who their owners are, it’s not in vain that Putin flew to Cyprus ... they called him to the carpet for secret flogging!), real estate, yachts, expensive cars are also there ... the kids live and study abroad for managers and executives in order to become worthy in the future a change for their parents ... Russian oil, gas, metals, gold, wood are sold to the full abroad for dollars ...

    So no one will bomb Russia, since the occupation regime necessary for the World Government has been established in Russia (at all 6 levels), if something goes wrong, then they will simply replace some Russian lackeys with others and that’s all! or Bulk ...

    And pro-Western and pro-American lackeys will not want to lose bills and real estate with yachts and cars abroad, and for the future the kids need to take a look .... therefore they will do what they are told because of the cordon, otherwise the krendez to all accounts and real estate (for Intimidation The world elite sometimes makes a show of flogging, for example, a beggar, crushed, humiliated, and dead Berezovsky, or, for example, interrogation at the FBI Abramovich ... know your place — cattle!)

    And compromising in bulk on our "servants of the people", which is enough for several generations! So you can sleep peacefully, no one will bomb us. And the statements of such lackeys as Rogozin are for averting eyes, as well as for raising a patriotic spirit and mood, so that he can be kept in the stall and could be further cut ...
    1. Xnumx kopeek
      Xnumx kopeek 11 July 2013 01: 12 New
      0
      brevity is the sister of talent, a Jew.
      --- St. John of Kronstadt said-Russia-the foot of the throne of God--
      so knock on the weeping wall
      -
    2. alicante11
      alicante11 11 July 2013 07: 06 New
      0
      Of course, our leadership is to blame for the fact that such opinions seem correct. Because committed to more than the ideals of capitalism. But, nevertheless, a Jew, even an honest one, will always lie apparently. The fact is that our leadership and the oligarchs that control it would like to have something in common with the world government. But the world government does not need them. Their towers, pipelines, factories, this is necessary, but they themselves are not needed, there are enough of these clever men. They show that they are “their own” on the board, capitalist brothers. But still nothing shines on them. By the way, the gold reserve of Russia is stored in Russia, and not in America or Europe. This is all the rest amer their gold pumped.
      As for the "accounts" abroad. So what is more important, electronic pieces of paper over the hill, which at any moment can be discounted, or real oil rigs here in Russia, which no one can discount? Children from beyond the hillock can also be taken out always if a serious trouble starts. And the houses are beyond the hill, so in case the people in Russia give them their ass, then you need to live somewhere. What good to live with. There, BAB, went bankrupt and immediately into the loop. Dumb to live as an ordinary millionaire, if he turned billions :).
  46. Avenger711
    Avenger711 11 July 2013 03: 17 New
    0
    Can you find out which NATO country in Europe has at least 1000 tanks? Maybe the turnover of the Russian Federation in the number of tanks exceeds all NATO countries combined?

    Pedivikia gives such data: Germany - 1351 Leopard 2 of all modifications, as of 2010, of which 225 Leopard 2A6 and 125 - 2A5 tanks. Since then, the Bundeswehr has decreased.

    Leclerc France built a total of 750.