Military Review

Can there be a war with America?

137

The failure of another attempt to bring Russia and the US closer in the summer of 2013 led to a resumption of the discussion about the future of Russian-American relations. Restrained and optimistic assessments prevail among political scientists (logically, “they didn’t quarrel not for the first and not for the last time”). Still, the new failure of the dialogue between the Kremlin and the White House is alarming. The leaders of Russia and the United States are discussing, in essence, the same problems as at the end of the 1980s: reducing the intensity of confrontational rhetoric, resuming negotiations on arms control, and establishing economic contacts. Over the past twenty years, the parties have in fact never been able to build a constructive dialogue on these issues, if they are forced to return to them every two to three years.


In my opinion, a permanent confrontation between Moscow and Washington [1] is not caused by the stereotypes of the Cold War, and the increase of the real contradictions between them. The result of this process in the next ten to fifteen years may very likely be a Russian-American military conflict. This forecast, of course, hypothetical. However, for twenty years the sides only increased the likelihood of its implementation.

The renewed confrontation


Obama's doctrine. Lord of the two rings


The modern world order that emerged during the Second World War was originally an Anglo-Saxon project. Its main provisions were defined within the framework of the Atlantic Charter 1941. Soviet diplomacy, until the middle of 1942, negotiated with Winston Churchill's cabinet about whether its provisions were directed against the USSR. Only in June, 1942, the Kremlin agreed with the concept of "three policemen" proposed by President Franklin Roosevelt, according to which the United States, Great Britain and the USSR should play a leading role in the post-war world. Reaching a compromise allowed the allies in 1943 – 1944. to form the basis of the Yalta-Potsdam order.

The first transformation of the world order took place in the middle of the 1950s, when the USSR and the USA jointly dismantled the British and French empires. It was from that time that the world order became truly bipolar: it was based on the rivalry between the two superpowers who built relations with each other on the basis of the model of mutual guaranteed destruction and the ultimate ideological confrontation [2]. The risk of a direct collision between the USSR and the USA remained minimal after 1962. The parties had a chronic shortage of reasons for the start of the war, and most importantly, a lack of technical capabilities to occupy the opponent’s territory. Neither the Soviet nor the American leadership had political fanatics who were ready to risk everything for the sake of victory in the “war-Armageddon”. There were no disputes between the superpowers around the territories where their interests could have clashed according to the 1914 scenario [3].

The second transformation of the world order came at the end of 1980-ies. Adjustment policies resulted in the dismantling of the socialist community and the USSR. However, the basic principles of the Yalta-Potsdam order preserved in the form of:

- Nuclear parity between Russia and the United States;
- Qualitative and quantitative separation of nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States from other nuclear powers;
- Russia and the United States monopoly on the production of a full range of weapons;
- Russia's monopoly and the United States to carry out the full range of scientific research;
- the current Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty weapons (NPT) 1968

From the point of view of the distribution of power, the modern world order differs little from the period of the Cold War. None of the “second-order” nuclear powers, including China, has the means to destroy the strategic potential of Russia and the United States [4].

The structure of world governance has not changed. There were no international political documents fixing the balance of power after the end of the Cold War. The leading role still belongs to the UN, more precisely - to the UN Security Council. The composition of the permanent members of the Security Council is limited to the victorious powers, which establishes the legitimacy of the modern world order on the outcome of the Second World War. The preservation of the sovereignty limitations of Germany and Japan by the victorious powers fits into this logic.

Against this backdrop, the United States, the 1990 announced their intention to create a new world order. Achieving this goal is possible if three conditions are met: (1) lack of other countries power potentials, comparable to the potential United States; (2) deprivation of the ability to block other American decisions; (3) recognition of the legitimacy of the order from other states. However, while maintaining the material and technical basis of the Yalta-Potsdam order we can talk only about the informal American leadership. And therein lies the foundation for Russian-American confrontation.

Firstly, the Soviet military potential was not removed on the model of Germany and Japan after World War II. Russia remains the only country capable of technically destroy the United States and to war with them on the basis of comparable weapons.
Secondly, Russia, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council has the ability to block decisions of Americans.
Third, Russia clearly has opted to American leadership. Ideological form of the denial was the concept of a multipolar world, proclaimed by Moscow and Beijing, the 1997

Without solving the “Russian problem”, the American project of the global world is doomed to slip.

Fourth, Russia is initiating formal and informal coalitions designed to block US policy. In most international crises, Moscow tried to oppose the White House line with the policies of France, Germany, and the PRC. The signing of the Russian-Chinese “Big Treaty” 2001 proved that such coalitions can take practical form.

Fifth, Russia carried out independently of the United States commercial policy in the field of exports of military technology. It acts donor technologies to countries that want to create a potential force to counter Washington.

Americans are forced to put up with a similar situation, realizing that for the time being they have little means to punish Russia. (This is a real punishment, not pinpricks, such as the imposition of sanctions against Russian companies or allegations of human rights violations in Russia.) But without solving the “Russian problem”, the American project of the global world is doomed to slip.

Interests of the United States


Back in 1948, the Harry Truman administration identified the main goal in relations with the Soviet Union as reducing Soviet military capabilities to the United States [5] level. After the end of the Cold War, Washington confirmed this thesis. 12 May 1989 President George Bush Sr. pointed out that democratic reforms in the USSR are inseparable from the disarmament process. The position of the need to reduce the military potential of the Soviet Union was recorded in the US National Security Strategy 1991.

The most important achievement in the White House was the adoption in 1989 of the Wyoming compromise - new rules for conducting strategic dialogue. Further concessions the US leadership associated with the support of centrifugal forces inside the USSR. The administrations of J. Bush Sr. and W. Clinton supported Boris Yeltsin during the domestic political crises of the 1991 – 1993 years. [6] in exchange for strategic concessions: from the HEU – LEU agreement to the shutdown of reactors that have accumulated weapons-grade plutonium. An important concession to the Kremlin was the signing of the START-2 Treaty (1993), which envisaged the elimination of heavy intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

As B. Yeltsin’s power strengthened, the Kremlin was less and less willing to follow its unfavorable obligations. The turning point was apparently the visit of Russian President to Washington 27 September 1994, during which he stated that due to the position of the State Duma, ratification of START-2 was postponed indefinitely. By the end of 1994, the Clinton administration realized that the task of disarming Russia could not be quickly resolved. From that moment on, the Russian regime became hostile to Washington. Around the autumn of 1994, American experts began to talk about the “failure of democratic transit” in Russia and about the establishment of a “neo-royal” (“neo-imperial”) regime in it.




Gas Exporting Countries Forum in the Kremlin Palace


In 2000's, the situation worsened. The growth of hostility in Russian-American relations was not connected with the internal policy of Vladimir Putin: in order to realize his own goals, Washington regularly cooperated with regimes much more authoritarian than “Putin's Russia”. The fact was that the Kremlin rejected all attempts by the United States to begin negotiations on a radical reduction of strategic potentials on American terms. Moscow began to seek a revision of the Wyoming compromise, which was partially done within the framework of the START-3 Treaty (2010). The Americans were also worried about the philosophy of the Russian president, which was reflected in his Munich speech 10 in February 2007 G.: V. Putin announced the possibility of military opposition to Washington’s unfriendly steps.

Since the mid 1990-ies the United States began to work out new methods of influence on Russian political system:

- arresting Russian officials and businessmen on charges of money laundering, although their crimes against the US have not been proven;
- The creation of the media image of Russia as a criminal and authoritarian state whose policy is contrary to the interests of the world community;
- Extension of the accusations against Russia in energy blackmail other states;
- Financing of the Russian opposition in order to find leaders who are prepared in exchange for support to the accelerated reduction of Russia's strategic potential;
- Explore the possibility of supporting separatist tendencies in Russia [7].

The White House twice (in 1995 and 1999) condemned the Russian military operation in Chechnya. At the beginning of 2000, the State Department regularly received leaders of Chechen separatists. American experts discussed potentially dangerous problems for Russia: “the genocide of the Circassians,” “the deportation of the people of the North Caucasus,” the “unequal status of the peoples of the North,” etc. The study of the experience of the Far Eastern Republic of 1920 – 1922 gained popularity in the USA. [8]. The Americans have repeatedly discussed the possibility of joining the APEC of the Russian Far East separately from the rest of the Russian Federation.

In practical policy, the United States worked through schemes for the forced disarmament of “dangerous regimes”. The first precedent was Iraq, where the US and its allies conducted a military operation in 2003 under the slogan of removing chemical and biological weapons from the regime of Saddam Hussein. The next precedent is Iran, from which the Americans demand to curtail the uranium enrichment program. If successful, this will mean a revision of the NPT, under the terms of which all non-nuclear states have the right to nuclear power. A promising goal is the disarmament of the DPRK, from which Washington is seeking the elimination of nuclear warheads and plutonium enrichment facilities under the control of the IAEA or the "five powers" commission. From Pakistan, the Americans are demanding the introduction of a system for jointly managing their nuclear potential. A special precedent is Syria, where the emergency intervention scenario of the “international community” in the internal conflict, in which the “dangerous government” allegedly applied WMD, is being worked out.

After the disarmament of another two or three countries (for example, India and Brazil), one of such schemes will apparently be applied to Russia. Theoretically, there are two options. First: the arrest of major political figures of Russia and the organization of an international tribunal over them on charges of “genocide” of Chechens, Georgians or Circassians (underline) with the simultaneous raising of the question of the right of such a regime to have such a number of nuclear weapons. The second is the imposition of an agreement on accelerated reduction of nuclear weapons to a more loyal Russian government, providing American inspectors with access to Russian nuclear facilities.

The unprecedented harsh reaction of the White House to the return of Vladimir Putin to the Kremlin was caused by two reasons. First, V. Putin is viewed by the American elite as a figure not inclined to make concessions in matters of disarmament. Secondly, the Americans in the winter of 2012 realized that no funding for the opposition would create a critical mass for the foreseeable future to change the Russian regime. The US response was the tightening of policies in various forms: from the demonstrative refusal of President Barack Obama to meet with his Russian counterpart before adopting the Magnitsky Law, which denies the legitimacy of a part of the Russian elite. The problem is that the Kremlin, judging by the adoption of the “Law of Dima Yakovlev,” is ready to use all means to counter the potentially dangerous actions of Washington.

In this situation, the United States has an interest in defeating the Kremlin in a regional military conflict. Judging by the documents, Washington does not exclude military intervention in the conflict of Russia with someone from its neighbors. The objectives of such a local war can be a demonstrative "punishment" of the Russian regime, a demonstration of the strength of the leadership positions of the United States and the creation of prerequisites for regime change in Russia. A test of this option was the “five-day war” in August 2008, in which the United States was actually involved.

Russia's interests


Russia is not a passive victim of American politics like Yugoslavia, Iraq or Syria. On the contrary, under certain conditions, the very logic of the Russian foreign policy can also contribute to conflict.

The modern Russian political system was a modification of the political system of the RSFSR [9]. The Kremlin's pro-American rhetoric at the beginning of the 1990 was caused not by love for America, but by the need to solve three problems: to recognize the Russian Federation within the borders of the RSFSR 1991, to remove nuclear weapons from the territory of the former union republics and legitimize the Yeltsin regime in the fight against The Supreme Council. As the solution of these problems, the need for partnership with Washington decreased. American policy with its desire to reduce Russia's strategic potential began to be perceived in the Kremlin as hostile.

The key task of Moscow was to solve two problems: maintaining nuclear-missile parity with Washington and preserving Russia's privileged status in the world order by preserving the role of the UN Security Council. Both of these tasks objectively contradicted the US foreign policy strategy. Therefore, in order to force the White House to engage in dialogue, Moscow needed to go to power demonstrations. The largest of these were the Kosovo crisis (1999) and the “five-day war” (2008).

Another motive of Russia's foreign policy strategy is the instability of its internal political system. Over the past twenty years, the Russian leadership has managed to maintain the territorial integrity of the country. However, the problem of the division of property has not been solved to the present day: the clan struggle continues in Russia. The majority of the population does not consider the current forms of ownership to be legitimate and rejects (with the exception of a part of the inhabitants of megacities) a competitive ethic. Nostalgia for the Soviet past is widespread in the mass consciousness of the inhabitants of the regions. In this situation, it is important for the Russian authorities to demonstrate foreign policy successes, which serve as a form of legitimization.

The leadership of Russia has strong concerns about regional separatism. Difficult negotiations with Tatarstan on the signing of a Federative Treaty, two military operations in Chechnya, separatist tendencies in North Ossetia, Karachay-Cherkessia and Dagestan - all this created the feeling that under certain circumstances the threat of disintegration of the Russian Federation may well become a reality. Therefore, Washington’s attempts to build an independent strategy of behavior with the Russian regions cannot but cause concern of the Kremlin.

Political crisis of the turn of 2011 – 2012 stepped up these trends. He showed that the support of the leadership of Russia is less than it seemed to sociologists five or seven years ago. The crisis has demonstrated the limited mobilization resources of the government: neither Nashi, nor Cossacks, nor Seligerians came up to disperse small protest demonstrations. The unrest revealed the presence in society of the “fatigue effect” from the figure of the current president. The Kremlin made a serious concession, returning direct elections of regional leaders. In the coming years, Putin’s administration will have to build relationships with more independent local authorities [10].

The demonstratively unfriendly attitude of the B. Obama administration to the figure of V. Putin meant the transfer of the "red line" by the Americans: before, the White House had never made bilateral relations dependent on a particular leader. The next year and a half confirmed the reluctance of the United States to build a dialogue with Putin who returned to the Kremlin. The “Magnitsky law” and the “Bout case” showed that the United States does not consider the Russian elite “its own” and does not guarantee its security. To force Washington to engage in dialogue, the Kremlin needs either a drastic weakening of the US position, or an impressive force demonstration.

The ideal solution could theoretically be the victory of Russia in a regional conflict. It will force Washington to dialogue, just as 2008’s “five-day war” prompted the Americans to curtail the process of admitting Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. Inside Russia, the “common test” will finally make it possible to draw a line under the collapse of the USSR and the privatization of the 1990s. The situation is all the more interesting because under the "victory" you can turn up any outcome of the conflict. Suffice it to recall that in the Soviet propaganda the Brest Peace (1918) and the Soviet-Polish War (1920) were presented as victories: “young Soviet Russia stood in the ring of enemies”.

However, such a conflict should not be a “small victorious war”, in the terminology of Vyacheslav Plehve. The 2008 experience showed that a quick victory over Georgia did not break a single trend. For a fracture, a more serious test is needed, which will truly unite Russian society.

Conflict scenarios


The hypothetical Russian-American conflict will hardly resemble World War II or the nuclear apocalypse. Rather, it will be similar to the wartime wars of the 18th century, when the parties exchanged several frightening gestures and resumed negotiations. Although such a scenario does not imply nuclear escalation, it can not be completely eliminated: the military doctrines of the US and Russia with 1993 lower the nuclear threshold, justifying the admissibility and even the desirability of using a limited amount of tactical nuclear weapons. It is more important for both sides to declare themselves a winner by solving their problems.

Third Russian-Japanese War

An ideal testing ground for the clash is the Russian-Japanese territorial dispute. For Russia, Japan is a strong adversary with at least equality, if not superiority, in the surface navy at the Pacific theater of operations. However, the intervention of the Russian aviation, especially for strategic purposes, makes Moscow’s ultimate victory undoubted. Victory in conflict may look like historical Russian revenge for defeat in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905 (the 1945 campaign cannot be considered such a revenge, since the USSR defeated Japan not alone, but in alliance with the USA and Great Britain). Another advantage is the existence of an alliance treaty between Washington and Tokyo in 1960: the war will look like a manifestation of the US weakness (if it does not enter) or (if it does) as a victory in the "tense struggle" with the US-Japanese coalition.

For the United States, conflict can also play a positive role. The Washington intervention at the final stage can be presented as evidence of the effectiveness of the American power and the inability of the Allies to solve problems without US participation, as well as stopping and even discarding "Russian expansion."

In Japan itself, there are forces that may be interested in defeating their country. The US-Japan Mutual Cooperation and Security Assurance Agreement of 1960 bans Japan from having full-fledged armed forces and reserves the right for the US to pursue an almost uncontrollable military policy on its territory. In the Japanese establishment, there are two parties advocating the restoration of the country's sovereignty in the military sphere. The first considers it possible to do this through the re-signing of the US-Japan treaty, the second through the organization of regional crises in which the US does not fulfill its obligations under the treaty of union. Over the past thirty years, all attempts by Tokyo to re-sign the 1960 agreement have failed. But the collapse of the American “security umbrella” will allow Japan to legally recreate full-fledged armed forces and, possibly, curtail the American presence on its territory.


A number of tendencies of the last five years speak in favor of the “Japanese script”. Among them are the complete blocking of the Moscow and Tokyo talks on the territorial problem, the refusal of the parties to compromise initiatives, escalating escalation due to such steps as the demonstrative visit of President Dmitry Medvedev to the South Kurils or the adoption by the Japanese parliament of the law on the occupied status of the "northern territories". The purchase by the Russian side of Mistral-class helicopter carriers shows exactly where Moscow sees the main naval theater of military operations. The conflict can begin with the proclamation by Japan of sovereignty over the "northern territories" and the landing on them of several thousand peaceful Japanese. The retaliatory step of Moscow, apparently, will be a limited military operation to "force Tokyo to peace".

Arctic War

Realistic scenario is a clash in the Arctic. The Arctic Ocean is currently unavailable for normal life and regular mining. Thesis about the profitability of their production and their very presence and no one ever has not been proven. Despite this, the Arctic powers exchanged harsh and provocative steps.

In 2002 the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf has sent Russia's application for revision. In 2014 Moscow must submit a modified version of proving that the underwater Lomonosov and Mendeleyev ridges are a continuation of the Siberian continental platform. If the Commission rejects the amended version, Moscow declared sovereignty over the Soviet Arctic sector unilaterally. Reaction of other countries can be violent opposition Russia modeled conflict between the USSR and the USA for Wrangel Island in the city of 1924

Theoretically, there are two possible collisions: the conflict between Russia and Canada around the North Pole or the conflict between Russia and the Scandinavian countries over the Barents Sea and the status of the Northern Sea Route. But with the Scandinavian countries, Moscow is building a patient dialogue, including serious concessions: from the Murmansk Treaty with Norway (2010) to attempts to revive the Conference on the Barents Region (2013). Canada is another matter. The dialogue between Moscow and Ottawa is blocked from 2002, and it is the position of this country that is presented in the Russian media as the most anti-Russian. Conflict over the status of the North Pole remains between Russia and Canada.

For Russia, squeezing out small Canadian groups from the Russian sector (perhaps after a tense air battle) will look like a “win through”. An awesome success will be the stuffing of the thesis on the "split of NATO" if Oslo and Copenhagen are left out of the conflict. The United States will be able to intervene in the conflict as stopping the expansion of the Russian regime. In addition, the conflict in the Arctic can be used by Washington as an excuse to begin the reform of the UN Security Council as an organization that has failed in its responsibilities.

Pacific conflict



Experts often build scenarios of the Russian-American partnership in the Pacific. But it is here that Moscow and Washington have territorial disputes: the Bering Sea border, the status of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk (the United States does not recognize it as the inland sea of ​​Russia), the inseparability of the shelf zones of the Bering Strait and the ambiguity of the border in the Chukchi Sea [11]. In addition, the United States does not recognize the status of the Northern Sea Route as Russia's internal transport artery and does not completely abandon historical claims to the De Long archipelago [12]. An additional source of conflict may be the American support for separatist tendencies in the Far East.

For the US, this scenario will be an attempt to push the scenario of the collapse of the Russian Federation. Even if it does not work, Washington can use it to dismantle the institutional basis of the Yalta-Potsdam order. In Russia, such a conflict can be filed almost as the “Third World War”. The question of the inefficiency of the raw materials economy will be pushed aside, just as the 1812 war allowed freezing discussions for half a century about the inefficiency of serfdom and autocracy.

Other scenarios

In addition to these scenarios, other options are possible - first of all, the clash between Russia and the United States in the CIS. The most realistic training ground theoretically are:

- Excitement in Belarus due to its possible exit from the Union State;
- Escalation of the conflict around the Kaliningrad region due to territorial claims on it from Poland or Germany or the emergence of separatist sentiment in it, which will be supported by the EU;
- the aggravation of the problem of the status of the Russian-speaking population in Estonia and Latvia, following the pattern of the conflict around the “bronze soldier” in May 2007;
- the aggravation of the problem of separatism in north-west Russia - the transfer of part of the metropolitan functions to St. Petersburg may coincide with the desire of regional elites to build special relations with the EU.

The collision of the Russian and American armed forces is theoretically possible in such conflict points of the CIS as the Crimea, the Black Sea, and Transcaucasia. However, this conflict will not allow either Moscow or Washington to solve deep political tasks. For Russia, the victory in it will look too obvious, and for the USA it will raise the question of escalation because of the need to increase military assistance to the allies.

* * *

There is an accumulation of contradictions between Moscow and Washington that create the potential for armed conflict. At the same time, the nuclear factor does not serve as a guarantee of peace. The destructive power of nuclear weapons and insinuations on the theme of “nuclear winter” encourage political elites to treat them more carefully than to a different type of weapon. But the experience of the First World War proved the possibility of limited use of weapons of mass destruction, the experience of the Second World War - the possibility of conducting military operations without the use of chemical weapons. The prospect of limited use of nuclear weapons in the light of the experience of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl does not look transcendent. Much more important is the accumulation of political and psychological reasons for a possible collision.

1. The literature on the topic of the Russian-American partnership until the middle of the 1940-s, which was supposedly curtailed by the “Stalinist expansion”, is popular in the literature. As an example of partnership, an episode of the times of the Civil War in the USA is given, when in 1863 two Russian squadrons entered US ports to organize possible military actions against Great Britain. But the Russian-American partnership is limited to this example. The rest of the time from the beginning of the XIX century between the Russian Empire and the United States was intense rivalry in the Arctic and the Pacific, not to mention the regular condemnation of the Russian political system by the Congress. Until 1933, the United States did not recognize the Soviet Union at all. During the Second World War, Washington also did not conclude a bilateral treaty of alliance with the USSR and did not recognize the legitimacy of the Baltic states joining it. For more information about the nature of the relations between Russia / USSR and the USA, see: Trofimenko, G.A. USA: politics, war, ideology. M .: Thought, 1976.

2. Formally, the Washington Treaty was signed in April 4 1949 However, the creation of a real institutional framework of NATO was only after the adoption of this organization in Germany 1955 of this event was the reason for creating the same year the Warsaw Treaty Organization.

3. The only “territory” where such an escalation could have taken place was the “German question” due to the highly conflicted relations between the GDR and the FRG, as well as the situation around West Berlin. However, after the second Berlin crisis 1961, Moscow and Washington took urgent steps to normalize it.

4. A detailed analysis of the structure of the nuclear potential third nuclear powers see .: Nuclear deterrence and non-proliferation / Ed. Arbatov, Vladimir Dvorkin. M .: Carnegie Moscow Center, 2005.

5. The main opponent: Documents of the American foreign policy and strategy 1945 – 1950 / Per. from English; status and auth. entry Art. THEM. Ilyinsky. M .: Publishing House of the Moscow Humanitarian University, 2006. C. 175 – 210.

6. Goldgeier JM, McFaul M. Power and Purpose: US Policy Toward Russia After the Cold War. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2003.

7. At the official level, the United States has not yet declared support for Russian separatism. The exceptions are the 2008 reports in October about the readiness of McCain headquarters to recognize the independence of a number of Russian regions, including the republics of the North Caucasus and the Komi Republic (http://www.thenation.com/article/mccains-kremlin-ties#axzz2f6BAG3CR).

8. Wood A. The Revolution and Civil War in Siberia / / Acton E., Cherniaev VI, Rosenberg WG (eds.) Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 1914 – 1921. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1997.

9. Afanasyev MN The ruling elite and post-totalitarian Russia statehood. M., 1996.

10. In this regard, you can take a different view on the popular in Russia since the fall of 2009 slogans of modernization and non-resource-based economy. Rejection of resource-based economy implies some form of mobilization. Meanwhile, in Russia today has emerged a kind antimobilizatsionny way of life: a large stratum of urban residents combines work and stay at home and does not have a standard working day. In this regard, the question arises: how to be perfect rotation of these populations to the mobilization projects?

11. According to the bilateral Treaty 18 (30) in March 1867, the new Russian-American border passed through the center of the Bering Strait, separating at an equal distance about. Krusenstern (Ignaluk) from about. Ratmanova (Nunarbuk). Further, the border was directed “in a straight line, boundlessly to the north, until it was completely lost in the Arctic Ocean” (“in its prolongation as far as the Frozen ocean”).

12. The American expeditions of Adolf Greeley (1879) and George De Long (1879 – 1881) discovered to the north of the New Siberian Islands the islands of Henriette, Jeannette and Bennett (they entered the De Long archipelago).
Author:
Originator:
http://russiancouncil.ru/
137 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. NAV-STAR
    NAV-STAR 29 October 2013 08: 35
    15
    Want peace, getting ready for war. The wise knew what they were talking about. But, in general, there is a tendency to merge America into the toilet.
    1. INTER
      INTER 29 October 2013 08: 52
      17
      Only a combat-ready army and professional intelligence services will help our country win this war of war. But the leadership needs to find and bring to work the loyal patriotic sons of the homeland, who for their candy wrappers and threats will remain unconvinced and will not betray the country.
      1. Canep
        Canep 29 October 2013 09: 24
        18
        Russia has only two allies: its army and navy (Alexander III)
        1. Magellan
          Magellan 29 October 2013 10: 31
          -21 qualifying.
          Quote: Canep
          Russia has only two allies: its army and navy

          And two opponents: the people and the government
          1. Arberes
            Arberes 29 October 2013 11: 04
            23
            Quote: Magellan
            And two opponents: the people and the government

            About the people you are in vain! The common people of RUSSIA is RUSSIA itself!
            But the government really does have a certain distrust! Accounts and real estate in "partner" countries, their own children studying there! And some of our officials, who openly believe that "the West is with us" and "abroad will help us"!
            In fairness, it is worth noting that a law has been passed according to which our civil servants do not have the right to acquire real estate and accounts in other countries, but are we all friends and dear colleagues here well aware of how laws are followed and implemented in RUSSIA?
            Accept and execute are two different things. Remember my word is there more than one scandal will arise on this subject?
            1. bolonenkov
              bolonenkov 29 October 2013 17: 38
              0
              Quote: Arberes
              their children are studying there! And some of our officials, who openly believe that "the West is with us" and "abroad will help us"!

              And people's children have children abroad, and among the people there are many different all-enforcers and liberals, there are a lot of thieves of thieves, just like bribe takers. Government is the mirror of the people
              1. OffenroR
                OffenroR 29 October 2013 18: 26
                +7
                "Is war with America possible?"
                While in Russia there were such people



                no one can break the Russians.

                They could not

                no one can.
                1. alone
                  alone 29 October 2013 21: 14
                  +3
                  when nuclear missiles fly, you don’t have to break anyone. All of us will be covered.

                  but I don’t believe that Russia and the USA will fight. Such a war will be the end of all mankind. Both of them understand this. but everyone wants to live))
                  1. OffenroR
                    OffenroR 29 October 2013 22: 00
                    0
                    Quote: lonely
                    when nuclear missiles fly, you don’t have to break anyone. All of us will be covered.

                    but I don’t believe that Russia and the USA will fight. Such a war will be the end of all mankind. Both of them understand this. but everyone wants to live))

                    While in Russia there are such missiles


                    US will be silent in a rag wink hi
                2. windjoker
                  windjoker 30 October 2013 03: 09
                  0
                  And such modern Russian Armed Forces.
            2. Blackgrifon
              Blackgrifon 29 October 2013 20: 01
              +2
              Quote: Arberes
              About the people you are in vain!


              Yes, she - individuals (including those who consider their people an enemy of their state) in their pure form - enemies.

              Quote: Arberes
              laws are being implemented in RUSSIA


              This law applies only to junior and mid-level civil servants who do not have such property.

              Quote: Arberes
              kids studying there

              And studying abroad for people who want to take a position in the service, should long be prohibited.
            3. fedorovith
              fedorovith 29 October 2013 20: 01
              +2
              Yes, he didn’t understand what he wrote
          2. Deniska999
            Deniska999 29 October 2013 11: 31
            +7
            And who serves in the army and navy - the people.
            1. Arberes
              Arberes 29 October 2013 11: 58
              +8
              Quote: Deniska999
              And who serves in the army and navy - the people.

              This is primarily the defenders of their people and our homeland.
              In general, our ARMY and Navy are still workers and peasants, which means flesh from the flesh of the people!
              Children of officials and oligarchs do not break into the army!
              1. Corsair5912
                Corsair5912 29 October 2013 18: 19
                +5
                Quote: Arberes
                Children of officials and oligarchs do not break into the army!

                Children of the "creative intelligentsia", "dissidents", "human rights activists", etc. in the army, too, are not seen.
                A popular saying is mom is a ballerina, dad is a pianist and what the hell is a tanker from him.
                1. Renat
                  Renat 29 October 2013 19: 51
                  +1
                  The Red Army, as it was a workers and peasants, has remained so. Red Army. Maybe this is also why at all times she won not so much thanks to, but to a greater extent contrary to.
          3. Gluxar_
            Gluxar_ 29 October 2013 15: 56
            10
            Quote: Magellan
            And two opponents: the people and the government

            He himself at least realized his mistake. If we write nonsense, then not two opponents, but two rivals. It sounds similar, but the meaning is completely different. It happens when foreign trolls work in RuNet, not understanding the meaning of words brings you.
          4. Dart2027
            Dart2027 29 October 2013 19: 16
            -3
            Not the people, but the intelligentsia.
          5. baku1999
            baku1999 29 October 2013 23: 33
            +1
            PLEASE DON'T MIX, HORSE IS HORNEY, AND A TRAM HANDLE (SHE WILL STOP IT WITH IT) .............
          6. Pol
            Pol 30 October 2013 02: 12
            0
            We have no "opponents"! There are "nasty" and likely adversaries. The United States can be put forward as a potential enemy, but in the next 10 years these "nasty" missile defense systems will not be completed ...
            The answer will be, and partly already.
        2. conductor
          conductor 29 October 2013 11: 26
          -8
          Well said ---- only has * the army and navy *? Where are they ??
        3. alekseyal
          alekseyal 29 October 2013 13: 41
          +2
          More special services forget about them. They may be the most important.
          1. Andrey Yuryevich
            Andrey Yuryevich 29 October 2013 17: 33
            +3
            that's why he is an "invisible front" yes
        4. Basarev
          Basarev 29 October 2013 23: 42
          0
          Alexander III - The Golden Man!
      2. Gluxar_
        Gluxar_ 29 October 2013 15: 55
        +2
        Quote: INTER
        Only a combat-ready army and professional intelligence services will help our country win this war of war. But the leadership needs to find and bring to work the loyal patriotic sons of the homeland, who for their candy wrappers and threats will remain unconvinced and will not betray the country.

        The most perfect force is not in the army, and especially not in the special services, but in the head of the people. If you feel the power to influence the situation, do it. Build your country and your people.
        1. Basarev
          Basarev 29 October 2013 23: 47
          0
          It was correctly said in the Soviet serial film The Secret Fairway: a miracle weapon - we are with you
      3. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 29 October 2013 20: 54
        0
        Quote: INTER
        devotees

        You yourself answered your promise. All patriots have long been loyal, or retrained
    2. mirag2
      mirag2 29 October 2013 08: 59
      +6
      It doesn’t matter whether a war with the United States is possible or not, the most important thing in military doctrine is the envisaged possibility of a war with anyone, with Georgia, Sweden, Japan, Israel, and the United States as well.
    3. Deniska999
      Deniska999 29 October 2013 11: 35
      +1
      What are we going to fight?
      1. Analyst
        Analyst 29 October 2013 11: 47
        +3
        Quote: Deniska999
        What are we going to fight?

        We are such a people that we even win with a pitchfork, and they know this very well.
        1. Deniska999
          Deniska999 29 October 2013 12: 39
          +5
          And even if there is a victory with a pitchfork, many millions of people will have to sacrifice. Are you ready for this? Isn’t it better to make weapons, and not rely only on heroism. Heroism is certainly needed, but weapons are needed.
          1. Analyst
            Analyst 29 October 2013 12: 55
            +3
            Quote: Deniska999
            And even if there is a victory with a pitchfork, many millions of people will have to sacrifice. Are you ready for this? Isn’t it better to make weapons, and not rely only on heroism. Heroism is certainly needed, but weapons are needed.

            I completely agree. (But you probably misunderstood me)
            Quote: Analyst
            We are such a people that we even win with a pitchfork, and they know this very well.

            I mean that "even if" there is no weapon, we will defend our own and muskulami.
            But, thank God, with us and with armaments everything is OK.
            1. goldfinger
              goldfinger 29 October 2013 23: 21
              +3
              Quote: Analyst
              I mean that "even if" there is no weapon, we will defend our own and muskulami.

              Judging by your comments, you didn’t bother studying, Mr. ANALYTIC. You are unlikely to be allowed into modern weapons. Will have muskulsami and pitchforks. But behind us! Where are we going!
          2. Bashkaus
            Bashkaus 29 October 2013 20: 31
            +2
            And even if there is a victory with a pitchfork, many millions of people will have to sacrifice Who gave you the moral right to control my fate? Pitchfork? - means a pitchfork, Blue - means blue.
        2. Arberes
          Arberes 29 October 2013 12: 43
          +2
          Quote: Analyst

          We are such a people that we even win with a pitchfork, and they know this very well.

          В 41th we especially succeeded. They put 27 million on the altar.
          No need to fight with a pitchfork, you need to fight with modern weapons and well trained!
          I understand your idea! Unbending RUSSIAN character-right? But the character also relies on good weapons!
        3. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 29 October 2013 20: 58
          0
          Quote: Analyst
          even win with a pitchfork

          This has long been irrelevant. It is necessary to run at least five and five steps. In the age of technology, the cleaver and pitchfork are not in demand
        4. goldfinger
          goldfinger 29 October 2013 23: 16
          -4
          From Minsk. Well, why deprive the peasants of their agricultural equipment. There is an ancient invincible Russian shell - a hat! They famously throw the enemy at full gallop! Instead of a dashing horse, it’s hard to find now, I can offer you a wooden horse. Were in my kindergarten, I still remember! Great cavalry!
          And they are incomprehensible (Putin quarreled with the whole world, not only with the United States, please specify) - will be exterminated at the root! Especially after the third glass of "Russian fuel"!
          Quote: Analyst
          We are such a people that we even win with a pitchfork, and they know this very well.
      2. varov14
        varov14 29 October 2013 13: 04
        +2
        Well, for example, in America, our special services can launch an ideological war. It's not a bad idea to confront white people with colored people. They are exporting Muslim extremism to us, and we are exporting communism to them with religion. This short-sighted think that he has outlived himself, and only a mixture with religion is nonsense. An excellent emulsion, and by the time there is a financial crisis. And internal separatism is quite simple - from an injection from "flu" to hooligan motives - on an empty head with a truncheon.
      3. Corsair5912
        Corsair5912 29 October 2013 19: 59
        +4
        Quote: Deniska999
        What are we going to fight?

        What is what we will be. Little missiles, nuclear warheads, submarines.

        Russia has the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons and the second largest group of strategic nuclear weapons after the United States. By the beginning of the 2011 of the year, the strategic nuclear forces included 611 “deployed” strategic carriers capable of carrying 2679 nuclear warheads [21]. In the arsenals of long-term storage in 2009, there were about 16 of thousands of warheads [22]. The deployed strategic nuclear forces are distributed in the so-called nuclear triad: for its delivery, intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine ballistic missiles and strategic bombers are used. The first element of the triad is concentrated in the Strategic Missile Forces, where the R-36M, UR-100H, RT-2PM, RT-2PM2 and RS-24 missiles are in service. The naval strategic forces are represented by missiles R-29Р, R-29РМ, Р-29РМУ2, the carriers of which are the strategic missile submarines cruisers of the 667BDR Kalmar, 667BDRM Dolphin projects. The P-30 and SSBNs of the 955 Borey project were adopted. Strategic aviation is represented by Tu-95MS and Tu-160 aircraft armed with X-55 cruise missiles. Non-strategic nuclear forces are represented by tactical missile weapons, artillery shells, adjustable and free-falling bombs, torpedoes, and depth charges.

        There are few tanks
        Modern Ground Forces are armed with tank units main battle tanks T-72, T-80 and T-90. Currently, the tank forces of the Russian Armed Forces of the Russian Armed Forces outnumber the US tank forces, the tank fleet of which has about 6 250 tanks M1 Abrams [26] [27]. The Russian Federation is armed with 20 000 tanks, it is planned to have no more than 2000 in the future, 50% of them will be T-90

        There is little artillery, aviation, and an army of about 1 million soldiers and permanent officers.
        So it's too early to scream - The enemy is strong, it's time to give up.
        1. Deniska999
          Deniska999 29 October 2013 20: 33
          +2
          I do not yell. And what about tanks? The United States has a huge number of high-precision long-range missiles, as well as many other new weapons. I am not a US apologist, but a realist. Remember Yugoslavia: did the American soldier step there? Not. She was defeated exclusively remotely. Contactless wars are coming, the era of tanks is ending. You will fight a lot against the missiles. It is doubtful. Now the following things are important: air defense, missile defense and missiles. We must develop space weapons. It’s just that now there are a lot of problems in the Russian army, corruption is high, and there are few weapons supplied.
          1. Corsair5912
            Corsair5912 29 October 2013 21: 45
            0
            Quote: Deniska999
            The United States has a huge number of high-precision long-range missiles, as well as many other new weapons. I am not a US apologist, but a realist. Remember Yugoslavia: did the foot of an American soldier go there? Not. She was defeated exclusively remotely. Contactless wars are coming, the era of tanks is ending.

            The USA has a lot of shit. 1 / 3 of their missiles does not take off at all, bad engines, 1 / 3 do not fly where bad electronics are needed, and half of the flown ones do not explode.
            Modern tanks easily detect and shoot down cruise missiles of any design, the speed of the rocket is 220 m / s, and the tank shell is 700m / s.
            In Yugoslavia there was no air defense system and its military industry, and they could not buy anything because of the blockade and embargo.
            The entire NATO unit fought against Yugoslavia, which does not have its own satellite tracking and guidance systems, using military space systems and radars throughout Western Europe with jammers.
            In total, the first two MRAUs involved more than 300 combat and auxiliary aircraft, including five strategic B-52H bombers, four B-2A, as well as more than 200 cruise missiles.

            And even then, the Euros and Yankees there in their pants imposed under the fire of outdated systems
            The basis of the air defense system of Yugoslavia was made up of obsolete Soviet-made air defense systems: S-75 "Dvina", S-125 "Pechora", "Kvadrat" (export version of the "Kub" air defense system), "Strela-1" (based on the BRDM) and "Strela- 10 "(based on MTLB), Strela-2 (3)" MANPADS "," Stinger ", as well as anti-aircraft artillery. All divisions were equipped with a Marconi automated fire control system and two with Philips IR stations.
          2. Basarev
            Basarev 29 October 2013 23: 52
            0
            Perhaps that is why we are riveting Armata with might and main, and the Americans are still abramsyat.
            1. bif
              bif 30 October 2013 01: 44
              0
              Quote: Basarev
              Perhaps that is why we are riveting Armata with might and main, and the Americans are still abramsyat.

              General Dynamics Land Systems is the manufacturer of Abramsov, the only plant in Lima (Ohio), the US Army has not been purchasing NEW tanks since 2007, but only it is MODERNIZING existing ones. All new tanks are exported, which keeps the plant afloat.
              "..Currently, these customers are Saudi Arabia, which receives about 5 tanks a month, and Egypt, which receives 4. Each country pays all of its costs. This is" a success story in times of economic trouble, "Keating said.
              And yet, far fewer tanks go off the assembly line of the plant in Lima than in previous years. .. Ed Verhoff, director of the company, said that over the past two years, his sales have fallen from $ 20 million to $ 7 million. In addition, he was forced to lay off about 25 skilled workers, and expects to receive additional notice of dismissal .
              “If we start losing staff, what are we going to do next? Buying tanks in China? - said Vernoff .. "http://forum.polismi.org/index.php?/topic/5320-army-times-%D1%81%D1%88%D0%B0-%D0
              %B0%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82-%C2%AB%D1
              %82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2-%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%B5-%D0%BD%D0
              %B5-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE%C2%BB-%D0%BD%D0%BE/
          3. bif
            bif 30 October 2013 01: 24
            0
            Quote: Deniska999
            The United States has a huge number of high-precision long-range missiles, as well as many other new weapons. I am not a US apologist, but a realist. Remember Yugoslavia: did the foot of an American soldier go there? Not. She was defeated exclusively remotely.

            1. Huge quantities of this lope? How much do you think is needed for an effective strike on the Russian Federation?
            2.During the execution by the NATO forces (led by the United States) of Yugoslavia is pure beating of the baby ... as a result, the gang somehow overcame the child in 2,5 months by spending only Tomahawks more than 700pcs (only states, without allies) and these are official figures ( you them refer to high-precision long-range missiles)
            From Wiki, you can find out that the entire KR Tomahawk of ALL modifications has been produced (now only 9 units are naval in service) with 1983 so far more than 4000 units. How much was used up? How much has already been spent? To make a lot of new is expensive at 1,5-2mln $ apiece ... consider it yourself.
            High-precision long-range missiles are not a panacea, so armored vehicles and other weapons will not lose their relevance.
    4. Gluxar_
      Gluxar_ 29 October 2013 15: 53
      +5
      Quote: NAV-STAR
      Want peace, getting ready for war. The wise knew what they were talking about. But, in general, there is a tendency to merge America into the toilet.

      I agree with the comment. With the article no. Article minus. I was surprised that there are so few cons. The article was 15-17 years late. The issue of financial and political sustainability of the USA itself is not considered. Namely, this is the main trend of today. The possibility of separatist movements in the United States and their possible support from the Russian Federation is not considered. The question of the return of Alaska with the desire of the population of this region. It does not take into account the issue of the disbandment of NATO under the German aspiration for sovereignty, which is already happening. The US military potential and its impact on modern processes in geopolitics are incorrectly assessed.
      Moreover, such a player as China is not taken into account at all. The likelihood of a conflict of interests between China and the United States simply rolls over; moreover, China has historical claims to Japan and not only beyond its territory. In such a scenario, a conflict between Russia and the United States is possible, but only on the principle of mutual deterrence while the younger partners are fighting. the outcome of such a battle is predetermined by the scale of states.

      In the general article minus, a delay of 17 years.
    5. Grandson of Veteran
      Grandson of Veteran 29 October 2013 18: 26
      +1
      "You want peace, getting ready for war. The wise knew what they were talking about. But, in general, there is a tendency to drain America into the toilet."
      The main thing is not to relax! This trend must be turned into a continuous process and the flow rate in the "cistern" must be increased,
      there, too, are not suckers sitting! God grant that the success in the Syrian issue was the "first sign" !!!!
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 29 October 2013 23: 56
        0
        I would very much like to deploy in the opposite direction the flow of a rabid Muslim rabble - back to the US special forces
    6. Joker
      Joker 29 October 2013 19: 10
      -2
      But, in general, there is a tendency to drain America into the toilet.

      Well ka well ka where is this trend? Probably the fact that the US Army stably receive new types of weapons and that their annual budget as our whole to 2020? Or in a stable GDP growth, in contrast to ours, which is zero and lower this year? Do not wishful thinking, the eye of someone will not merge the United States into the toilet, it will be afloat, but there is no one to drain, there is no one there.
      1. loisop
        loisop 30 October 2013 08: 28
        +2
        Quote: Joker
        their annual budget as our entire until 2020

        So there Serdyukov is many times thicker than ours.
        Quote: Joker
        in stable GDP growth

        , consisting of 80% of the prices for the services of lawyers and hairdressers.

        Quote: Joker
        no one will merge the USA into the toilet, it will be afloat, but there’s nobody

        The drain is in full swing. Not by military (primitive) methods.

        In international payments, more and more countries are abandoning the use of the dollar. And this is the "death of Kashchei".
      2. bif
        bif 30 October 2013 22: 26
        0
        Quote: Joker
        until someone merges the United States into the toilet, it will be afloat, but there’s nobody to drain, no one has the strength.

        Why waste energy on what "in the toilet, she will be afloat", we'll just wait. IT will drown by itself.
  2. Alikovo
    Alikovo 29 October 2013 08: 40
    13
    as long as the usa exists as a state, all kinds of conflicts are possible.
  3. ronin
    ronin 29 October 2013 08: 45
    +4
    It is interesting, according to the author, how many days will we have to give up in Japan ?? laughing

    And where is the editor's work? The article has a bunch of repetitions !!!
    1. Poppy
      Poppy 29 October 2013 10: 23
      +1
      if you look at the original, you will see that these are not repetitions, but simply selected thoughts from the text, and here they merged with the text itself
    2. varov14
      varov14 29 October 2013 13: 09
      0
      They say if you set nuclear charges in advance along faults, then not for long. Can they lie?
  4. makarov
    makarov 29 October 2013 08: 48
    +1
    The world is multipolar, and to draw conclusions "fly in" .......... I don't even know what to say. I am at a loss.
  5. predator.3
    predator.3 29 October 2013 08: 52
    +5
    American experts discussed potentially dangerous problems for Russia: the "Circassian genocide", "the deportation of the people of the North Caucasus", "the unequal situation of the peoples of the North", etc.


    as they say, who would mumble, and where the native inhabitants of America are Indians, correctly all these Iroquois, Apaches, Delaware became extinct, the rest drink too much on the reserves!
  6. Storm
    Storm 29 October 2013 09: 04
    +4
    It is possible that it will be - there are objective prerequisites for this. Let's hope that it can be avoided. The better we prepare for war, the more likely it will not be. And here, perhaps all means are good, the rate is very high.
    1. Luger
      Luger 29 October 2013 09: 57
      +8
      I don’t want war, and it’s good if it doesn’t exist. However, the war is in precisely this format, without losing the main positions, it would really help to resolve many issues, primarily within the state. You understand the law of wartime, a very harsh and serious thing, and measures characteristic of wartime will come in handy for a slack society. Again, the people of the Russian Federation need cementing circumstances, and even with this course of affairs, we will soon throat each other's throats. Therefore, the presence of an external enemy, which also bites, is a very necessary acquisition.
    2. conductor
      conductor 29 October 2013 11: 28
      +2
      This is not just a high rate ---- * live or not live - that is the question !!!! *
  7. Renat
    Renat 29 October 2013 09: 04
    +4
    Can anyone win in a future war? Is it possible in principle?
    1. varov14
      varov14 29 October 2013 13: 17
      +3
      Yes, this is a chance for the earth to begin the life of mankind, either from 5, or from cycle 6.
  8. MilaPhone
    MilaPhone 29 October 2013 09: 12
    +2
    Cool article and photos. good
    1. JonnyT
      JonnyT 29 October 2013 21: 15
      -1
      yes a lot of useful information ..... to thinking so to speak ....
      But all the same, it seems to me that the United States will go along the path of provoking a civil split in our society, or simply saying war .......
      Now the media are actively cultivating the idea of ​​problems with peoples of other nationalities, whether they are North Caucasian peoples, or emigrants from Central Asia ... they say that all the troubles of the Russian people are from them, but such dogmas are destructive for our state, they are deadly ... .if the United States manages to play the international card, then they can only wait until the economy and industry will come to a final decline due to internal squabbles, because "mochilovo" will start with everyone, it will come to the point that the original slogan "Down with emigrants and Caucasians" will grow into "Muscovites go to Moscow, Ryazan to Ryazan, Novgorod to Novgorod, etc. ... And then, when our territory is finally weakened, little by little, where by bribery, and where by force, the United States quietly puts its puppets, who dismantle nuclear weapons and combat-ready units and that's all - now you can calmly and without fear of getting back to establish your control over the territory of the Russian Federation - bring democracy on the wings of tomog avkov ........
      In short, everything can go according to the scenario as it was with the fragmentation of Russia before the invasion of Batu, given modern realities
  9. My address
    My address 29 October 2013 09: 14
    +7
    Why it is impossible to put more than one plus article?
    Only with the cooling of relations since 94th, the author went too far. Under EBNatika in the Kremlin and Mr. "Yes" in the Foreign Ministry (Kozyrev), the shyness of the States depended only on the quantity and quality of the first taken on the chest. But basically everything is correct. The United States rival only Germany in 33-45 years in terms of disgust. And in the entire history of the United States.
    1. loisop
      loisop 30 October 2013 08: 37
      0
      Hitlerite Germany, in terms of its nastyness against the USA, is like a sportsman against a repeated champion in the ring. No matter how much you puff, you won’t surpass. Laughter only.
  10. waisson
    waisson 29 October 2013 09: 15
    +1
    Yes, there will be no war, not those years, perhaps a grunt of iron, but common sense will prevail, and the army in Russia is not the same as it was in the USSR, and the current ROCKS are going to make a compromise
  11. andruha70
    andruha70 29 October 2013 09: 21
    +2
    Neither the Soviet nor the American leadership had fanatic politicians willing to risk everything to win the “Armageddon War”.
    which can not be said about some modern, mainly Western politicians (the "vaunted" Western education, and a tendency to blueness, pinkness, and all other "blooms" are affected) fool ps-it seems to me alone - that some paragraphs in the article are "split"? laughing
  12. vlad.svargin
    vlad.svargin 29 October 2013 09: 32
    +1
    The United States in 1990 announced its intention to create a new world order.

    And this policy is being pursued even now, even after the "defeat" in Syrian diplomacy, the ultimate goal is "to defeat and destroy Russia." Even now, attempts to feed separatism, incitement to conflict with Japan, the Caucasus, and the Arctic continue. And everywhere the ears of "striped cowboys" stick out
    The United States is unlikely to "put up" with the weakening of its positions. And the "shadow cabinet" (World government) with its "pro-Israeli lobby" will not give them. Only the strengthening of Russia and its allies on the planet will still be able to curtail the plans of a "new world order". Russia's authority in the world is growing despite the "propaganda howl" of the Anglo-Saxon media. And the more they accuse Putin, the more MIR trusts him.
  13. stroporez
    stroporez 29 October 2013 09: 35
    +2
    I think the title is not correct .... this war is already on. soon a hundred years ........ without stopping for an hour ...........
  14. MRomanovich
    MRomanovich 29 October 2013 09: 36
    +1
    Quote: Renat
    Can anyone win in a future war? Is it possible in principle?

    The winner is the one with the bunker deeper, but unfortunately no one will be left on the surface to help him get out of there. Seriously, there really won't be a winner.
  15. Alexey M
    Alexey M 29 October 2013 09: 39
    +2
    Can there be a war with America?
    I'll tell you a secret she’s been walking for a long time!
  16. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 29 October 2013 09: 59
    0
    Great article, especially the analysis in the first part is impressive.
  17. Begemot
    Begemot 29 October 2013 10: 09
    +9
    The war goes on continuously, only if our youth will continue to watch the 2 house, read the kisselic lyrics of Rublev’s writers and hang out stoned in nightclubs - it will be impossible to win.
  18. corn
    corn 29 October 2013 10: 10
    0
    The article is good.
    Many may not like the idea that Putin is the continuer of the Yeltsin affair.
    It’s quite difficult to change your views, and also to recognize them as wrong.
  19. Sigismund
    Sigismund 29 October 2013 10: 16
    +5
    I completely agree. Russia has two allies, the army and the navy. But there is also an "enemy". First of all, it is necessary to put things in order at home - corruption, theft, drugs, terrorism, etc. ... And this time, time ....
    1. Poppy
      Poppy 29 October 2013 10: 26
      +2
      it's time to start mass shootings laughing
      1. conductor
        conductor 29 October 2013 11: 31
        +3
        Yes! It’s time for a long time! Here are just 9 out of 10 people who will be killed, as always, NOT those who should be ...
      2. varov14
        varov14 29 October 2013 13: 27
        +3
        No need for executions - public works, kaylo barak, 18 hour working day. We must be humane, not in Africa, with the people we have tense.
  20. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 29 October 2013 10: 23
    +6
    The Caribbean crisis showed the perniciousness of a direct clash between the United States and Russia (USSR). This conflict made a kind of "inoculation" against the repetition of such confrontations. The confrontations between Russia and the United States will be constantly through regional conflicts, similar to the Syrian one. First of all, America is not (morally) ready for a direct clash with Russia.
  21. lewerlin53rus
    lewerlin53rus 29 October 2013 10: 25
    +3
    For Russia, Japan is a strong adversary with at least equality, if not superiority, in the surface fleet in the Pacific theater of operations.

    Oh well. The author periodically brings in. You have to be the last moron to fight one fleet. It’s another matter that the Americans won’t leave Yapes without help. But it makes no sense to attack Russia against Japan. Now, if they climb, then there will be another Halhingol for them.
    1. Ascetic
      Ascetic 29 October 2013 12: 08
      +9
      Quote: lewerlin53rus
      . The author periodically brings in. You have to be the last moron to fight one fleet.

      It is possible that the Japanese are conducting a local military operation to seize the disputed islands. So the Pacific Fleet as an operational-strategic unit should be able to deprive the Japanese of even theoretically thinking about it. The Americans need the islands even more than they do in order to control the exit of nuclear submarines from the Sea of ​​Okhotsk to the Pacific Ocean. Of course, now the Pacific Fleet is not impressive, to put it mildly, and gives rise to some "antiquities" who counted on the Internet the qualitative and quantitative composition of the enemy fleets, which include the Chinese to talk about the complete ... ope in the Pacific theater of operations if any local war with Japan or China happens. The well-known kmtaophob Khramchikhin is especially successful. Indeed, the country's leadership is now focusing on the priority development of the Black Sea Fleet, the Northern Fleet and the Caspian Sea. And unlike Khramchikhin, the leadership is doing it right. For the presence of China will not allow Japan and the states to resolve the issue of their dominance in the theater of operations, all the more due to the war with Russia. Yes, the Pacific Fleet is actually rather weak in terms of surface ships, but there is a program and budget until 2020.
      1. Ascetic
        Ascetic 29 October 2013 12: 12
        11
        Until 2020 will be repaired and modernized: 4 destroyers pr.965 - cars were repaired, new radars and GAS were installed; 4 BOD 1155 upgraded to destroyers 1155.2 (ships are equipped with UKSK "Caliber" / "Onyx", air defense systems "Poliment" / S-400F and completely updated radar, GAS, electronic computing systems). Same the fleet will receive: 1 RRC Project 1164 (Marshal Ustinov, re-equipped with P-1000 Vulkan missiles); 1 TARKR pr. 1144 ("Admiral Nakhimov", it is supposed to equip with ~ 100 cells UKSK "Caliber", air defense "Polyment" / S-400F - only about 300 UR, the combat effectiveness relative to "Peter the Great" increases by about 2,5 times) + until 2022-23 years on the same project to modify "Admiral Lazarev". In addition, the Pacific Fleet receives: 2 "Mistral" (UDC + helicopter carrier, plus - "Caliber" and "Polyment" missiles); 5 or more corvettes URO 20380/385.
        Total, in the dry residue, after all work - one or two heavy strike cruisers, two guard cruisers, eight destroyers (including four strike destroyers), two universal landing helicopter-dock and five to six URO corvettes..This is not counting boats and submarines (on the nuclear submarine a separate topic), in this composition, the Pacific Fleet will not yield to any fleet in its theater
        1. Samy
          Samy 29 October 2013 12: 44
          +3
          Alas, this is not enough. Because he will deal in the event of anything with not one fleet of any one state.
        2. varov14
          varov14 29 October 2013 14: 03
          0
          Is it possible to fight with American monsters (aircraft carriers) by such methods. Fleet ships armed with missile weapons, and most importantly air defense (clean up without loss). Beat and quickly rinse off, for their territory, enemy planes land except in the ocean. If you have your own territory on your territory, you can not even offer your own airfields for their landing. I apologize for the incompleteness of the text.
  22. Valery Neonov
    Valery Neonov 29 October 2013 10: 26
    0
    I'll try this: "Can there be a war with America?"- everything is possible, but only on their territory. hi
    1. Samy
      Samy 29 October 2013 12: 47
      +2
      It's like ... throwing caps over their territory, or what?
      1. Walker1975
        Walker1975 29 October 2013 13: 36
        +5
        Yes, there are many such strategists: some offer hats, others that are enough forks. But all right, when on the forum. Shout it out - America is in full F .., we have them with one left - get the pluses. And let’s recall when the generals promised the Chechen Republic to take Afghanistan in a week’s regiment in an hour.

        Someone can reasonably prove that in addition to nuclear suicide (the end of America, Russia and humanity), Russia and its allies can oppose something to NATO countries?

        Let's compare fleets, ground forces, aviation ... industrial potential. It will be a conversation.
        1. Ascetic
          Ascetic 29 October 2013 16: 57
          +7
          Quote: Walker1975
          except nuclear suicide (end of America, Russia and humanity)


          do not repeat nonsense about nuclear suicide. Nuclear weapons have only three potential global damage factors: direct damage to the entire area of ​​the Earth, radioactive contamination of the entire Earth and the effect of the “nuclear winter”. There are also side factors, but they in this case are not comparable in themselves with these three.
          Classical nuclear war does not imply an attack on all places of residence of people, but only on the enemy and his allies, which means that it can not lead to the extinction of people due to the direct damaging factors of nuclear weapons. In this case, for Russia, in the worst case scenario, it is 80 million lives at once and the defeat of areas with fatal infection of up to 30%. For the United States, in the worst-case retaliatory strike, up to 80% of the area and about 150 million people. all the countries of the nuclear club and all of Europe will probably fall under the distribution. Australia, most of Africa and Latin America will remain untouched. We can talk about a civilizational disaster and not about the death of mankind as a whole.
          May consider a hypothetical situation when a nuclear strike is delivered to all places of residence of people.
          To destroy all people on land would require at least (and probably much more) 100 megaton warheads. (If we assume that one warhead in 1Mt affects an area of ​​1000 sq. Km, this is by the roughest and highest estimate, without taking into account many factors. Guaranteed destruction will require a much larger number of charges, at the height of the cold war, the leading powers possessed about 100 warheads, and the accumulated reserves of plutonium (2000 tons [i], although not all of it is “weapons-grade”, that is, pure by isotopic composition of plutonium-239; However, no nuclear war scenario suggests a uniform strike across the entire planet
          Now "nuclear winter" Roughly speaking, the duration of this effect depends on the amount of soot ejected simultaneously into the atmosphere and the duration of its stay there. Something like an Icelandic volcano with a difficult name or Moscow smog of forest fires of 2010. for an approximate understanding of the term. in a full-scale war with modern (that is, shortened since the Cold War) nuclear arsenals, the average temperature drop across the Earth will be about 7 ° C for several years, and the effects of a nuclear winter will be felt for about 10 years. The time of purification (e times) of the upper troposphere from soot will be 4,6 years. At the same time, over the continents the temperature will drop to 30 ° C, and in particular, over Ukraine there will be no positive temperatures for three years. This will make it impossible to conduct classical (not in greenhouses) agriculture almost throughout the Earth for several years. On the other hand, over tropical islands (Cuba, Madagascar, Sri Lanka) the temperature drop will be only 5-7 ° C. Obviously, a significant number of people could survive such a cold snap, however, this will begin the struggle for the remaining resources, which will increase the risks of further disasters. A series of large volcanic eruptions (volcanic ash leaves the troposphere with a typical time of 1 year) could have the same effect. (Alan Robock et al. [I] “Nuclear winter in the modern climate model with existing nuclear arsenals: the consequences are still catastrophic” [/ i])
          The following theoretical options for a nuclear winter exist.
          1. Ascetic
            Ascetic 29 October 2013 17: 08
            +3
            1) The temperature drops by one degree for one year, not having a significant impact on the human population.
            2) "Nuclear autumn" - a decrease in temperature by 2-4 ° C for several years; crop failures, hurricanes take place.
            3) “A year without summer” - intense, but relatively short cold during the year, the death of a significant part of the crop, hunger and death from cold in some countries. This has already happened after major eruptions of volcanoes in the VI century AD, in 1783, in 1815.
            4) “Ten-year nuclear winter” - a drop in temperature throughout the Earth by about 10 years by 30-40 ° C. This scenario is implied by nuclear winter models. Snowfall over most of the land, with the exception of some equatorial coastal territories. Mass deaths of people from hunger, cold, and also because snow will accumulate and form multi-meter strata that destroy buildings and block roads. The death of most of the world's population, however, millions of people will survive and retain key technologies.
            5) The new ice age. It is a hypothetical continuation of the previous scenario, in a situation where the Earth's reflectivity increases due to snow, and new ice caps begin to grow from the poles and down to the equator. People have already survived several ice ages, which could begin very sharply as a result of super-volcanic eruptions and asteroid falls (Toba volcano eruption, Elatinsk comet catastrophe).
            6) Irreversible global cooling. It may be the next phase of the ice age, with the worst case scenario. A temperature regime will be established for a geologically long time on the whole Earth, as in Antarctica, the oceans will freeze, the land will be covered with a thick layer of ice. The last time the Earth entered this state about 600 million years ago, that is, before the animals went to land, was able to get out of it only due to the accumulation of CO in the atmosphere. At the same time, over the past 100 years there have been four ordinary glaciations that did not lead to irreversible icing or human extinction, which means that the onset of irreversible icing is an unlikely event.
            if a certain force set out to arrange a nuclear winter on purpose, then it could organize it by detonating hydrogen bombs in coal mines or in the taiga. Initiation of a supervolcano eruption with the help of nuclear weapons will also lead to an analogue of the “nuclear winter” - to volcanic winter.
            1. Ascetic
              Ascetic 29 October 2013 17: 39
              +5
              Radioactive contamination In contrast to a hypothetical nuclear winter where all calculations by pitchfork on water here everything is extremely clear.
              Short-term infection, associated with a conventional nuclear war, will lead to significant casualties, but will be a fairly local phenomenon, depending on the wind rose in the affected country. It can also be easily spent in bomb shelters, caves, mines, and therefore we are not seen as a possible threat of complete human extinction.
              global radioactive contamination, however, in the event of a conventional nuclear war, it cannot lead to human extinction. (For example, because thousands of air tests of atomic bombs in the 50-60s did not create any significant increase in the global radiation background, even the insane Khrushchev tests at the turn of the 60s) Only the use of toium-cobalt charges can lead to global radioactive contamination (but no one will use them because it really is tantamount to suicide, unless fanatics-maniacs decided to arrange a "doomsday war") Or the notorious isotope polonium-210. Its lethal dose is about 0,2 mcg. This means that the complete fatal contamination of the Earth's surface will require only 100 tons of this dangerous substance (or hundreds of kilograms in the worst case, given its ability to accumulate in organisms, as well as repeated poisoning due to high concentration in the environment). You can create some kind of stationary device. weighing thousands of tons, with an explosion force of hundreds of megatons, during which tons of dangerous isotope are formed, which are thrown by the force of the explosion high into the air. There are other scenarios like Sakharov's superbomb, the device of a "cheap bomb" with thermonuclear detonation, antimatter from a collider, an explosion of powerful bombs in space and other unconventional scenarios. And even with a hypothetical implementation of them all, humanity will not perish anyway
              the main danger lies in the fact that in the modern world the threat of mutual assured destruction disappears It was a deterrent in the era of confrontation between the USSR and the USA and essentially guaranteed the world from a nuclear catastrophe. Now there is almost no such guarantee. The mechanism for the spread of conflict can be this: if there are countries A, B, C, D and there is a nuclear war between A and B, then countries C and D will benefit. Therefore, countries A and B may be interested in that C and D also entered the war, and can attack them with part of their forces. C and D, realizing this, can strike first. It’s easier for Americans to really only threaten Russia, they control all the others to one degree or another and can deliver a disarming strike. Almost all nuclear countries reach our territory and the preventive use of nuclear weapons against them (as reflected in the military doctrine) will not be considered nuclear suicide, at least for us. This applies to Japan and China and others. so that nuclear weapons are still our guarantor of security under the cover of which general forces can and should be developed against local threats and conflicts
          2. My address
            My address 29 October 2013 17: 34
            0
            Stanislav!

            And the lithosphere can withstand a bunch of hits? I have never met an analysis on this topic. Rather, not because he is very smart, but because it will be a complete beast fox to everything. Arctic fox to humanity.

            And for a vigorous winter, the screen effect is not taken into account, i.e. cold snap will not. You are right, the nuclear winter scarecrow for the ignorant.

            But even small soot will settle in a few months, there will be no recharge. This is what it will be (strontium 90 and the like) and on whom it sits (the northern hemisphere is full and how many will capture the southern one) it will be interesting only for the Martians.

            I know a little about radioactivity. For example, I know that the so-called. uranium mines are so-so compared to the extraction of non-radioactive chromium, manganese, and, especially, beryllium. And strontium 90 is ...
            1. Ascetic
              Ascetic 29 October 2013 20: 05
              +1
              Quote: My address
              And the lithosphere can withstand a bunch of hits? I have never met an analysis on this topic. Rather, not because he is very smart, but because it will be a complete beast fox to everything. Arctic fox to humanity.


              To "fly away the aimosphere", the kinetic energy of the explosion is needed, comparable to the collision of a large cosmic object the size of a small planet. I don’t remember the numbers. Here is a simple kinematics. The collision of two bodies with each other at a certain speed. Knowing the speed of rotation of the Earth, the force of gravity, the mass of the earth can be calculated the mass and kinetic energy of the body at which the atmosphere leaves the earth. JV will not affect the atmosphere, neither high-altitude nor terrestrial. The atmosphere is already slowly melting, the radioactive core of the Earth is cooling down, and so is the Sun. So even without a nuclear war and cataclysms, the Earth as a planet, like all living things, is waiting for the transition "to another world." Planets, like people, are born on them, life appears on them and gradually grow old and die. over 5 billion years, the Earth is slowly losing its atmosphere, and after 1 billion years will be destroyed by solar radiation. The Earth will become similar to the Moon, The climatic fate of the Earth tends to approach the conditions of existence of atmosphereless planets. In 1 billion years, it will lose its atmosphere and the daily temperature contrast on its surface will be approximately + 150 ° С on the day side, minus 200 ° С on the night side. The Earth as a whole will repeat the fate of Antaktida from the stage of tropical forests to snowy desert. Knowing that the Earth's surface is slowly cooling, it can be argued that in the future, after tens of millions of years, a similar fate of transformation into an icy desert could befall most of the Earth's continents.
          3. Walker1975
            Walker1975 29 October 2013 18: 00
            +2
            I agree with you and thank you for the detailed answer. Under suicide, I also did not consider the 100% death of the entire population of the Earth, but without Europe, Russia and America, the civilization to which I am accustomed, there will be something missing. I don’t want to move along a captive that looks like Fallout
    2. Onyx
      Onyx 29 October 2013 18: 03
      0
      Quote: Valery Neon
      everything is possible, but only on their territory. hi

      For the war on their territory we need large expeditionary forces, which are now absent and are not expected in the near future. Anyway, I don’t think that as long as each country is able to destroy each other with nuclear weapons, there will be a direct war between us.
      1. Ascetic
        Ascetic 29 October 2013 20: 21
        +1
        Quote: Onyx
        Anyway, I don’t think that as long as each country is able to destroy each other with nuclear weapons, there will be a direct war between us.


        Well, Americans don’t think so at all. For example, a report by the Federation of American Scientists
        "From confrontation to minimal deterrence" dated April 14, 2009.
        According to the Federation of American Scientists, in the XNUMXst century, for effective nuclear deterrence, the United States may choose new targets for its missiles with nuclear warheads. So, the authors of the report believe, it is inhumane to choose densely populated cities as targets, since in the event of war this will lead to numerous victims. Instead, only important infrastructure should be made targets, although not only Russia, but also China, North Korea, Iran, and Syria are called probable opponents in the report, and the authors of the report cite Russia as an example.
        The authors of the report have compiled a list of targets on the territory of the Russian Federation, sufficient for effective containment. There are 12 such facilities in total. First, there are three oil refineries - Omsk (owned by Gazprom Neft), Angarsk (Rosneft) and Kirishsky (Surgutneftegaz). Secondly, the most important metallurgical enterprises - Magnitogorsk, Nizhniy Tagil and Cherepovets metallurgical plants (owned by MMK, Evraz and Severstal, respectively), Norilsk Nickel, as well as Bratsk and Novokuznetsk aluminum plants owned by Rusal. The list of targets on the territory of Russia is closed by Berezovskaya GRES (owned by OGK-4, the main shareholder is German E.ON), Sredneuralskaya GRES (OGK-5 and Italian Enel, respectively) and Surgutskaya GRES (there are two power plants with this name, GRES-1 belongs to Gazprom's OGK -2, GRES-2 belongs to OGK-4 (E.ON).
        according to the authors of the report, in the case of the destruction of these facilities, Russia will not only not be able to wage a war, since its economy will be paralyzed, but, in addition, a million Russians will inevitably die.
        according to a similar report eight years ago, the potential targets of American missiles with nuclear warheads in Russia were from 150 to 194 major cities, and industrial enterprises on the sights were counted in the thousands. According to the nuclear doctrine of the Cold War period, developed by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the necessary condition for a nuclear strike against the USSR was the destruction of 25% of the population.
        link
        So not everything is so rosy, they can use strategic nuclear forces at any moment, and we can only get them with our retaliatory strike, unless of course there are traitors in the top leadership. By the way, from this report we can conclude that other objects will be destroyed by point non-nuclear strikes using the WTO and promising types of hypersonic and space weapons
        1. Onyx
          Onyx 29 October 2013 20: 48
          0
          Quote: Ascetic
          So not everything is so rosy, they can use strategic nuclear forces at any moment, and we can only get them with our retaliatory strike, unless of course there are traitors in the top leadership. By the way, from this report we can conclude that other objects will be destroyed by point non-nuclear strikes using the WTO and promising types of hypersonic and space weapons

          At the expense of the traitors, you correctly noticed, and the rest is only their imagination. They can strike only if they are sure that they will not receive a response. Now they are guaranteed to receive a retaliatory strike, so they dare not commit suicide. We also have some interesting targets in the United States.
        2. Selevc
          Selevc 29 October 2013 22: 48
          0
          Quote: Ascetic
          So not everything is so rosy, they can use strategic nuclear forces at any time

          May America never go to a global war, it's as clear as daylight - they are just not fools - they never liked to fight with the risk of major damage to themselves, they like to iron out the weakest enemy in advance ... You understand this for us, war is an invasion of the enemy on our land - Stalingrad and the Kursk Bulge and millions of those who fell ... And for the Americans, war is some kind of misunderstanding far overseas, a difficult job "to punish the bad guys", and if someone of their own did not return, then it’s not lucky a loser ... And if suddenly in a country on whose territory there has been no war for 150 years, nuclear bombs explode, for them it will be a complete Armogedets and the End of the World combined ...

          And therefore, if Russia completely collapses and loses its Nuclear Shield, then "bombing of freedom" is quite possible ... But local clashes between the United States and Russia - scenarios like Vietnam or Afgan in the future are very real ...

          In fact, the Cold War between Russia as the successor of the USSR and America never stopped - just in the 90s there was a small timeout while the West enjoyed the fruits of the collapse of the USSR and accepted new countries into NATO ... the USSR and present-day Russia will always be a threat for the United States, even if it does not address the topic of nuclear weapons ... Russia is an alternative to the Western path of world development - and while the Russian world exists albeit in a truncated form - there are still risks of strengthening it in the future ... counted ...
  23. RBLip
    RBLip 29 October 2013 10: 49
    -2
    I don’t know how about the war, but Alasochka will have to return the mattresses anyway ...
    1. Walker1975
      Walker1975 29 October 2013 13: 38
      +1
      And what is your desire supported by?
  24. velikoros-xnumx
    velikoros-xnumx 29 October 2013 10: 50
    +2
    Without solving the “Russian problem”, the American project of the global world is doomed to slip.

    And also "Chinese"
  25. The gentleman
    The gentleman 29 October 2013 11: 05
    +1
    I do not think that a military conflict is possible, although there will be small skirmishes. In any case, at the moment the states want to sit on several chairs and try to manage, control, point in several regions. Taking into account the current foreign policy development of Russia, the states will be afraid to go snoring. now diplomacy will resolve issues. it is not profitable for the parties to fight
  26. washi
    washi 29 October 2013 11: 16
    +4
    It’s not for nothing that the GDP announced the concrete timelines for the readiness of our armed forces for ANY war.
    Problems in the corruptness of the MANUAL.
    Unfortunately, this is not the year 1937.
    Although still to come.
    GDP, as in a joke, is slowly going slowly, and then ......
    And then we'll see and, or everything will be fun, or very sad ..
    But there will be no war with the United States.
    There will be an anti-terrorist operation on their territory and their troops.
    Korea and China have territorial claims against Japan. Okinawa was a separate principality. The Japanese have not yet responded to the Hokaido Ainu genocide (the rest of the people live with us).
    The Scandinavians have enough of their problems with the Asians. If not enough, we will ensure the political prosecution of the chaldons or Evenks.
    Canada? There is one problem. She enters the United Kingdom, otherwise in the UK. Hence the impact.
  27. Soviet_Union
    Soviet_Union 29 October 2013 11: 22
    +4
    We must also declare our readiness to recognize the independence of each individual state, if they, these states want to separate from phishington.
  28. Horla
    Horla 29 October 2013 11: 22
    +2
    At this stage, war with the USA is not desirable to the crane. Why? Russia produces about 30% of the food it needs, the rest is bought abroad, and usually for dollars. Who served in the Soviet army in serious positions, he knows that strategic food supplies were designed for 3 years. I don’t know the figures for raw materials, but I don’t doubt that they were huge. Now about restoring military losses. Our industry builds several military aircraft a year, 1-2 military ships in 5-8 years, about nuclear submarines - more than 10 years. And this is peaceful time. In the USSR, a huge amount of weapons, spare parts, fuel, rolling stock was stored on special bases. Was that all? You yourself know that there is nothing left. I don’t have any truth, but I know from open sources that the last two steam locomotives from storage depots were scrapped this year. And finally, the most important thing is our political leadership. If in the USSR state reserves were material , then in Russia, reserves are created in the form of money, and in the currencies of the probable opponents, dollars and euros. What will happen to them in the event of war?! Where do families of our top officials live and families study? In whose economies are they investing their honestly earned money? Correctly, in the economies of our probable opponents. What has the country’s leadership done to the army over the past 20 years? What happened to the military-industrial complex and military science? What can 85 separate brigades armed with mainly Soviet weapons do in case of war?
    1. Samy
      Samy 29 October 2013 12: 46
      0
      In Russia, state reserves are also more than material.
    2. Ulan
      Ulan 29 October 2013 16: 10
      +2
      Where does the figure of 30% come from? Russia produces more than 70% of the food it needs.
      That is, it is enough to ensure food security.
      Well, we’ll do without bananas and pineapples.
      Unfortunately you are right and almost all the locomotives at the reserve bases are cut into scrap metal. There are a few who drive retro trains. Well, if several dozen.
      But for them, and the drivers are gone.
      Previously, they were prepared in railway. schools in parallel.
      Not now.
      So there’s no one to breed couples either.
  29. Hort
    Hort 29 October 2013 11: 22
    +1
    The Belarusian scenario, in my opinion, is unlikely. So many volunteers from Russia will go there that the conflict will end
    1. Russ69
      Russ69 29 October 2013 11: 50
      +3
      Quote: hort
      The Belarusian scenario, in my opinion, is unlikely. So many volunteers from Russia will go there that the conflict will end

      Given the creation, in Belarus, of Russian military bases, it is generally not possible ...
  30. amp
    amp 29 October 2013 11: 48
    +3
    Of all the above, only a war with Japan is possible.
  31. Oleg56.ru
    Oleg56.ru 29 October 2013 11: 50
    +8
    Today, at 04.00:XNUMX a.m. Far Eastern time, Japanese troops did not fall on Russia. Russian troops are conducting heavy defensive battles near Tokyo. :)
    1. Walker1975
      Walker1975 29 October 2013 13: 39
      -2
      At the beginning of the 20th century, they also dreamed of such a thing ...
  32. pahom54
    pahom54 29 October 2013 11: 56
    +5
    At the current stage of development, Russia's main opponent is its oligarchs, the snickering part of the bureaucracy that steals billions that could be spent on updating the army and navy.
    Reading the article, the impression was created that Russia was creating a simply hopeless situation, but she did not want to believe it.
    The states missed the 90s of the Russian doldrums, when, MAYBE, joint aggression with the Allies against Russia, would make sense to them. And now, despite the different military-technical potential, Russia is still able to defeat the States on their territory, and this is the main argument against a mutual war. In order to start a war with Russia, the States need a president like S.R. Kashvili in Cuba.
    The article and the analysis are not bad, but perhaps hopelessness emanates from them, and one cannot fall into gloom.
    Russia should pursue its INDEPENDENT POLICY without looking back at anyone.
    To withdraw from these arms limitation treaties, because even now the number of armaments, both nuclear and conventional, of the United States and its allies is much (!) Higher than the Russian ones.
    The intimidation of waging wars from the territories of the CIS countries is empty. First of all, it is necessary to REMOVE THE FIFTH COLUMN in Russia in the form of pro-Western liberalists, to prohibit the activities of any organization that harms the statehood of Russia.
    No need to bully not only Japan and Scandinavia, but also Canada. Let the yapping, no need to pay attention to them.
    Only pursuing its tough policy aimed at achieving its goals will make the United States think a hundred times about starting a war with us.
    I ask the forum users: having such a powerful army and navy, tell me the last victorious US wars ... They, as such, do not exist. And if there is something reminiscent of victory, they have so piled on the LITTLE COUNTRIES WITH ALL THE NATO SCOPE, I repeat, - TO THE LITTLE COUNTRIES.
    And we have both territory and in this territory, in the vast expanses of Siberia, there are nuclear clappers, which in any case will reach the state territory.
    So the devil is not so terrible as he is painted.
    1. Walker1975
      Walker1975 29 October 2013 13: 45
      -1
      Nuclear beaters are good. Are you ready to commit mass suicide? After all, apart from the death of "filthy Americans", Russian cities will burn down together with you, your mothers, children, relatives ... Who dares to push the button?

      And if you take into account that those who make decisions where you want to shoot a nuclear charge children have their capsules hidden for a rainy day, then the probability of a nuclear confrontation, fortunately, is possible only in the case of a full-scale land invasion, and this is hardly possible . But local conflicts without the use of nuclear weapons are possible. On the principle of biting off a bit and making peace, so as not to bring to nuclear weapons.
      1. poquello
        poquello 29 October 2013 20: 59
        +1
        Quote: Walker1975
        But local conflicts without the use of nuclear weapons are possible. On the principle of biting off a bit and making peace, so as not to bring to nuclear weapons.

        You can leave the jaw at the site of the bite, then chew then?
    2. Ulan
      Ulan 29 October 2013 16: 15
      0
      That is, first of all, to remove the fifth column, to put in place the oligarchs and presumptuous officials.
      Without establishing order inside the country, it is impossible to defeat an external adversary.
      And our soldiers met directly with the Americans, I mean our and American pilots in the Korean War.
      The bill is not in favor of the Americans.
  33. Savva30
    Savva30 29 October 2013 12: 18
    0
    Afraid of wolves - do not go to the forest ...
  34. mixxlll
    mixxlll 29 October 2013 12: 45
    0
    The main thing for us is to hold out for 5-10 years, the most annoying thing is that we are being rubbed on for some disagreement between the peoples within the country, although in principle they are not (Chechnya and Ingushetia do not care). So we can only ruin ourselves, and the entrance of Ukraine and Belarus Russia would be like an infusion of young blood. Putin was the president, and Lukashenko would have been a class at the premieres.
  35. mixxlll
    mixxlll 29 October 2013 12: 46
    0
    The main thing for us is not to ruin ourselves, and we will be repelled from enemies with God's help.
  36. poccinin
    poccinin 29 October 2013 13: 08
    +1
    Quote: Ascetic
    Until 2020 will be repaired and modernized: 4 destroyers pr.965 - cars were repaired, new radars and GAS were installed; 4 BOD 1155 upgraded to destroyers 1155.2 (ships are equipped with UKSK "Caliber" / "Onyx", air defense systems "Poliment" / S-400F and completely updated radar, GAS, electronic computing systems). Same the fleet will receive: 1 RRC Project 1164 (Marshal Ustinov, re-equipped with P-1000 Vulkan missiles); 1 TARKR pr. 1144 ("Admiral Nakhimov", it is supposed to equip with ~ 100 cells UKSK "Caliber", air defense "Polyment" / S-400F - only about 300 UR, the combat effectiveness relative to "Peter the Great" increases by about 2,5 times) + until 2022-23 years on the same project to modify "Admiral Lazarev". In addition, the Pacific Fleet receives: 2 "Mistral" (UDC + helicopter carrier, plus - "Caliber" and "Polyment" missiles); 5 or more corvettes URO 20380/385.
    Total, in the dry residue, after all work - one or two heavy strike cruisers, two guard cruisers, eight destroyers (including four strike destroyers), two universal landing helicopter-dock and five to six URO corvettes..This is not counting boats and submarines (on the nuclear submarine a separate topic), in this composition, the Pacific Fleet will not yield to any fleet in its theater
    until 2020 is far away and a crisis can arise at any moment. you know how much happens in the sea and in the air. "minor incidents" are not told about everything by the media. in Germany in 90 he served in the Western State Air Defense Forces, the war could start several times a week ... hi
  37. poccinin
    poccinin 29 October 2013 13: 22
    +2
    the war will be unfortunately. minus. but this is a fact. RUSSIA is like a bone in the throat of the United States. Here is just a question. Well, the main thing is to remove satellites and computers from the game. A detachment of hackers can do a lot. In Canada, a 5th grader hacked sites like a nut in exchange for games. And RUSSIA is a big country. Taiga and swamps. They here in the Far East and Siberia will not pass it they are not IRAQ. Ideal territory for partisans. DRONES will not help you can not see anything. Well, and so "WHO IS TO US WITH WHAT FROM THIS AND THAT" DO NOT WAKE A RUSSIAN BEAR.
    1. Walker1975
      Walker1975 29 October 2013 14: 35
      -1
      I did not understand your post about Siberia. Do you propose to partisan in Siberia after the loss of the European part? Or do you think that America will attack Russia from Siberia?
  38. Polovec
    Polovec 29 October 2013 14: 38
    0
    In principle, everything is logical. only I’m more confident that the Americans will not go into direct conflict, but will, as usual, arm and nudge their sales. They can intervene directly only if they are confident in UNCONDITIONAL impunity.
    We must prepare for war, then it will not be. To begin with, put Serdyukov and his gang, confiscating and returning the stolen goods. Probably enough for an aircraft carrier ...
  39. silver_roman
    silver_roman 29 October 2013 14: 45
    +2
    US does not recognize ... blah blah blah

    And we do not recognize the entry of Alaska into the possession of syshya!
    All spit on who recognizes what. If there is the power to conquer and in the future to keep this or that territory, then recognition is no longer important. History shows that conflicts on a territorial basis are eternal and exacerbate at the time of a decrease in the strength of one of the parties.

    A clash between the Russian and American armed forces is theoretically possible in such conflict points of the CIS as Crimea, the Black Sea, and Transcaucasia.

    It hurts to read. It would be much nicer to see the places of possible hostilities in Western Europe, Mesiki, Canada, Cuba, Hawaii.

    limited use of WMD

    My subjective opinion: this is complete nonsense. There can be no limited use of weapons of mass destruction. It will roll in some strategic port with the destruction of an entire fleet, nerves will heat up and missiles will fly to capitals and megalopolises. Everything will be on the nerves there. A person is not able to come to terms in a balanced way with the loss of several cities and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of their citizens, even more so when you have the weapon of "retribution" in your hands.
  40. DZ_98_B
    DZ_98_B 29 October 2013 15: 02
    -6
    The war will be, but not from the United States but with China. The United States needs our resources, but China needs our territories. Resources can be bought. And the territory ??? Well, you can buy from Putin.
    1. Corsair5912
      Corsair5912 29 October 2013 18: 09
      +1
      Quote: DZ_98_B
      The war will be, but not from the United States but with China. The United States needs our resources, but China needs our territories. Resources can be bought. And the territory ??? Well, you can buy from Putin.

      Lies, the Chinese never made any territorial claims against Russia-the USSR.
      They do not need our territories; they have not developed 2 / 3 territories of China.
      But the Yankees are accustomed to living by theft and robbery and can easily attack, with a fool.
      They don’t understand what Russia is and how it will answer them. Stupid arrogant savages, what to take from them.
      Hitler also wanted to grab a lot, and then, when he sat in the bunker and pulled his end, he regretted attacking, but it was too late to repent.
  41. saygon66
    saygon66 29 October 2013 15: 06
    0
    -Americans, S-tsu-ko, stubborn ... They are, as you know, fiercely others. Sorry, they mowed down on the Roman Empire, but what is there? "Carthage must be destroyed ..." and that's it! not worth it, but keep in mind, perhaps.
  42. Abracadabra
    Abracadabra 29 October 2013 17: 00
    -5
    Only when Russia gets rid of today's vicious system, when the people choose power, then Russia, its industry, science will be reborn. Russia alone, especially with such a power, will not be able to significantly oppose the United States. But together with Europe, the EU, or as a full partner, it will be able to. From rapprochement with Europe, Russia will be able, not like now, to sell resources for money (which it is not clear what they spend and plunder), but will be able to gain access to technology. And in Russia, where the people’s control over power will begin, where human rights will be respected, where officials will know their place, not only a huge number of scientists, specialists from all sectors will return, but if the cost of production is lower than in the EU, then and many other concerns will open their enterprises. Russia is connected with Europe by a common history, religion, the Russians are not much different from Europeans. From rapprochement with Europe, not only the state of Russia will profit, but also the Russian people themselves. It is the rapprochement between Russia and Europe and, as a result, Europe strong in all plans, that is what the United States is most afraid of, then they will have to say goodbye to the idea of ​​a unipolar world forever. IMHO
    1. poquello
      poquello 29 October 2013 21: 21
      +1
      Quote: Abra Kadabra
      Russia is connected with Europe by a common history, religion, the Russians are not much different from Europeans. From rapprochement with Europe, not only the state of Russia will profit, but also the Russian people themselves. It is the rapprochement between Russia and Europe and, as a result, Europe strong in all plans, that is what the United States is most afraid of, then they will have to say goodbye to the idea of ​​a unipolar world forever. IMHO

      So when Europe ceases to be the European state of America - come. We even will correct human rights in Belarus in this regard, and the people in your country do not control us more. And this, without pigeon propaganda only, the rights of my child are more important to me than European partners.
      1. Abracadabra
        Abracadabra 29 October 2013 23: 13
        -2
        Did you understand what you wrote?
        1. poquello
          poquello 29 October 2013 23: 52
          +1
          Quote: Abra Kadabra
          Did you understand what you wrote?

          Is there anything to argue with?
  43. slaventi
    slaventi 29 October 2013 17: 00
    0
    Can there be a war with America?
    NOT JUST POSSIBLE; SHE IS INEVITABLE!
  44. Motors1991
    Motors1991 29 October 2013 17: 38
    0
    Do not get into any conflicts. The Chinese or Arabs have a good saying: ,, Do you want revenge, sit near the road and patiently wait for the corpse of your enemy to be carried by you, the United States today plays the role of world policeman, it’s very expensive, enemies They’re making money all over the world, why bother them? They will eat themselves up. The economy is still very powerful, but it’s staggering, it won’t last long on empty pieces of paper, they just need to be helped to fall so that there is less rumble. And you don’t need to fight, because any war, even for a short time, but mobilizes society, but how at that moment such a person as Stalin will be at the head of the country.
  45. Migari
    Migari 29 October 2013 17: 41
    0
    Quote: Walker1975
    I did not understand your post about Siberia. Do you propose to partisan in Siberia after the loss of the European part? Or do you think that America will attack Russia from Siberia?

    You forget about our nuclear triad, as long as the United States knows that it can’t avoid a retaliatory nuclear strike, they won’t go to suicide. And then, what Siberia, we have and the United States. there will be enough vigorous forces to destroy all life on the planet three times.
  46. Corsair5912
    Corsair5912 29 October 2013 17: 53
    0
    After the disarmament of another two or three countries (for example, India and Brazil), one of such schemes will apparently be applied to Russia. Theoretically, there are two options. First: the arrest of major political figures of Russia and the organization of an international tribunal over them on charges of “genocide” of Chechens, Georgians or Circassians (underline) with the simultaneous raising of the question of the right of such a regime to have such a number of nuclear weapons. The second is the imposition of an agreement on accelerated reduction of nuclear weapons to a more loyal Russian government, providing American inspectors with access to Russian nuclear facilities.

    Double-edged stick.
    But what if Russia, India, Vietnam, North Korea, Iraq and China disarm NATO countries in Europe, arrest major political figures from USA, Israel, and NATO and organize an international tribunal over them on charges of genocide of indigenous people of North America, Africans, Mexicans, and Latin people America, Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Iraqis, Serbs, Afghans, Libyans, Syrians, Palestinians. With the simultaneous formulation of the question of the right of the cannibalistic savage regime, which does not comply with international laws, treaties and agreements, to have nuclear weapons, their means of delivery, the navy and the military industry.
    This is a more realistic scenario for the near future.
  47. Polovec
    Polovec 29 October 2013 18: 07
    0
    Quote: Luger
    Therefore, the presence of an external enemy, which also bites, is a very necessary acquisition

    If only under the auspices of the fight against the "fifth column" 37-year is not repeated. Have already passed. We need ideological unity of the nation. Me sausage from the denial of the international essence of Russia. She was ALWAYS international! At all times! Let's renounce Bagration, Wrangel, Bering, Gamzatov, Akhmadulina, etc. How many bloods are mixed in us? Who was counting? But the fact that the government pays tribute to the bandos instead of fighting them is another story. The law should be the same for everyone. Then an external enemy will not be needed for rallying.
    1. Corsair5912
      Corsair5912 29 October 2013 21: 23
      0
      Quote: Polovec
      Sausages me from denying the international essence of Russia. She was ALWAYS international! At all times! Let's renounce Bagration, Wrangel, Bering, Gamzatov, Akhmadulina

      You confuse international with multinational.
      Bagration, Wrangel, Bering, Gamzatov, Akhmadulina are citizens of Russia of different nationalities.
      Internationals are Bela Kun and Oleko Dundich (citizens of Austria-Hungary), Trotsky (US citizen), Chinese, Czechs, etc.
    2. loisop
      loisop 30 October 2013 09: 18
      0
      And what's wrong with 37m? Why does he scare you so much?
  48. Dimy4
    Dimy4 29 October 2013 19: 15
    0
    They are cannibalistic of course, but politics is a dirty business. Under the military conflicts mentioned in the article, it is also convenient to solve some internal problems, for example, with migrants.
  49. max73
    max73 29 October 2013 19: 41
    0
    I like this "patriotism": about tens or hundreds of computers sits on thawed ground and writes, writes ... more kibalchish planes and aircraft carriers !!! bury the Americans with blue and maroon berets alone !! Okay, the peasants who have served their pension, it is permissible, because they deserve the right to such comments !!! and the rest? monitor heroes? okay, if we discard the husk in the form of those sitting on grants ... what are you hatching? while you are wasting time on the Internet, a real enemy in the form of a corrupt rank or wahi is spending your country ... tell him about it, make him twitch ...) he is the same ... not stronger than you ..
  50. rubin6286
    rubin6286 29 October 2013 19: 43
    +1
    The author of the article is an irresponsible person, to say the least.
    In good memory, Soviet times, censorship would never have let it go to print, and now it’s “freedom”, one writes all sorts of ..., others comment on it, imagining themselves as strategists, politicians, military leaders and yet, God knows who. In our state there is someone to deal with such issues, the solution of international problems. Leave this matter to them. Look around. We will soon have no one and nowhere to work, everything is in ruin, corruption, arbitrariness, theft and fraud everywhere, growing poverty, drug addiction, total stupidity of the people. This is what you need to write about and what you need to fight against. Remember why the Varangians were invited to rule in Russia: “Our land is rich, but there is no order in it!” Russia, historically, was formed as an authoritarian state and this left an imprint on the psychology, or as they say now, the mentality of the peoples living in it. Such a country needs a smart host, and not a "call for an hour", which by its deeds will cause respect not only of its people, but also of neighboring countries. They will reckon with him and no one will want to fight.