Military Review

"Pioneers" can and should come "Topolki"

39
"Pioneers" can and should come "Topolki"The real-time problem of the so-called non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons once again it turns out to be in demand for a military-political analysis. On the one hand, many are brewing the understanding that Russia needs to withdraw from the Treaty on Medium and Short Range Missiles (INF). On the other hand, the opinion is still stable that Russia needs to preserve the regime of this treaty.


The INF Treaty is the long-standing pain of our defense policy. And it is precisely the defense, because I would like to look at someone who dares to assert that Russia's military-political views have at least something of an aggressive connotation. At the same time, hardly anyone would dare today to deny that the military-political actions of the United States are becoming more and more aggressive. And taking into account this collision, the problem of the INF, or more precisely, the INF, is actually not a problem for Russia. We need effective RSD with a continental range, and a point.

Alas, this obvious truth is still not obvious to everyone, so again and again it is necessary to prove it. Any idea and initiative in the military sphere and, as a result, any kind and class of the Armed Forces (and at a lower level, any weapon system) should be evaluated in Russia primarily from the standpoint of their ability to exclude the possibility of external aggression, that is, to strengthen the military political stability.

If a weapon system effectively reduces the likelihood of aggression and enhances stability (or provides quick recovery of stability if it is broken), such a system is needed. Otherwise, you can do without it.

HISTORY IN COMPOSITIONAL TILTING

In this respect, what can and should be said about those weapons systems that were eliminated by the Soviet Union under the INF Treaty? I put to brackets the issue of shorter-range missiles as secondary and I will only speak about the Pioneer medium-range complex, which, in fact, is one and can be the subject of correct consideration.

The “Pioneer” medium (continental) range missile, when built, was, under the conditions of the Soviet Union, a rather redundant system, and the pretext for its development - basing US medium-range missiles in Europe - was unconvincing. Regardless of the specific flight time of the Pershing-2 RSD, they, like American cruise missiles of any base, did not have a significant impact on the nuclear stability regime. The presence in the USSR of many hundreds of ICBMs with an MFR and dozens of PKK CH with hundreds of SLBMs guaranteedly excluded the threat of a first strike by the United States and, in general, a serious threat of a real exacerbation of the situation. In other words, the development and deployment of the Pioneer RSD, with powerful SNFs and conventional USSR Armed Forces, was a measure that was not very intelligible, redundant, rather undermining the security of the USSR than strengthening it.

Everything has changed in the world since in the USSR more than 500 RSD Pioneer were put on combat duty. Then they would rather disturb us, but how useful they would be now!

I propose to those who wish to imagine what the NATO policy would be in 90-s in terms of moving east, the admission of former members of the Department of Internal Affairs and former Soviet republics to NATO, if in the territory of the Russian Federation in the 90-s several hundred RSD were still deployed "Pioneer". I do not rule out that one warning of the population of potential NATO neophyte capitals that from the moment NATO joins NATO will be aimed at each capital and its environs in the Pioneers pair or three, it would be enough for this very population to think about - is it worth to join NATO?

Having today at its disposal several hundred Pioneer-type RSDs, Russia would be able to trade for the real restraint of the NATO countries not even to liquidate the Pioneers, but only to agree to reduce their number and relocate to Asia. In our system of regional deterrence, even the 200 – 300 RSM “Pioneer” would not be a trump card with which we could respond to the potential adventurism of our regional neighbors.
Russia doesn’t have real “Pioneers” now, and even the withdrawal from the INF Treaty will not automatically give them - large-scale (quite, however, feasible for the Russian Federation) efforts are needed to recreate the RSD with a range of 5000 km.

Nevertheless, the withdrawal of the RF from the treaty itself would automatically heal the European and world situation. Saying “improved”, I mean that sometimes the relaxation of tension is achieved not by gentleness, not by concessions, but by a good slap in the face - it is only important to give it resolutely.

Who shoots whom

One has to hear statements that the denunciation of the treaties does not strengthen de, but weakens the security of states. This thesis is dubious in itself. The simplest example of the opposite: the denunciation of the Brest Peace by Russia in the autumn of 1918 strengthened our security. With reference to America’s rejection of the 1972 ABM Treaty of the Year, this thesis is generally incorrect. The fact that the United States missed out on the abandonment of the PRO-72, since instead of the 100 permitted antimissile anti-missile 72 antimissiles, they plan to deploy the entire 2020 PR by the 44 year, just forgetting that the 100 PR is the upper ceiling that PRO-72 limited the missile defense infrastructure and did not allow the deployment of NMD, and after leaving the PRO-72, America can deploy as many and as many PR in any missile defense architecture, and America will do it at the right time for it. At the same time, all assurances that the US can be distinguished between strategic and non-strategic missile defense should be attributed to the dangerous epoch of illusions and euphoria of the 90's. The same "Standards-3M" - a means in the long term strategic!

Attempts to oppose the arguments of Alexander Shirokorad (“NVO” No. 24, 12.07.13), Yuri Baluyevsky, Midykhata Vildanova (“NVO” No. 25, 19.07.13) for quitting RIAC also look strange. Their reasons are not only not in different planes, but closely related, because they complement each other. Moreover, their arguments against the INF Treaty are far from being exhausted.

There is no logic in fears that if in the conditions of the USSR Pershing-2 reached the Moscow region, then with the hypothetical deployment of the United States RSD on the territory of NATO neophytes, Russia will be “shot through” to the Urals and beyond.

First, it is important for us that, in the presence of Pioneer-type continental RSDs, we will sweep the whole of Europe from the Urals. And not only Europe.
Secondly, if Russia, instead of mindless cuts in the SNF, reasonably massages them and provides them with active protection complexes, then the hypothetical US RSM will sweep through our territory, as before, only on staff maps during the exercises.

Thirdly, the official Warsaw, Vilnius, Riga, Tallinn, Bucharest and Sofia do not feel so confident that, like this, for US handouts, to make their countries hostage to US nuclear policy. And the old European members of NATO will have something to think about. Now Russia has no effective regional nuclear weapons systems capable of striking targets from its territory at a distance of up to 5000 km with a striking time of tens of minutes. This can only RSD. And the NATO countries are safe enough. Restoring our RSD will not deprive them of such security - if: a) NATO countries will not support the aggressive tendencies of the United States; b) they will force the USA to remove their nuclear weapons from Europe, which provoke Russia; c) refuse to place new US RSD in Europe.

If Europe does not directly or indirectly (through US nuclear RSD) threaten Russia, then why, one wonders, will Russia threaten Europe?
They may ask: why should we restore the RSD? Then, that our RSD in the Urals region will be an insurance continental guarantee for Russia's regional security, and no more.

AMERICA, THIRD COUNTRIES AND TALEIRAN

Likewise, it is far-fetched fears that the appearance of the RSD will allegedly provoke China. Everything is just the opposite - if we had 300 (better than 700) RSD in the Urals and Baikal region, which I would conditionally call Topolkami, then respect of China, Japan and others towards Russia would only increase. Where, where, where, and in the behavioral politeness of the East, they really appreciate only strength.

What can we say about the validity of anxiety about the possible threats to Russia from the side of RSD of third countries. There is nothing to worry about. First, Russia will keep the INF Treaty regime or not; those countries that deem it necessary for themselves will develop their own data systems. Secondly, it is incorrect to dump RSDs with a range of approximately 1000 km in one pile - they can be done by many countries, and RSDs with a range of about 5000 km - it is fundamentally more difficult to create them than RSDs with a range of 1000 km. And, thirdly, all third countries create RSD, absolutely not having in mind the threat factor of the Russian Federation as meaningful.

It is hardly possible to agree with such a grandmaster strategic analysis, when a reference to a possible US policy towards a nuclear DPRK or a sub-nuclear Iran justifies a forecast of US policy towards a nuclear Russia. Very much this is a different matter. A genuinely qualified analysis unequivocally shows that the US strategic goal is to provide such a new systemic nuclear monopoly, when it becomes possible unpunished US disarming first strike in the Russian retaliatory strike while neutralizing the extremely weakened retaliatory strike of the Russian Federation due to the multi-level massive US NMD. In the light of this unchanging paradigm of US policy toward Russia, all US military activities, including innovations in the field of strategic non-nuclear weapons and plans for a quick global strike (BSU), should be considered.

I will refer to a public statement made at the Conciliar Hearings at the St. Daniel Monastery 12 in November 1996, Lieutenant-General Nikolai Leonov, MGIMO professor, until 1991, the head of the analytical department of the KGB of the USSR: “I led intelligence activities against the US, therefore I can on its own experience, it is unambiguous to say that in the ruling circles of the United States the primary goal has always been the destruction of Russia, regardless of its structure, whether it will be monarchist, democratic or socialist. They do not need any great power in this geopolitical space. And it is driven into the public and political consciousness of the entire state. "

And not only in relation to Russia, America is pursuing a policy of provocation. Such a clever and subtle analyst, as Talleyrand, a diplomat demanded by both the Directory and Napoleon and Louis XVIII, wrote: “Europe should look at America with open eyes and not give any pretext for repression. America will turn into a tremendous force, and the moment will come when she wishes to have her say on our affairs and lay hands on them. On the day that America comes to Europe, peace and security will be driven out of it for a long time. ”

So, not Russia sees the enemy in America, but America in Russia. Russia is not destabilizing Europe and the world, but America is no longer a century. And until America really changes its foreign and military policy, only extremely irresponsible people can regard nuclear deterrence by America’s aggressiveness as meaningless.

As for the essence of the NATO policy, including in the light of the INF Treaty, everything has been clear for a long time. Now, evaluating the policy of NATO, it is sometimes said that the masks are dropped. True, however, let me say that the North Atlantic bloc has never seriously worn a mask of peace-lovingly, so hurriedly threw a sheep-skin on a wolf's policy, nothing more. Already in 1994, Richard Haass, a former employee of the US National Security Council, wrote in Foreign Policy magazine: "If problems arise again with Russia, then it is better that they appear on the borders of Russia than on the borders of Western Europe."

Frankly and essentially, without any masks. And after all, the possible “problems with Russia” meant one thing - Russia's refusal from the policy of surrendering national interests.

The question of Russia's early withdrawal from the INF Treaty and the re-creation of the Pioneer-type RSD is not a matter of “self-affirmation,” everything is much more serious. If at the intercontinental level, at the very least, we have military-technical means to ensure military-political stability, at the continental level, we do not have them now. But they can be. “Pioneers” can and should be replaced by “Topolki”. Projects on the development of some high-precision warheads to equip ICBMs or the Kyrgyz Republic are not even worth the objection. Even for the United States, such ideas are nothing more than a cunning cheating, and for Russia, with its limited number of ICBMs, it’s just an unwise chimera.

NEW - GOOD FORGOTTEN OLD

Not for the sake of self-promotion, but to illustrate that clarity did not arise yesterday, I would like to remind you that 14 years ago in HBO my article was published with the title “Pioneers” must be revived ”(No. 31, 1999, p. 4), where : “The treaty between the USSR and the USA on the elimination of ... The INFD has eliminated a whole class of our missile systems with ranges up to 5000 km. Europe was freed from the Pershing. The question seemed to be closed forever. However, the oblivion of the 1975 Helsinki Accords, the NATO policy and the “Yugoslav syndrome” put on the agenda the idea of ​​returning to our defense arsenal of medium-range continental nuclear missiles. After all, the logic of NATO's actions leads in the future to the fact that the nuclear charges of the West may be in the same place where Soviet military contingents once were stationed. Who, if not Russia, will target these charges? ”

At the same time, the following was said: “Increasing regional instability, uncertainty of prospects here, as well as US and NATO policies towards Russia create objective prerequisites for analyzing the promising role and significance of our continental classes in the 21st century. TNW is not a “battlefield weapon”. Like strategic nuclear weapons, it cannot be considered a means of real combat operations. Prospective tactical nuclear weapons should be a system analogue of strategic nuclear weapons with the only difference that if strategic nuclear weapons are designed to ensure military-political stability at the intercontinental level, then tactical nuclear weapons should have the same functional value at a lower continental level. If earlier tactical nuclear weapons were often viewed as a possible “battlefield weapon”, then nuclear weapons of the continental class should have solely regional deterrence of hypothetical power pressure and attacks on our national interests. This approach to TNW is justified for Russia. Moreover, the military-political functions of such TNW are best embodied in medium-range missile systems (from 1000 to 5000 km) range. ”

From what has already been said in 1999, a logical conclusion was made: “Obviously, the missile systems with a range of fire up to 5000 km, that is, medium-range ballistic missiles of the Pioneer type, respond best to the formulated requirements. The formula of the “Pioneer type” is used here only for brevity. In fact, we can talk about other variants of rocket carriers. It is important to restore in the structure of Russian nuclear warrs not so much concrete complexes as a specific firing range. ”

Earlier, Major-General Retired Vladimir Belous in the article “Tactical nuclear weapons in new geopolitical conditions”, published in the journal Nuclear Control (No. 14, 1996), expressed the correct idea: “Because of the peculiarities of the geostrategic position of Russia, Russia has a much greater military and political significance than for the United States. " He also has a good wording: “The American TNW is a war for export.”

In a systemic sense, everything is correct here: for the United States, tactical nuclear weapons are a type of nuclear weapons, in terms of their legitimate interests, redundant. That is, aggressive, pushing America to export war, being waged - which is traditional for the United States - far from their national territory.

But if so, then why is the problem of the INF Treaty becoming the focus of US-Russia bilateral relations? For the USA, their “non-strategic” nuclear weapons is an export war, but where is the export? Probably, first of all to Europe.

And if so, then the issue of the INF would have to be primarily concerned about Europe, or rather, NATO countries (although today NATO is almost the whole of Europe). In fact, the United States does not even have a deliberative, not a decisive vote in the INF problem. For the USA, any system of continental and subcontinental range is a war for export, it is a tool for provoking some countries against other countries. Is it even unclear to someone today?

ABOUT COMPARISON OF ARSHINS AND PUDS

Most experts rightly believe that the presence of effective RSD in the defense arsenal of Russia would level out the superiority of certain countries in conventional armaments, in the number of troops, etc. But the problem is objectively wider! Only new massed RSDs with a range of ~ 5000 ... 6000 km and with variant nuclear combat equipment, which allow us to deliver a warning demonstration first, and then a strike that affects the aggressor, will provide us with regional stability across the entire spectrum of possible threats. And not a possible war, but the containment of aggression or its almost instantaneous "folding" - this is a truly worthy task for the Topolkov needed by Russia.

Sometimes they write that tactical (although no, it is not “tactical” for Russia, but strategic, but at the regional level) nuclear weapons turns out to be a backbone factor in geopolitical confrontation. However, this is not entirely true. Unlike the United States and a number of other powers, Russia is involved in this confrontation, while the United States and a number of other powers produce it, which is far from the same ...

As for the expediency of negotiations on "non-strategic" nuclear weapons, they do not make much sense just because the same Russia and the United States will lead them - objectively - to talk about fundamentally different concepts for them.

For the USA, everything is determined by the “war on export” formula. For the Russian Federation - the fundamental tasks of ensuring the security of the national territory. You can not, forgive, compare arshins with poods, meters with kilograms!

Therefore, frankly, it is advisable for Russia to negotiate in the only format acceptable for us - with a view to recognizing the special significance for the Russian Federation of regional systems and the special rights of Russia to the presence of massive effective RSM in its arsenal by the United States and NATO. At the same time, such negotiations can be conducted with our great eastern neighbor - China, but in any case, the presence of hundreds of new RSM “Topolek” in the Russian Federation will not complicate our mutual relations, but will certainly heal them.

How many rosy tears of emotion have been shed for more than a decade ago — and not by the USSR or by clever people in Russia — for the coming era of “cooperation for peace” instead of the era of confrontation! In fact, the tears were crocodile. And is it not time to look this truth in the eyes - both at the global and at the regional level of ensuring the security of Russia?
Author:
Originator:
http://www.ng.ru/
39 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. makarov
    makarov 27 November 2013 08: 04
    +3
    I remembered my youth when I saw "my" unit in the photo
  2. Nayhas
    Nayhas 27 November 2013 08: 43
    -9
    The author is a potential client of doctors. If there had not been an INF Treaty, would NATO not have gone east in the 90s? Well, there would be RSD-10 in Russia, how would they help? Would Yeltsin say that if NATO moves east, he will deliver a nuclear strike? The author has a mess of saliva in his head and hatred for everything Western. If necessary, then 5000 km. it is possible to launch an ICBM, what will prevent? Already tired of this whining about the fact that the United States wants to destroy Russia, everyone imagining himself to be a patriot does nothing but yell at every corner without noticing that the West, on the contrary, is making every effort to prevent this from happening. Can the West destroy Russia? Undoubtedly, this does not require a war, but sufficient economic sanctions. Our "elite", according to the Magnitsky Law, restricting only visiting the United States and doing business there to a limited list of people, has spent money on Mr., is this not an indicator of its dependence on the West?
    Our government itself destroys the country, not the Republicans pushed Serdyukov. And Serdyukov is just one of many ...
    PS: it’s high time to withdraw from the INF Treaty, but not because of the threat of NATO, but because our eastern neighbor has no problems with medium-range missiles ...
    1. SHILO
      SHILO 27 November 2013 11: 38
      +9
      The author has a reason for sure. On the last launch, the United States raised a real screech that Russia had tested a medium-range missile. Scream? Squeal. Question: "Why?" - Territorially, these things US weapons do not carry a threat. Ah, and they have all sorts of bases in Eurasia, and they also have plans - go and worry about them.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 27 November 2013 11: 50
        -4
        Quote: SHILO
        The author clearly has a reason. US last run real screech raised

        Where did you hear the screech? You are not accustomed to the fact that any word uttered in the United States about Russia is inflated with us to impossibility? 10 senators (and there are only 100 of them) asked the government whether Russia complies with the INF Treaty. This does not mean that Obama will protest us or anything else. There are mutual control systems from which senators will receive an appropriate response. Russia complies with the INF Treaty, as does the United States. But we can (simply must) unilaterally terminate it, as the Americans did with the ABM Treaty when they decided to develop this topic. But again, for this they previously withdrawn from the contract.
        1. SHILO
          SHILO 27 November 2013 12: 40
          0
          Evgeniy. Dear! Yes, remove from my post the emotional word "squeal" (which has no semantic load) and you will see that we have nothing to argue about - we are both "For", just "For" from different sides. yes
        2. bif
          bif 27 November 2013 23: 20
          +2
          Quote: Nayhas
          Russia complies with the INF Treaty, as does the United States

          The Russian Federation - yes, the United States - no, from the very beginning they didn’t comply, and now it continues ... it’s such a feature of our partners to sign an agreement (for example, START-1,2, INF, etc.), very zealously monitor its implementation in RF, and do as they see fit.
    2. silver_roman
      silver_roman 27 November 2013 12: 27
      +8
      Quote: Nayhas
      This nagging is already tired of the fact that the United States wants to ruin Russia, everyone who pretends to be a patriot only does that he screams at every corner without noticing that the West is doing its best to prevent this from happening.


      If I understand you correctly, then you say that Sysya does EVERYTHING so that Russia does not fall apart ??? DID I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY?
      If it’s right, then this is the biggest nonsense I've heard in my life. If it’s not right, I apologize.
      And I agree with you about China. But then again, the danger from China for Russia, at least in the short term (!) - is far-fetched and created artificially!

      And at the expense of the article: as it seems to me, Russia WHILE is still bound by tacit agreements that affect our sovereignty. Perhaps they are looking for a real reason to cancel the INF Treaty. And now just such an occasion turned up: an agreement was reached on Iran, Lavrov immediately noticed (both he and the one who whispered in his ear) that now there is no threat from Iran and, as a result, there is no need to deploy a EURO missile defense system. What did our "colleagues and partners" answer ??? A certain faceless NATO "expert" said that Lavrov was wrong and that there are about 30 countries - threats from which one must defend with the help of missile defense.
      What is not a reason ???
      Apparently, there are not enough scandants alone to plug the gut with their tail!
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 27 November 2013 12: 36
        -5
        Quote: silver_roman
        If right, then this is the biggest nonsense I've heard in my life.

        You contradict yourself. If this is nonsense, then what are your words "as it seems to me, Russia WHILE else is bound by unspoken agreements affecting our sovereignty"
        Quote: silver_roman
        And now just such an occasion turned up: we agreed on Iran

        What a naive you are. It is impossible to agree with Iran in principle. To deceive kyafir they holy.
        Quote: silver_roman
        But then again, the danger from China for Russia, at least in the short term (!) - is far-fetched and created artificially!

        If in our Krasnoyarsk Territory and Transbaikalia there will be our infantry infantry fighting vehicles (as the Chinese are on the other hand now), then there will not be any danger.
        1. silver_roman
          silver_roman 27 November 2013 12: 58
          +1
          Quote: Nayhas
          You contradict yourself. If this is nonsense, then what are your words "as it seems to me, Russia WHILE else is bound by unspoken agreements affecting our sovereignty"


          hmm ... but what is the contradiction ??? explain your logic ... be so kind.

          I only assert that Russia is facing a serious struggle for its sovereignty and that the states will be at least not enthusiastic about this. You claim that the United States is trying in every way to help us not to collapse completely. This is what I call nonsense.
          I’ll ask again: I understood you correctly in the fact that
          Quote: Nayhas
          Apad, on the contrary, is making every effort to prevent this from happening.
          ??


          Quote: Nayhas
          What a naive you are. It is impossible to agree with Iran in principle. To deceive kyafir they holy.

          for whom is sacred, and for whom is politics, personal gain, etc.
          For example, Vietnam is still experiencing the consequences of "Western democracy", flags were burned, etc., but at the moment they are at least loyal to the United States. the same about Japan.
          The issue of Iran’s loyalty is a matter of its survival! at the expense of naivety - only the naive are in a hurry to withdraw!
          ps I have a great friend Iranian. studied with him in aviation in Kiev. believe me, it’s clear from his words that many who have the opportunity are moving from Iran to Canada, Ireland, etc.
          When it’s hot, you’re already thinking how to survive, and not harm!


          Quote: Nayhas
          If in our Krasnoyarsk Territory and Transbaikalia there will be our infantry infantry fighting vehicles (as the Chinese are on the other hand now), then there will not be any danger.


          I agree with this ONCE AGAIN. There should be a cold calculation, not panic militarization on the border with China.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 27 November 2013 17: 50
            +5
            Quote: silver_roman
            I only say that Russia is facing a serious struggle for its sovereignty and that the states will be at least not happy about it

            Right! To strengthen the country's military security, at least it is necessary to boost the economy, rebuild industry, rearm the armed forces, etc. These are domestic policy issues. But at the level of foreign policy it will be required:
            - Using the contradictions and our hydrocarbons, break up NATO, the breakaways of Germany, France (at least);
            - withdraw from the INF Treaty, but declare that they are directed against the Taliban, for example, and not against white and fluffy, tolerant gay men. Of course they will not believe it, but there is a statement! everything is like that of USA;
            - to achieve adoption through the UN of a convention banning the deployment of nuclear weapons outside the national territories of the possessing states, thereby returning USA to the homeland of their nuclear weapons;
            - to pursue a policy of peace and convince the Europeans that we "love" them, but the US bases force us to include their sovereign territories in the "distribution" of nuclear warheads and other nasty things we ourselves are not delighted with. (What to do? - MUST!).
            This is a minimum program, the implementation of which will allow us to provide more security than today.
            1. silver_roman
              silver_roman 27 November 2013 22: 05
              0
              I support, but it’s just not right to ruin NATO unfortunately!
              the goal is noble and good, as for me, but extremely difficult to achieve.
              and on the account of withdrawing from the agreement on the INF Treaty, as can be seen from the publications, ours have already made up for it, or Americans think so. But in any case, an exit under this agreement is a matter of time.

              and on internal issues, I would note a slight correction to the constitution! there are extremely weak spots, and, as a result, corruption!
              Without all this, it will not work to boost industry and the economy.
              hi
          2. Nayhas
            Nayhas 27 November 2013 22: 20
            0
            Quote: silver_roman
            hmm ... but what is the contradiction ??? explain your logic ... be so kind.

            The state either has sovereignty or it doesn't. If the government is bound by any secret agreements with the United States affecting the sovereignty of Russia, then such a government is not "independent" and rules in the interests of the United States. How could it be otherwise? Ask a simple question, what might not suit the United States in Putin's government? I am not saying that Putin is a puppet, but he is beneficial to the United States and in fact they support him. As a vivid example, the war with Georgia. The whole world was expecting sanctions against Russia, because Russia legally committed an act of aggression against an independent state, whose territorial integrity had previously been openly recognized. But there was nothing other than a vague panting, although the Republicans were in power in the United States. Remember 2009, when the price of oil began to fall, real problems began in Russia, the United States had the opportunity to organize the retention of the price at $ 60 per barrel, two or three years of such prices and the Russian economy would collapse, burying Putin and Co. But the United States did not take advantage of this, it would seem why? It's just that the United States and Europe are wildly afraid of changes in Russia that could lead to the collapse of the country, and this is a way out of control of nuclear weapons. Therefore, they supported the drunk Yeltsin, in spite of the shooting of the parliament and the grinding of Chechnya into powder, therefore they support the boor Putin, in spite of Chechnya and the destruction of any real opposition.
            Quote: silver_roman
            for whom is sacred, and for whom is politics, personal gain, etc.

            Iran is ruled by the ayatollah, which is surrounded by the same obscurantists. Not all the people of Iran divide the world into the faithful, kafirs and munafiks, but those in power from this breed. You can’t believe them, the Jews are right to do what they don’t believe. Actually, how Iran is now represented in Russia is simply amazing. If earlier in the Russian press Iran was the refuge of radical Islamists of all stripes, the sponsor of terrorists in Afghanistan and Chechnya, now on the contrary, it is a fighter for justice and independence of Syria, and the terrorists from Hezbollah who were jihadists suddenly became almost internationalist warriors.
            1. ACKiPaPa,
              ACKiPaPa, 27 January 2014 15: 47
              0
              Quote: Nayhas
              Iran is ruled by the ayatollah, which is surrounded by the same obscurantists .... You can’t believe them ... If earlier ... Iran was the haven of radical Islamists of all stripes, now on the contrary, a fighter for justice and independence of Syria, and the Hezbollah terrorists who were jihadists suddenly became almost internationalist warriors.


              Nayhas - ay! This is politics. No, I understand - you are a political radio-player according to the views (no offense request ) i.e. idealizing hmm ... bad. But - THIS IS POLICY !!! Understand that there are no personal interests in it. The only personal choice a politician makes is deciding to whom (from forces, parties, etc.) to join - EVERYTHING. Then you are "promoted" and you act in the interests of your associates; parties, oligarchs, people, military, FSB - it is necessary to emphasize the necessary. And it is very good if their goals are good for the population. When they understand that 1% of taxes per ton is more than 10% per kilogram, but you have to give this ton to the people to get that the diamonds in the ground are not yours if any find with a rifle can pick them up - then the people and the authorities are happy, and everyone well. This means that the government supports the interests of the state. And THEM, any normal politician puts above all. And there is only one interest, and it is the same for Pithecanthropus, and for me, and for you Nayhas, and even for any state in the world - this interest is comfortable to live - EVERYTHING love ... Unfortunately, we do not live in a vacuum, which means that others want the same, .. including at the expense of others. Therefore, "friends" become enemies, and vice versa. Therefore, we are now "friends" with Iran ... Therefore, the Taliban in Afghanistan, with tears of affection, recall the "Urus", whom they willingly killed in the 80s, and hate amers who were "friends" forever and helped to do this. So take a look around and try to live COMFORTABLY; put things in order on your site at the entrance, make peace with your neighbors, stretch your salary until payday ... and then, sit in a chair, open a can of beer, and imagine that the PRESIDENT DOES THIS ON THE SCALE OF THE STATE. hi
      2. papik09
        papik09 28 November 2013 16: 25
        0
        "... the gut was plugged with the tail ..."
        Is it tail? wassat
    3. Y34Gagarin
      Y34Gagarin 27 November 2013 12: 39
      +8
      It seems that you have porridge.

      1. Yeltsin is a drunkard and a traitor.
      Based on this alone, it is already clear that he would never have declared the possibility of a strike if NATO expanded eastward.

      2.1 Destroy Russia with sanctions?
      The Europeans did not build the Baltic branch in order to cover the vent. We’ve got used to keeping our fifth point warm from Russian gas.

      2.2 No need to be afraid.
      Russia will live without paper wrappers in case of sanctions. The entire periodic table in Russia is present.

      2.3 They try to break up constantly.
      They are trying to break ties with the brothers Ukrainians by pulling them to Geyropa, sponsoring gangs, separatist movements, non-systemic opposition, etc.

      3.1 different strategic nuclear forces are needed; different strategic nuclear forces are important.
      ICBMs serve a specific purpose, and they scare the mattresses accordingly. The geyrope needs to be scared by the corresponding RSD.

      3.2 In the paragraph on the eastern neighbor I absolutely agree with you.
      You need to be friends with the Chinese, and keep an arsenal for them with a bang.
      1. rolik2
        rolik2 27 November 2013 18: 20
        +1
        Quote: Y34Gagarin
        Trying to break ties with the Ukrainian brothers by pulling them to Geyropu,

        A strange interpretation of current events. In your opinion, the closure of the Russian border for Ukrainian goods, gas for 400 bucks and so on are the machinations of the West?
        1. Y34Gagarin
          Y34Gagarin 28 November 2013 17: 27
          0
          It is necessary to give a slap for such disgusting behavior. Brothers, your fate be with Russia, with the Slav brothers, there is no other way. Therefore, end these paranoid convulsions and enter the vehicle. There will be cheap gas and partnership on an equal footing. Russia does not want Ukraine to be pauper in the EU
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. Gennady1973
      Gennady1973 27 November 2013 16: 46
      +2
      Nayhas. I don’t minus, but I don’t agree! It would go (NATO), just those (recent allies) who accept, place, etc. everything that is directed against us would have thought ... America would be far ... fly or knock down the question. And we are close by. We will be buried together with a completely established, placed ... etc. it is easier to declare neutrality.
    6. bif
      bif 27 November 2013 23: 15
      0
      Quote: Nayhas
      If there weren’t a treaty on INF, would NATO not go east in the 90? Well, would there be RSD-10 in Russia, how would they help? Would Yeltsin say that if NATO moves east, it will strike a nuclear strike?

      If ... yes, as it were. These are moot points.
      Quote: Nayhas
      Already tired of this whining about the fact that the United States wants to destroy Russia, everyone imagining himself to be a patriot does nothing but yell at every corner without noticing that the West, on the contrary, is making every effort to prevent this from happening. Can the West destroy Russia? Undoubtedly, this does not require a war, but sufficient economic sanctions. Our "elite", according to the Magnitsky Law, restricting only visiting the United States and doing business there to a limited list of people has spent money on Mr., isn't this an indicator of its dependence on the West?

      To this, I will answer with your own words ... "The author is a potential client of doctors"
    7. keeper
      keeper 12 December 2013 08: 27
      0
      If necessary, then 5000 km. can ICBMs be launched, what will hinder?

      Gun shooting on sparrows. ICBMs are not so many that they would be scattered, and the issue of economic efficiency is not of little importance.
      The author even has a fair hatred of the West, and you offend your own insults.
  3. andr327
    andr327 27 November 2013 09: 44
    +4
    We actually live in Eurasia, this is the continent of our residence. And here the United States, because they do not touch them. And the neighbors, I think, will agree.
    the agreement should contain only one phrase about the deployment of an IRBM with nuclear weapons on its territory, and if not, then "restrict the overflight" by the forces of "Topols" and "White Swans"
  4. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 27 November 2013 11: 20
    -8
    Well, Poplar is bullshit. It is no coincidence that the Americans put "big and fat" on the "Poplar", and some generals there said several years ago that even if Russia would build "a thousand" "Topol", they did not pose a serious threat to the United States. Seemingly nonsense "poplar" mobile launchers, and in theory, have almost perfect security, since they are difficult to detect. But this was true for the 70-80s of the last century and already only partly for the 90s. Nowadays ALL "poplars" in real time are guaranteed to be tracked by American satellite detection systems. How did this happen? It's very simple - all "roaming" launchers cannot be without maintenance. At the places of their production and maintenance, they are monitored, and then they are "led" without letting go, all the time. And the detected installation is defenseless and incapacitates it, even a sniper's bullet, not to mention satellite, unmanned or other means of influence. Mine installations are stationary, but equipped with powerful systems of air defense, missile defense, anti-sabotage defense, etc. They are much more stable, and they also allow launching heavier missiles that have heavier warheads with a large number of both false and nuclear guided warheads. It is no accident that the Americans are concerned precisely with the destruction of our mine installations. The Chinese also do not forget to develop mine systems for basing and launching ICBMs. I hope everyone remembers the recent story about how, after the earthquake in China, a whole system of underground tunnels was opened for storing, transporting and launching ICBMs. Moreover, the launch shafts were made in such a way that they were absolutely invisible from the surface and could only be opened in case of launch.
    1. silver_roman
      silver_roman 27 November 2013 12: 33
      +5
      another "expert" on global containment ????
      I will say this: the howl of the states about the Soviet and now about the Russian danger was created for only one purpose: to intimidate first their own people in order to cut their budget under this pretext, and then the countries of Europe and NATO, so that they could have their bases all over the world, " defend democracy ".
      the states always knew and understood perfectly well that Soviet policy was defensive in the aggregate. In the USSR, metro bomb shelters were built, while in the states the metro is located almost at the depths of our underground passages.
    2. Mairos
      Mairos 27 November 2013 13: 41
      +3
      Well tracked. So what? Will the special forces be thrown in large numbers on transporters before the start of their strike? Or will the CD on Topol be allowed? so the CD will fly ... and the special forces will, if at all, fly. And where did you see the mines that are not visible before the launch. Fables read about the mines hidden in the stoker, apparently. )))
  5. vlbelugin
    vlbelugin 27 November 2013 11: 33
    +6
    Quote: Monster_Fat
    Nowadays ALL "poplars" in real time are guaranteed to be tracked by American satellite detection systems. How did this happen? It's very simple - all "roaming" launchers cannot be without maintenance. At the places where they are produced and maintained, they are monitored, and then they are "led" without letting go, all the time.

    Where does such deep "knowledge" come from? Probably heard somewhere on the blockade?
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 27 November 2013 12: 00
      +4
      Quote: vlbelugin
      Where does such deep "knowledge" come from? Probably heard somewhere on the blockade?

      I don’t know how the respondent has, but in our place in Novosibirsk the poplars probably don’t know only the lazy. They don’t leave their boron section, even if they want, it will require the use of traffic police in order to block all roads around to pass them, and it is impossible to miss such a cavalcade. So they ride on a 2X2km site. along the forest with a single looped road. And what kind of stability can they have? If Poplars could travel around the country without restrictions, then there would be sense.
      1. Colonel
        Colonel 27 November 2013 12: 46
        +1
        They also explained to you about the traffic police and about 2x2. You do not know how or do not want to read?
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 27 November 2013 17: 17
        +2
        Quote: Nayhas
        That ride on the site 2X2km. along the forest with a single looped road. And what kind of stability can they have?

        And rightly so! T.K. They have the right to deploy to the secret areas of dispersal, the starting position only by order, with the receipt of a signal about the introduction of the "Military Danger" BG. Also, the forces of the fleet occupy secret areas on command. Believe me, these RBDs are equipped in engineering terms, they are covered by support forces, they are camouflaged, etc. So, OBS doesn't work here!
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 27 November 2013 22: 26
          0
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          And rightly so! T.K. They have the right to deploy to the secret areas of dispersal, the starting position only by order, with the receipt of a signal about the introduction of the "Military Danger" BG. Also, the forces of the fleet occupy secret areas on command. Believe me, these RBDs are equipped in engineering terms, they are covered by support forces, they are camouflaged, etc. So, OBS doesn't work here!

          I somehow doubt that a likely adversary, preparing a sudden disarming strike, will somehow warn his actions with obvious preparations and we will have time to advance to secret dispersal areas.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 28 November 2013 01: 15
            +3
            Quote: Nayhas
            I somehow doubt that a likely adversary, preparing a sudden disarming strike, will somehow warn his actions with obvious preparations and we will have time to advance to secret dispersal areas.

            You're right. An attack, secret and sudden, is well disguised, legendary, and disguised by holding gatherings, exercises, etc. But there is intelligence and opera analytics. management. There is a list of features intelligence, in the presence of which, without reasoning, the "reaction algorithm" is turned on. So when the AMG approaches the line of the rise of aviation, the forces of the fleet are withdrawn from the bases, the PLPL is deployed, the MRA begins to be on duty at airfields and in the air, up to 15 minutes of readiness. Well, upon receipt of intelligence about the delivery of nuclear warheads to the carriers ... the BG is declared "complete", and so on. I believe that similar actions are carried out in other types and types of the Armed Forces. The experience of 41 years has cost us dearly, so it should not be repeated. Recently, the direction of the BP has changed. The exercises and tests became "sudden", starting with the development of the warning system, bringing the BU signals to the forces and ending with the launch of ICBMs at a target field in Kamchatka.
    2. Andrey57
      Andrey57 27 November 2013 12: 21
      +1
      No, they’s in the tyrnete read that mattress toppers are no longer afraid of "Poplar"! fellow
  6. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 27 November 2013 11: 59
    -2
    Yes, on the "zavalinka" -where type "experts" hang out, that's the type of this forum. Next time I will try to provide an official confirmation from the US State Department or NSA, but I will have to wait. wink
  7. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 27 November 2013 14: 26
    +1
    The author’s argument is largely controversial, but missiles will not be redundant, the more different missiles - the better. If they don’t drive us away, it’s only thanks to the presence of nuclear weapons and modern means of delivery. Well, accordingly, air defense should be prepared for intercepting enemy RSDs, maybe even some promising systems based on lasers and microwave emitters. besides, one should think about the future, even the bad one. In the event of the dismemberment of Russia, the RSD will mainly remain in the European part of the country, and if forced to abandon the Strategic Rocket Forces, then the RSD will become a guarantor from its neighbors.
  8. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 27 November 2013 15: 09
    -7
    Here, I sit and think, on many forums there are "poztreoty", demanding to defend their sovereignty, nation, etc. But this is how I want to ask, why? You already have non-Russians in the Kremlin, they are pursuing their policy not to please the common people, but to please the oligarchs, who often sit abroad and regard Russia only as a feeding trough. Banks and finances do not belong to you - a minuscule amount is stored in Russia, the main loot is taken out of the cordon and used there, even you cannot print how much money you need - the central bank belongs to someone unknown. The entire industry has long been sold out, along with the subsoil, and again all the owners are abroad. All money is withdrawn from the country and stored abroad. "Poztreots" were left with only one rattle-bogey: an independent "constitution", a holiday of independence (no one knows from whom, probably from the common people), and a flag (so that there was something to wave in national ecstasy, it’s true, it’s forbidden to hang it near houses for some reason) ). Don't you really understand that you are no longer the masters of your country, you are a slave force that brings income to world capitalism. Well, will sit in your Kremlin, not like, "the driver of Siberian Cranes", but for example Berlusconi, or Merkel, you will not get any worse from this. If you don’t have your own state, but it’s like something in the European Union, then no one will take your pitiful 6 acres from you (everything that you have from this state, and even then soon you yourself start to get rid of, in the light of new tax trends), no one will force you to work more, you already plow for 10-12 hours. No one will replace you in your working class with Germans or Italians, but your beloved "Siberian government" is successfully replacing you with migrants from different Churkestans, and plans to do so in the future. So, relax: no one wants to "enslave" you there, etc. It is much easier and better for your civilized neighbors to feed the Siberian government, so that it continues to pursue a loyal migrant policy, pulling migrants over to itself, so that it will continue to pump resources to the west and withdraw money to other countries. Why do you need armed forces and, moreover, nuclear weapons, only unnecessary expenses, it is better to delegate your defense to NATO. Oh, I can imagine how the "poztreoty" "minus" me!
    1. Y34Gagarin
      Y34Gagarin 27 November 2013 15: 22
      +4
      Sorry, but your thinking is very primitive. Russia still has a long way to restore full sovereignty after the collapse of the 90s. Wait, there will be another 37th year, there will be purges, there will be landings. Not a step back, only forward, to the restoration of former greatness and reunification with fraternal countries!
      1. Yura
        Yura 28 November 2013 16: 44
        0
        Quote: Y34Gagarin
        Sorry, your thinking is very primitive.

        In vain, you try respected, primitive is still some kind of thinking, here he just stupidly fulfills his salary or already received or in advance, in the hope of snatching his piece. A peasant has a ringing in his head from the blow of anti-Russian propaganda, it is very difficult to think in such a way.
    2. chunga-changa
      chunga-changa 27 November 2013 17: 00
      0
      For example, I personally fear that Merkel or Berlusconi will most likely open a couple of Auschwitz near Kursk, instead of a Bavarian beer and sausage factory. Historical experience shows that this will happen. Maybe that's the point.
    3. maximus235
      maximus235 27 November 2013 17: 54
      0
      Delegate your point to the audience
      1. Colonel
        Colonel 27 November 2013 20: 51
        0
        Monster_Fat, crawled out of the swamp, blundered. Enough. Get back where you got out of. And the armed forces, and even more so nuclear weapons, are for us so that people like you are sitting in your swamp. Without respect. hi
    4. Eugeniy_369
      Eugeniy_369 27 November 2013 20: 58
      -2
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      Oh, I can imagine how the "poztreoty" will "minus" me!

      Minuses are trifles, in the end there are not only "pozreo.y" ...
      I agree with many of your post crying .
    5. bif
      bif 27 November 2013 23: 35
      +2
      How bad everything is, the power is terrible, there are "potzreoty" around, only you are so smart and beautiful ... does not resemble anything?
      So why are you so unique in the Russian Federation?
    6. Yura
      Yura 28 November 2013 16: 31
      0
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      You

      We have it with us, we have it not with you, what are you doing here? You go where your like-minded people.
  9. kaktus
    kaktus 27 November 2013 15: 29
    +3
    "Previously in Russia they hugged a birch tree and cried, but now they hug" Topol "and smile badly" wassat
  10. pr 627
    pr 627 27 November 2013 15: 42
    +2
    According to the agreement, the US government should not seek "to achieve military superiority" over Russia. How fulfilled is this promise?

    The main question is whether this agreement is beneficial to Russia? The numbers speak for themselves: the USSR eliminated 608 launchers of medium-range missiles and 237 launchers of short-range missiles, and the Americans - 282 and 1, respectively (no, this is not a typo, indeed ONE!).

    At the same time, only Soviet medium and short-range missiles were actually eliminated. After signing the treaty, not a single medium-range missile was sent to the United States, and several hundred missiles to the USSR. We have already talked about eighteen French S-2 and S-3 missiles on the Albion plateau, but this is only the tip of the iceberg.

    By the time the treaty was signed, England had four nuclear submarines, each carrying 16 Polaris A-3 missiles each with multiple warheads. France also had six nuclear submarines, also with 16 ballistic missiles each.

    But that is not all. By 1987, China launched deployments of medium-range missiles Dun-1, Dun-2 and Dun-2-I [73] with a firing range of 2000 to 4000 km.

    Finally, Israel has created not only nuclear weapons, but also their delivery vehicles, including ballistic missiles, capable of hitting targets on the territory of the Russian Federation.

    And while the conflict between Russia and France is currently considered by many to be purely academic, the use of medium-range missiles by China and Israel for nuclear blackmail of our country is quite realistic. It is still difficult to add.
  11. xomaNN
    xomaNN 27 November 2013 17: 01
    0
    There is a hope that the current government of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defense, together with experts, have drawn the correct conclusions from the "dashing" and thoughtless decisions of the country's past governments. They will especially really listen not to 2-3 "experts", but thoughtfully calculate our "quiet war" with the Americans smile
  12. Moore
    Moore 27 November 2013 17: 37
    +1
    Thirdly, the official Warsaw, Vilnius, Riga, Tallinn, Bucharest and Sofia do not feel so confident that, like this, for US handouts, to make their countries hostage to US nuclear policy. And the old European members of NATO will have something to think about. Now Russia has no effective regional nuclear weapons systems capable of striking targets from its territory at a distance of up to 5000 km with a striking time of tens of minutes. This can only RSD. And the NATO countries are safe enough. Restoring our RSD will not deprive them of such security - if: a) NATO countries will not support the aggressive tendencies of the United States; b) they will force the USA to remove their nuclear weapons from Europe, which provoke Russia; c) refuse to place new US RSD in Europe.

    Forgive me, but this is not the argument of the husband, but the boy.
    Who will ask some Riga and Tallinn, Warsaw or Sofia? Who and when seriously took the Limitrophs or trusted them to resolve serious issues?
    What, because of the deployment of Iskander in the Kaliningrad region, the Poles expelled the Americans? Uh-huh, two times.
    Can someone point out the forces that can force Amers to remove nuclear weapons from Europe, while still leaving in the European part of the Russian Federation RMDs, airborne-based missile defense systems and a bunch of tactical ammunition?
    Under the USSR, it turns out, the "Pioneers" interfered. The countries groaned, but they sustained the expenses. Is the RF richer than the USSR? Does the navel break? Someone counted these costs taking into account the already adopted program?
    I consider an article written in the style of "five" Eagles "is better than one, and 150 divisions are better than 50". Such obvious things (and the RIAC is really needed) should be backed up by real calculations, and not arguments sucked out of the finger.
  13. studentmati
    studentmati 27 November 2013 21: 32
    +1
    "Pioneer" in its effect on the brains of revanchists, dried by "whiskey" and "gin", is the same analogue of "Voevoda", only in its class. But the "muzhik" Leonid Ilyich did not even "pass" one single rocket. drinks And the newly made mister first president tried to destroy the whole complex as soon as possible, although the Pioneer did not fall under any agreements. sad
  14. Urri
    Urri 27 November 2013 22: 28
    +1
    With the full realization of the real role of the first president, it is time, it seems to me, to put forward, in the words of Lenin, the slogan corresponding to the moment:
    "We who live in Russia (whatever color and size it may be - Great, Small or White)
    DOESN'T INTEREST IN US OPINION ON ISSUES AFFECTING OUR LIFE. GENERALLY.
    To bring to the attention of everyone at every convenient occasion. I am sure life will become incomparably easier.
    These 10 words can be compared with the most modern and destructive weapons in terms of military power and damage to a potential enemy.
  15. solovald
    solovald 28 November 2013 05: 03
    0
    The argument is somehow unconvincing, to put it mildly, not serious.
  16. Ramzaj99
    Ramzaj99 8 May 2014 23: 23
    0
    I think, in the wake of recent events, Russia could very well withdraw from all military treaties. So they accuse of all sins so that it will not be worse, but the moment is good.