Military Review

Right to strike

80
Only such a form of influence on the aggressor will thwart its possible military invasion.


The concept of a preemptive strike against the troops of the aggressor in the conditions of the inevitability of war with adequate material and political-diplomatic support will be the most important factor of strategic non-nuclear deterrence.

The threat of war against Russia is growing

Just a few years ago, the possibility of direct external aggression against Russia was very low. Recently, however, the risk of such has increased substantially. This is determined by several key factors.

Firstly, this is a general increase in military tension in the world, caused by the exacerbation of the crisis of Western civilization and the growing problems of the leading states of Southeast Asia.

Right to strikeSecondly, the growth of aggressiveness and unpredictability of Western elites, who are trying favorably for themselves to solve the crisis of Western society at the expense of other peoples. A series of political defeats that Western countries suffered at the beginning of the XXI century (in Iraq and Afghanistan, the outcome of the Arab spring and the war in Syria failed for the West, disrupting Ukraine’s association with the EU) left for their elites only the ability to solve problems at the expense of their peoples . And this is fraught with serious social consequences. Western elites see Russia as the main culprit of their defeats. They demonstrate a willingness to use military force in the post-Soviet space. Suffice it to recall the calls for NATO's military intervention in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict of 2008, the open and active intervention of the leaders of the West in the Ukrainian crisis.

Thirdly, the growth of domestic Russian problems, primarily of an economic nature, which, together with external destructive influences, can lead to the destabilization of our country, which will create favorable conditions for military aggression.

Obviously, the scale of the aggression will be such as not to provoke Russia into the use of nuclear potential. Therefore, its possible targets may be the rejection of a certain part of the territory of the Russian Federation that does not threaten the existence of our country, or a change of political regime against the background of fairly large-scale opposition speeches.

The goal of the actions of the Armed Forces of a possible opponent of Russia in such a conflict will be the routing of a group of Russian troops in the region with the destruction of tactical nuclear forces in it. weapons and its subsequent occupation.

The key role in such a conflict, as the experience of past wars shows, will play aviation aggressor. The hostilities will begin with the first air offensive operation (UPO), which aims to gain air supremacy and destroy the main nuclear weapons of Russia in the region. In the future, aviation will begin to solve the problem of suppressing ground forces and forces. fleet Russia in the region, as well as the isolation of the war zone. After solving these problems, the aggressor will go on to conduct land and airborne landing operations, during which the ultimate goals of aggression will be achieved.

In preparing for war, the aggressor will strive to achieve overwhelming superiority in forces, which will guarantee him success in the very first blows. Even in a limited military conflict, the number of Air Force groups in the event of preparation for an attack on Russia can reach one and a half to two thousand vehicles for various purposes. In addition, there will be five to seven aircraft carriers with 400 – 500 deck-based aircraft, at least 50 – 60 of other surface ships of various classes and up to 20 – 25 multi-purpose nuclear submarines, as well as a significant part of strategic aviation. With sea and air carriers can be used within the first two or three days to 1000 – 1500 strategic cruise missiles in the usual equipment. A group of US Army, NATO and their allies can reach 500 thousand people and more. Significant logistic and technical support systems will be deployed. The total number of groups of the Armed Forces of a potential aggressor can be up to a million people even in a local war.

Russia will be able to oppose a grouping of forces that is inferior to an aggressor three to five times or more, depending on the state of the country and its Armed Forces. In the conditions of the overwhelming numerical and qualitative superiority of the enemy, the outcome of the armed confrontation in the case of Russia's passive waiting for an attack is obvious - a guaranteed defeat of our armed forces.

However, the success of the aggressor is ensured only under the condition of clearly coordinated use of his troops. The high level of dependence of the effectiveness of actions of some forces on the results of others creates favorable conditions for disrupting the productive actions of the aggressor. So, without conquering air superiority, subsequent operations by ground forces, airborne landing operations are unlikely.

Therefore, by disrupting the VNO with the infliction of tangible casualties on the enemy’s aircraft, it is possible to prevent including a subsequent air campaign, as well as land and sea landing operations.

A warning strike is possible and valid.

A proactive defeat of the enemy aviation grouping and its basing system will significantly reduce the composition of forces in the first and subsequent strikes, significantly reduce the intensity of its actions, and increase the time intervals between impacts. As a result, the first and subsequent massed rocket and air strikes will be foiled or substantially weakened, which will not allow the aggressor to solve the problem of defeating the Air Force and destroying the main part of tactical nuclear weapons in the very first days of combat operations. This will translate the armed struggle in the air into a protracted phase and jeopardize the success of the whole operation, if only because the aggressor will face the danger of a reciprocal use of nuclear weapons from Russia. Understanding this, a potential aggressor will most likely refuse an invasion. The very fact that our country is capable of delivering a preemptive strike against the grouping of an aggressor under conditions when an attack is clearly inevitable can force a potential aggressor to abandon attempts to use military force against Russia.

Thus, we can talk about the implementation of strategic non-nuclear deterrence by the threat of preemptive strikes against groups of troops. It can be based on the fact that a potential aggressor, even if a decision is made to attack, will be difficult or impossible to create such attack groups that are capable of delivering a decisive blow to the Russian armed forces in a short time.

Reliable and timely opening of the fact of preparation and the moment of the actual beginning of the aggression against Russia today is not a problem. Signs of preparation of the invasion will be enough.

Creating a significant grouping of the aggressor and the deployment of its logistics system will require a long time and vigorous activity. It will be practically impossible to hide this from our intelligence (the example of the start of World War II is incorrect - then there was no such variety of technical means of intelligence, in particular space, which allows for detailed control of the territory of foreign states and the movement of their strategic groupings of troops).

To justify aggression, an information campaign will surely unfold, an active and powerful political and diplomatic pressure on the country's leadership, including through the UN. It is quite possible, given the status of Russia as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, steps will be taken to discredit and neutralize this organization.

A coalition of aggressor states will be formed. It is unlikely that any country will independently decide to invade the territory of Russia or its closest allies.

In such conditions, when the inevitability of the invasion becomes quite obvious in the near future, a preemptive strike on the prepared troops of the aggressor will be fully justified. Especially if this blow will have exclusively on the objects of the aggressor troops and its logistic and technical support systems.

The purpose of such a strike should be to disrupt the first VNO of the aggressor.

However, a preemptive strike must be such as to exclude the possibility of Russia being accused of aggression. This determines the very limited timeframe for its application: from the moment of the completion of the operational deployment of groups of forces and the adoption of a strategic decision at the beginning of hostilities by the invader until the moment of the start of the strike.

Accordingly, a preemptive preventive strike and a retaliatory preventive strike can be distinguished.

The first of them is applied from the moment when the inevitability of the beginning of aggression in the near future became apparent, and before the start of the mass take-off of enemy aircraft and the launch of cruise missiles and the actions to suppress our air defense system. That is, this strike is aimed at preventing the operational surprise of an aggressor's attack, when the strategic surprise of them has already been lost - the fact that the attack is inevitable is obvious. An analysis of the outbreak of wars unleashed by the United States and its allies in the 21st century, particularly in Iraq, shows that this situation can last from several hours to several days. In the course of such a preventive strike, it is possible to inflict the most severe defeat on the aggressor’s air force. From a strategic point of view, this is the most favorable course of action. However, it is politically difficult - there will be problems with justifying such steps.

The second variant of a preventive strike implies its application from the moment of the appearance of irreversible signs of the onset of aggression - a massive suppression of the air defense system's RES, launches of cruise missiles, the beginning of a mass take-off of aviation, up to the fall of the first missiles on the country, the destruction of our aircraft in the air. The duration of this period is very small - one and a half to two hours (the time required for the flight of cruise missiles, as well as the construction and flight to the targets of the first echelon of the MPAU, primarily fighters clearing the airspace and the air defense breakthrough groups). From a strategic point of view, this is a less favorable course of action, since it does not allow for a significant defeat of aviation at aerodromes, but it is more favorable from a political point of view.

In the course of a preemptive strike, it is of utmost importance to ensure the assured infliction of such a defeat on the enemy, which will make it possible to disrupt the effective conduct of the first VNO. This is achieved by the correct choice of objects and means of destruction used.

The variety of forces and means involved in the VNO, the developed infrastructure does not allow to ensure its complete defeat in the framework of one strike. However, it is possible to identify a certain set of objects, the defeat of which most effectively reduces the effectiveness of the entire strike force and the organization of the strike on which is the most simple. These are mainly stationary objects, determining the effective use of aviation groups. Their defeat can be clearly planned in advance on the basis of detailed intelligence information, which will be enough time to collect. The areas of location of these objects must be accessible to Russian means of destruction, allow them to strike in a short time, without requiring a complex organization of the strike and attraction during the strike itself of a significant amount of support forces. Accordingly, in the course of a preventive strike, it is advisable to concentrate the main efforts on the defeat:

main airfields based tactical aviation in areas where it can participate in VNO. With blows on them, on the one hand, it is possible to destroy a significant part of aircraft based, on the other hand, to prevent the takeoff of those who survived due to the destruction of the runway, to reduce the available resource due to the disruption of the technical support system. Modern combat aircraft can effectively operate only from well-equipped large air bases. The use of relatively small aerodromes dispersed, with no developed rear infrastructure, significantly reduces the disposable aviation resource. Therefore, the main part of the aggressor’s aviation will probably be based on large airfield hubs, the number of which can be estimated at no more than two or three dozen;
ground command and control points of the operational and tactical level, which play an important role in the management of the aggressor’s aviation forces during the first air operation. The total number of such objects, according to the experience of wars of the 21st century, can be estimated in 15 – 20;
the largest land depots and depots of ammunition and fuel and lubricants operational and strategic rear. The total number of such objects can be up to 20 – 30.


Defeating other targets of the aggressor’s attack force will be either difficult to accomplish (for example, submarines, aircraft carrier formations and groups of surface ships with SLCM constantly maneuvering and having a powerful defense system), or their defeat will not significantly reduce the combat capabilities of the enemy group as a whole.

Another important factor is the choice of means of destruction. The logic of a preemptive strike on highly protected ground targets under conditions of complete control of the airspace by enemy enemy aircraft and in the presence of a powerful grouping of its fighter aviation uniquely identifies long-range cruise missiles, X-555 and X-101, as the primary means of destruction.

The volume of fire missions of a preventive strike determines the required number of these weapons - around 1000 – 1200 units.

The existing composition of strategic and long-range aviation, provided that the fleet is modernized, giving it the possibility of using strategic non-nuclear missiles is able to use cruise missiles in an attack up to 800. The rest can be launched from submarines and surface ships. The open source data on the shipbuilding program of Russia allows a rough estimate of the maximum possible salvo of sea-based cruise missiles in 250 – 300 units.

Of exceptional importance for a successful preventive strike is the reconnaissance and surveillance system, which should ensure the timely opening of the enemy's strike aviation basing system and real-time tracking of changes in the deployment of its aviation, as well as the identification of operational masking measures applied by it.

Political and diplomatic support

In order for the potential aggressors to work non-nuclear strategic deterrence by the threat of preemptive strikes against groups of troops, proper political and diplomatic support is necessary.

First, it is necessary to make appropriate changes to the governing documents governing the organization of the country's defense, in which the procedure and conditions for the application of preventive strikes should be determined.

Secondly, to make a political statement, declare in it the determination of Russia to deliver a preemptive strike if it is established that military aggression is inevitable. At the same time, clearly formulate the signs and criteria on the basis of which the Russian leadership can decide on a preemptive strike.

Thirdly, to achieve the adoption of international legal acts legalizing preventive strikes as a legitimate tool for protection against imminent aggression. At the same time, a clear system of signs and criteria for the inevitability of aggression and the conditions for the legality of a preemptive strike should be fixed at the international level.

Fourth, to conduct a series of demonstrative exercises with the development of the application of preventive strikes.

On the whole, it can be stated that the creation of a high-quality material base for a preventive strike, with appropriate political and diplomatic support, will be an important factor in strategic non-nuclear deterrence, which can significantly reduce the level of military threats to Russia.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/19370
80 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Igor39
    Igor39 8 March 2014 06: 53
    +66
    A preemptive strike must be struck against the current financial system and the dollar in particular.
    1. Sakhalininsk
      Sakhalininsk 8 March 2014 07: 22
      +20
      It’s like a vigorous bomb, but across London, as it were, a knife in the heart of the brazen-Saxon world.
      1. rc56
        rc56 9 March 2014 01: 05
        +1
        On a submarine, with a nuclear engine.wmv
        http://youtu.be/1PanHTitxaU
        1. Akuzenka
          Akuzenka 10 March 2014 19: 30
          0
          Song 88-89, then I heard it for the first time
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 8 March 2014 17: 54
      +9
      Quote: Igor39
      A preemptive strike must be struck against the current financial system and the dollar in particular.

      In the current situation, when the enemy already has the opportunity to commit aggression against Russia, this is useless (although you can try).
      I will explain a little.
      The EU and the US are already on the verge of an economic collapse.
      This is confirmed by factual information regularly coming from there for a long time.
      In the EU, there are well-known financial problems and problems with energy and other strategically vital material resources for the EU.
      The United States is economically, in fact, a bankrupt country with a huge public debt.
      But mind you, this has little effect on the foreign policy and aggressive actions of the leadership of these countries, which gives reason to believe that the governments of these countries are determined to do everything and "not stand behind the price" to inflict such a blow on our country from which it will no longer be able to exist as a state in general. Under this "shop" it is planned to occupy the territory of Russia containing most of the minerals in order to reimburse their costs for the war. That is, the actual plunder of our country.
      And this and only this policy is considered there to be the most appropriate and practical, for the reasons stated above.
      So economically, they can hardly be crushed so that they are not before the war.
      In this situation, the leadership of our country is required not to oversleep as at 41m and to take the necessary measures, otherwise there is a big risk of losing Russia as a country forever.
    4. wax
      wax 8 March 2014 20: 51
      +1
      Look at the root! This is precisely the reason for world and regional wars.
      1. Petrix
        Petrix 10 March 2014 12: 12
        0
        Quote: Wax
        Look at the root! This is precisely the reason for world and regional wars.

        The reason is the underdevelopment of individuals, in which the animal-egoistic tendencies to dominate and dominate are not suppressed by the logical-natural concepts of harmony in conflict-free development. This is due to the evolutionary backwardness of the development of their intelligence.
        The financial system is one of the tools, and not the main one.
  2. poccinin
    poccinin 8 March 2014 07: 05
    +25
    cover a couple of cities in Europe and the war is over. the main thing is to disable GPS. without electronics they are not warriors. yes and their mail is too short to fight with RUSSIA. there will be a big bloody fight. it will not be IRAQ AND NOT YUGOSLAVIA. WE ARE RUSSIAN FOR 1000 years 300 years of war and campaigns
  3. -Patriot-
    -Patriot- 8 March 2014 08: 13
    +14
    Russia needs to make amendments to its concept of warfare by including the notorious preventive strike there, otherwise it’s true that it doesn’t matter. Why are we worse? They have one year in their honor, it’s always a preventive strike))) )))
    1. ed65b
      ed65b 9 March 2014 16: 00
      +1
      Quote: -Patriot-
      Russia needs to make amendments to its concept of warfare by including the notorious preventive strike there, otherwise it’s true that it doesn’t matter. Why are we worse? They have one year in their honor, it’s always a preventive strike))) )))

      He already is, and nuclear.
  4. ruslan207
    ruslan207 8 March 2014 08: 45
    +7
    Well, these are fantasies of the Su-35 aircraft carrier bombing, it makes the Tu-22 for this, it was created
    1. Ruslan
      Ruslan 8 March 2014 14: 04
      +5
      times change. Su-35s can now quite successfully take up this business. good speed, avionics, range of flight with cargo, refueling system. and in the near future will appear Bramos-m, for airplanes. Su-35 will be able to drag two or three of these. Why not replace the Tu-22m3?
      1. ruslan207
        ruslan207 8 March 2014 14: 19
        +1
        That 22 missiles are shot at 700 km. This is an aircraft carrier. There are a lot of planes on it. Su35 is good for cover.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. clidon
        clidon 8 March 2014 14: 25
        +2
        And you yourself guess. ) The fact is that these are aircraft of different weight categories. And accordingly, different possibilities. That for one is a regular task, for another there was a tear.
        1. not main
          not main 9 March 2014 01: 22
          +2
          1982! Argentine fighter + French anti-ship missile "exoset" and minus frigate "Sheffield" One missile! I am writing from memory, if where is the wrong transcription, I beg your pardon!
          1. clidon
            clidon 9 March 2014 08: 55
            +1
            What does the attack on the destroyer Sheffield have to do with it if I spoke for the Tu-22 and Su-35? The Su-35 is not a very complete replacement for a long-range bomber in anti-ship warfare. And in that conflict near the Falklands, ships were sunk with ordinary iron pots. )
            1. Sergey Vl.
              Sergey Vl. 10 March 2014 02: 18
              0
              No need to argue! Su-35 in such a coloring looks more impressive against the background of a burning AUG than a monophonic Tu-22. In nature, no one is going to swing over them, such "relatives" must be "loved" from afar ...
  5. vladstro
    vladstro 8 March 2014 08: 52
    +11
    Well, well, this is not Iraq, not Libya, not Afghanistan, where you can fly and bomb with impunity, here the guys have to fall and not the fact that they always have a parachute, but about the ground operation, let's be kind enough to feed you even if you want, so that even the thought of war with Russia.
    1. asar
      asar 8 March 2014 15: 33
      +3
      well, I don’t know, how about “I don’t want the most”! we harness it for a long time, but then we go fast! and about the preemptive strike - you're right! wrote in the comments about this more than once! I will repeat once more - and we do not bast soup, however !!! since amers are allowed, why don't we hit it !? and in general, what are "Americans", and with what to "eat" it !? Where is Russia, with its centuries-old history, and what is "USA", with its "KUTSEY HISTORY" !? What is the USA? so-so! so you will say, against your will: "what is allowed to us, the bull is not allowed" !!! after a multi-walk of our government, I began to respect our country! Vivat, Russia !!! keep it up!!!
      1. zarya
        zarya 9 March 2014 09: 44
        +3
        Quote: asar
        after many steps of our power, he began to respect our country! Vivat, Russia !!! keep it up!!!


        I completely agree: leaders are judged by the results, this is a very ancient tradition, and so must be.
    2. kplayer
      kplayer 11 March 2014 00: 20
      0
      Quote: vladstro
      ... about the land operation, let’s ask you to feed us at the most reluctance, so that even the thought of a war with Russia is forever knocked out.

      WORLD OF TANKS? Russian Rambo!?
      How impressionable teenagers are after reading! "Abrams" today in the European theater of operations "in the daytime with fire will not find" (exaggerating).
    3. The comment was deleted.
  6. mountain
    mountain 8 March 2014 08: 58
    +16
    Thanks to the author, there is something to think about. And the law of preemptive strike must be adopted.
    1. raven75
      raven75 8 March 2014 18: 58
      +2
      It has long been adopted.
      1. zarya
        zarya 9 March 2014 09: 45
        0
        Can you get a reference to this law?
        1. ed65b
          ed65b 9 March 2014 16: 01
          0
          Quote: zarya
          You can get a reference to this law

          Googling, you will find this is not a law-doctrine.
  7. Coffee_time
    Coffee_time 8 March 2014 09: 52
    +6
    As far as I remember, we can deliver a nuclear strike in certain conditions
  8. Aleksandr
    Aleksandr 8 March 2014 10: 14
    0
    The right to strike, as I thought, but to limit ourselves to remember Afghanistan and the 57th parallel in Korea
    1. Sergey Vl.
      Sergey Vl. 10 March 2014 06: 54
      0
      In Korea, the 38th parallel ...
  9. gregor6549
    gregor6549 8 March 2014 10: 16
    -3
    People, what kind of blow are we talking about? Everything was already and pretty badly ended in June 41go. The opposite side, too, does not doze off. And who has this blow will be the first big question. History teaches, teaches, but cannot teach anything
    1. 0255
      0255 8 March 2014 12: 12
      +9
      Quote: gregor6549
      People, what kind of blow are we talking about? Everything was already and pretty badly ended in June 41go. The opposite side, too, does not doze off. And who has this blow will be the first big question. History teaches, teaches, but cannot teach anything

      Stalin in the late 1930s invited the British and French to deliver a preemptive strike on Germany until Hitler created a strong army. But England and France refused, hoping that Hitler would attack the USSR.
      1. asar
        asar 8 March 2014 15: 35
        +3
        Well, they are bastards, WEST! Well, what to think of!
      2. ver_
        ver_ 9 March 2014 05: 39
        0
        Do not write to the switch at night, there will be a circuit and you will lose an important organ in the most favorable outcome ....
      3. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 9 March 2014 10: 23
        0
        And the most interesting thing is that they attacked Germany themselves in 1939 without waiting for Germany and the USSR to have a common land border. laughing
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 8 March 2014 14: 26
      +3
      Quote: gregor6549
      People, what kind of blow are we talking about?

      In my opinion, the article is somehow young. Of course, you can reflect on that about this.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 9 March 2014 03: 56
        +5
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        In my opinion, the article is somehow young.

        Michael, no less than your surprised opus respected author. In addition to the fact that the threat analysis is based on the example of the first air offensive operation (UPO), the idea of ​​which relates to the 80 years of the last century. Then there was EKR-air. cosmoper .-- and the modern BSU and Moscow State University (fast and instant global blows), the author has not a word about them.
        Bloopers are striking: how is the term "retaliatory preventive strike"? The term contains mutually exclusive concepts. "Retaliatory-oncoming" means that the enemy has launched a base attack, but the means of destruction have not yet reached their targets on our territory. What kind of "preemptive" blow from our side is there? Nonses!
        The article is dated 5.03.2014 of the year, but the impression is that it is taken from the zashnik. As if the author is not familiar with the military doctrine of the Russian Federation and the rationale for the use of nuclear weapons. Paragraph 22 indicates that nuclear weapons can be used “in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against Russia and / or its allies, as well as in the case of aggression against the Russian Federation using conventional weapons, when the very existence is compromised state ". Russia reserves the right to a first (preventive) nuclear strike in the event of aggression against it, regardless of whether its adversary possesses nuclear weapons or not. Critical is only the existence of a threat to the existence of the state.
        The Russian Federation will not use nuclear weapons against states that do not have nuclear weapons, except in the event of an attack on the Russian Federation, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation or other troops, its allies, or on the state with which it has security obligations,
        These provisions completely erase all the author’s arguments about the scale of the attack on the RF Armed Forces, the destruction of its nuclear weapons and so on.
        So the question arises: where is our science looking?
  10. Spasatel
    Spasatel 8 March 2014 10: 21
    +10
    Perhaps, everything is logical in the article. After the criminal collapse of the USSR, no one could give up the US glove, which they used. Think about it, come to a sovereign state (Iraq), bomb it, hang the leader !!! For what? Everything turned out to be a bluff and a deception! And if the same is done with the States, how is it? Obama on a bitch with a rope around his neck, that's cool !!! How do you like this prospect, my striped "partners"?
    Now we have no choice but to go to the end. Traitors and drunkards at the helm of the state did everything to make the American ki feel at ease and calm, allowing ALL !!! If only once in all this time they got the teeth, as it was in Korea, Vietnam ...
    Unfortunately, there was no one to do it. Now we must be tough and decisive. In no case do not get involved in military clashes with Ukraine, since only the West is seeking this.
    But the fact that we can go all the way and wash the States with blood - this should be very clear to them.
    1. asar
      asar 8 March 2014 15: 42
      +3
      or maybe unleash a kind of "Chechen campaign", but only against the United States? what? base - in mexico! the state of new mexico goes to secede from the usa! and a complete repetition of our Caucasian events, perhaps with a transfer to another territory! yes under our control! than not a preemptive strike on the territory of a potential enemy, and a strike with a long-term perspective!
      1. Kir
        Kir 8 March 2014 17: 44
        +1
        Asar, in fact, why go so deep so far, it’s enough to indicate that the attacks were carried out on terrorist training bases, and it’s pure truth that they exist in the territories of the SGA and Canada, one wonders if they can use force even under false pretexts, striking everything, then We surgically precisely at the bases and financial institutions sponsoring them.
      2. sesame
        sesame 8 March 2014 22: 39
        +2
        I agree. The war in the United States should go on the principle of color revolutions, at the expense (by forces) of the Americans themselves. In my opinion, this is the only tool that can destroy America painlessly for us. But for this it is necessary to conduct colossal training. Their security service is also on the alert.
        1. Petrix
          Petrix 10 March 2014 12: 38
          0
          Quote: sezam
          at the expense of (the forces) of the Americans themselves.

          Now we need to learn how to win the information war. Here, Russia is on the defensive. The result of the training is the removal of the threats of revolution and separatism in one's own country. After that, according to the laws of the genre and history, there will be a counteroffensive (in the info-war, of course).
          And a victory over the USA and the whole world, but not with tanks, but in a battle of ideas and concepts. The victory of a fair development concept over the exploitative concept of God's chosen people.
  11. Rus2012
    Rus2012 8 March 2014 11: 14
    +4
    Right to strike


    It’s necessary to think that our main components of a preventive, reciprocal and counter strike are not asleep (Perimeter-RC) ...
    Here are the latest data on their work.
    Yuryanskaya RD is a special component; it is not part of the strategic nuclear forces. Armed with a complex of command missiles 15Ж75 on a mobile chassis. Who has an idea of ​​the Strategic Missile Forces knows ...
    Strategic Missile Forces of Russia conducts a sudden check of the combat readiness of the Yuryansk missile compound

    MOSCOW, 29 January 2014
    Read more: http://www.arms-expo.ru/049051124051052055055052.html
    From January 27 to January 31, the Commission of the Strategic Missile Forces Command (Strategic Rocket Forces) conducts a sudden check of the combat readiness and alert status of the Yuryansk missile compound.

    During the inspection, the commission, headed by the chief of the operational control of the Strategic Missile Forces, Colonel Sergei Savelyev, is studying the state of affairs in the command of the compound, missile regiments and other parts.

    Our correspondent was told about this in the press service and information department of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.

    At the same time, special attention is paid to the readiness of the on-duty forces of the compound to carry out tasks for the mission and practical development of tasks for the withdrawal of missile regiment units to field positions. In the future, the practice of sudden checks of combat readiness and the state of alert on the Strategic Missile Forces formations will continue.

    On 23 January, the Strategic Rocket Forces also conducted a sudden comprehensive training of control points for the links of the subsystem of the Unified System for identifying and assessing the extent and consequences of the use of weapons of mass destruction and accidents (destruction) at radiation, chemically and biologically hazardous facilities (ESDP).

    The training involved the 4 control center of the ESVOP Strategic Missile Forces subsystem of a number of missile compounds, which received and processed about 20 reports on the RBM situation. During the training, the settlement and analytical groups made marches to control points, and also took part in solving the information and settlement tasks to assess the extent and consequences of the use of biological weapons by the enemy, prepared conclusions and proposals on the actions of troops in the conditions of infection.
    Read more: http://www.arms-expo.ru/049051124051052055055052.html
  12. psychologist
    psychologist 8 March 2014 11: 17
    +15
    I don’t know how about a preemptive strike, and the aggressor’s illusions that we can’t retaliate should not take shape !!! I don’t think that in the event of an attack on Russia, our command posts will first of all give the order to bomb their airfields, warehouses and AUGs (no, of course they will answer, this is even at the reflex level), rather they will give the order to bomb all aggressor countries whole !! and our opponents must understand this and not come up with adventurous ideas! whoever comes to us with a sword will fall off poplars !!! Amen! crying
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. PSih2097
      PSih2097 8 March 2014 11: 54
      +12
      Quote: psychologist
      and our opponents must understand this and not come up with adventurous ideas! whoever comes to us with a sword will fall off poplars !!! Amen! crying

      Previously, Russians hugged a birch tree and cried bitterly, but now they hug "Poplar" and smile badly. (c) Folk wisdom ...
      1. raven75
        raven75 8 March 2014 19: 12
        +3
        Why everyone clung to this "Poplar". The complex is cool and agile. The rocket is capable of launching almost on the move, it is unrealistic to shoot down ... But do we only have a Topol? No, there are nukes for cannons, nukes for planes, etc. etc. Finally, there is a real nightmare for the West-R-36M. We have a "Voevoda", they call it Satan.
        1. gfhjkm
          gfhjkm 9 March 2014 15: 45
          0
          Now it’s clear why, the United States was trying to sign a CTB3 with us to reduce nuclear forces by 2015 or 2016. There is still GDP and Obama wrote letters to each other. Here it turns out why.
    3. raven75
      raven75 8 March 2014 19: 04
      +2
      FROM "poplars"? No, for this case, the USSR / Russia has more creepy missiles.
  13. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 8 March 2014 11: 29
    +11
    Why justify something. If the war is lost, no excuses will no longer help anyone (Milosevic). If it is won, the winner by right of power imposes his conditions on the post-war world by the losers and no excuses are needed. And they will understand and forgive) You just have to be prepared for the fact that you have to go to the end, but all the same, sooner or later we will all die, although life is of course more interesting.
  14. Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 8 March 2014 11: 31
    +2
    CONGRATULATIONS TO THE AUTHOR! WONDERFUL ARTICLE.
  15. Kolyan 2
    Kolyan 2 8 March 2014 11: 44
    +5
    [quote = chunga-changa] Why justify something. If the war is lost, no excuses will no longer help anyone (Milosevic). If it is won, the winner by right of power imposes his conditions on the post-war world by the losers and no excuses are needed. And they will understand and forgive) You just have to be prepared for the fact that you have to go to the end, but all the same, sooner or later we will all die, although life is of course more interesting.quote]
    Who minus you, I think is not adequate, but in my opinion you said to the point hi
  16. Michael KG
    Michael KG 8 March 2014 11: 56
    +2
    For comparison, and only ...
    Now, if only to assume that an unfamiliar, and aggressive person came to your home. Who has a weapon with him, and is clearly trying to put it into action, will you wait for the moment when this person applies his strength against you? I believe that vryatli!
    So what to do? Answer proactively in order to protect themselves and their loved ones, or to start to sit down and so calmly and politically discuss in advance: who will beat whom first?
  17. Asan Ata
    Asan Ata 8 March 2014 11: 58
    +5
    Thanks to the author for the article. Material like a cold shower will soothe violent ones. But, judge for yourself, the ability to respond to aggression is determined by a sober public analysis of events. hi
  18. clidon
    clidon 8 March 2014 12: 29
    +2
    I honestly didn't understand what the article was about. I reread the author's sentences twice and still did not understand. Actually, a "preemptive" strike has never (except for a nuclear one during the Soviet era) been ruled out as a means of warfare by the Russian Armed Forces. And then everything goes into the plane of the real capabilities of our conventional (non-nuclear) forces, and according to the author, there is just a long list of what THEY can and what we would very much like (regardless of whether it is the first strike or response) to US.
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 8 March 2014 13: 02
      +3
      Quote: clidon
      Actually, a "preventive" strike was never ruled out (except for a nuclear one during Soviet times)

      In the days of the Soviet Union, the preventive was not ruled out. Except maybe - in the era of the "marked" ...

      Politburo: "in the conditions of impossibility of eliminating by peaceful means the inevitable aggression of the imperialist states, in order to protect the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of our country and allies, the Armed Forces of the Soviet Union - reserve the right - a preemptive nuclear strike on all potential targets on the territories of potential enemies. 41- th year must not be repeated. "

      The quote is not literal, but the meaning is ...
      1. clidon
        clidon 8 March 2014 13: 51
        0
        In the days of the Soviet Union, the preventive was not ruled out. Except maybe - in the era of the "marked" ...

        Under Brezhnev, it was officially declared that the USSR would not use nuclear weapons first.
        1. Rus2012
          Rus2012 8 March 2014 14: 43
          +2
          Quote: clidon
          In the days of the Soviet Union, the preventive was not ruled out. Except maybe - in the era of the "marked" ...

          Under Brezhnev, it was officially declared that the USSR would not use nuclear weapons first.

          mb against non-nuclear powers ...
          But - "start at the designated time"- no one has ever canceled ...
  19. dFG
    dFG 8 March 2014 12: 53
    +3
    the article is relevant .. the last section "political and diplomatic support" could not have been written, it does not work very well now .... in principle, since they write about the problem, they know about it) and therefore it is necessary to calculate the forces so that the total number of losses of enemy aircraft in the first sorties were 60-70 aircraft in airplanes, plus the next 50-60 for each, naturally irrecoverable losses ... I think our western partners are not ready to die so massively))
  20. TT1968
    TT1968 8 March 2014 13: 26
    +7
    And why be limited to conventional weapons ??? If such a grouping-AUG, multipurpose submarines, ground and air carrier platforms of the Kyrgyz Republic, begins to accumulate near the borders of Russia, then there can only be one conclusion-WAR ON THE THRESHOLD. And what will be the guarantee that the warheads of the aggressor will be NON-NUCLEAR ???
    That is why I think that if a preventive strike is made, it must be NUCLEAR, and let the "sworn friends" know this and do not indulge themselves with illusions.
    And they scolded about the "political efect" - the mindless !!! If Russia loses, all mortal sins will hang on it, and if it wins, then no one dares to fart without permission!
    Therefore, a loss is equivalent to the end of Russia as a State and is UNACCEPTABLE by definition !!!
    FOR VICTORY ALL MEANS ARE GOOD !!!!
    1. clidon
      clidon 8 March 2014 13: 50
      +1
      And why be limited to conventional weapons ???

      Then, I want to live.
  21. Leshka
    Leshka 8 March 2014 13: 47
    0
    and if really war we can at least something to oppose?
  22. bulvas
    bulvas 8 March 2014 14: 52
    +4
    It is clear that Russia is not Iraq and Afghanistan, but the author is right in the main: you need to prepare properly, then no one will climb
    1. stas451
      stas451 8 March 2014 15: 07
      +4
      I agree with the author. But one must also win the information war, the war in the minds of the enemy.
      1. MBA78
        MBA78 10 March 2014 15: 03
        0
        Add this "information war" to the basket, let these striped roosters play in it, and the aggressor must be scared or punished with such a weapon so that a second desire "in the enemy's minds" to show aggression does not arise.
  23. gregor6549
    gregor6549 8 March 2014 17: 17
    0
    Both before and after the Second World War, until the collapse of the USSR, a preventive strike lay at the heart of the military doctrine of the USSR. And if in the pre-nuclear era such a strike could still be considered as a method of providing some serious advantages at the initial stage of hostilities, then with the advent of nuclear weapons and means of early detection of ballistic and other missiles, there would be no use other than the harm from a preventive strike can. Only amateurs can say the opposite. Those. of course you can shoot first, but also get a completely adequate answer too. And then there will be no one to argue on this topic. So it would not hurt to remember especially cocky
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 9 March 2014 01: 25
      +2
      Quote: gregor6549
      with the advent of nuclear missiles and means of early detection of ballistic and other missiles, there can be no use other than harm from a preventive strike. Only amateurs can claim the opposite.

      Gregory! I have never read a more categorical and naive judgment about a preemptive strike! What do you think: amateurs are developing a quick (and then instant) global strike in the USA? Then the US President had to disperse the Pentagon back in 2003, when this idea was just born! At the same time, to declare that they are not going to be the first to attack anyone, and all plans, starting with "Unthinkable", were an unforgivable mistake.
      Popular wisdom says: "How many wolves do not feed ..."
      1. gregor6549
        gregor6549 9 March 2014 09: 44
        0
        Alexander, and apart from "naivety and categoricalness" you haven't considered anything else in my commentary. If not, then sorry. What kind of "quick" or "instant" impact are we talking about? You can, of course, ensure the flight time of missiles up to several minutes when hitting countries neighboring with Russia and expect that they simply will not have time to react. But after all, the flight time to the United States is calculated in tens of minutes, and they are more than enough to detect a very fast strike and deliver an equally slow retaliatory strike, especially taking into account the fact that the territory of Russia has long been viewed almost entirely by ground, sea, air and space surveillance equipment of the United States and NATO countries. Or maybe you are going to inflict a "strong quick blow" on third countries on the principle of you on our Iraq and we on your "Mumba Yumba" and see who will be worse? Also, of course, an option. Moreover, it is completely not naive, but very categorical. Or again you will carry the missiles to Cuba, like Khrushchev. He, too, hoped for a very quick preemptive and unrequited strike against the imperialists. Everyone knows how it ended. And it's also good that we managed to release everything on the brakes. After all, the red buttons on both sides were already on "tovs". Don't you remember that? I remember well
        1. Petrix
          Petrix 10 March 2014 13: 09
          +1
          No need to confuse a preemptive strike with a weapon of retaliation. The USSR’s nuclear doctrine was based on an inevitable response in the event that the United States uses nuclear weapons against us. One of the conditions for missiles and a control system is to work from the territory affected by a nuclear explosion, even without human intervention.
          In contrast, the United States does not base its security on a war not on its borders (much less on its territory).
          A preemptive strike, I believe, is the delivery of a more powerful response, including tactical nuclear weapons, in the event of an attack on the territory of Russia (whether it is a provocation or not) against the enemy’s grouping (preferably aircraft carrier in neutral waters near the borders of Russia).
          And do not be afraid of accusations of a world nuclear war. Adequate will understand, and the opinion of inadequate do not care.
  24. Kostya pedestrian
    Kostya pedestrian 8 March 2014 17: 21
    +1
    Some kind of cattle freemasonry! Does the satellite really not truncate this coloring over the sea? By the way, what is the name of the aircraft carrier in the collage?

    By the way, nuclear submarines are much more effective against aircraft carriers, or medium-range cruise missiles4; and for the rest, I completely share the point of view of the patrol in "State Border of the USSR" series 5: Provocation = a crime punishable by law!
  25. chinararem
    chinararem 8 March 2014 20: 05
    0
    Funny photo in the article. I have the original source of the photograph of this bird of ours. Good - no words, only few of them are with us yet!
  26. Grandfather Victor
    Grandfather Victor 8 March 2014 20: 20
    +3
    It seems that it is time to move from an economy of plunder and plundering of Russia's resources and "sterilization" of funds received in other people's "securities", to an economy of mobilizing all the resources and capabilities of the country for the fastest high-tech development. Delaying death is like ... You need political will and determination to abandon the destructive thieves' liberalism. Imperial politics - imperial economy!
  27. wax
    wax 8 March 2014 21: 07
    +3
    All billionaires, citizens of Russia, must take an oath of allegiance to their homeland - Russia, in which (the oath) should be the words that in the event of a threat to Russia, all its funds and capital belong to Russia. Those who did not swear such oath and were not citizens are from Russia (Ukraine is an example of the destructive anti-people’s essence of the oligarchs). And this is not so much for them, because ordinary citizens lay their lives on the altar of the motherland.
    1. Kir
      Kir 8 March 2014 21: 53
      0
      So for the most part this citizenship is purely nominal - a stamp in the Passport and no more, and as soon as we even talk about the oath, the stench from all sorts of differently progressive and different Mr. be assured be calm! The mere fact that rare-earth metals first of all go mound, and does not go to the needs of the Fatherland, sorry says a lot.
  28. homosum20
    homosum20 8 March 2014 22: 27
    0
    We talk about some problems that even children have solved for themselves, in the fifth grade. Everyone has long known that the best way of defense is attack. What are spears to break about? Write in the law yes with an end.
  29. Alex_Sis
    Alex_Sis 8 March 2014 22: 57
    +3
    maybe "military iksperd" Sivkov will explain where 5-7 aircraft carriers and 60 other ships will sail to strike?
    and also, where will be accommodated 1500 - 2000 aircraft and 500000 personnel?
  30. Megatron
    Megatron 9 March 2014 05: 26
    0
    They will never attack. Even at their first raid they will receive "unacceptable losses" and their land will start to burn on all fronts.
    1. Kir
      Kir 9 March 2014 15: 05
      0
      They themselves will not attack, they will find someone to push into exploits, as they say they are not in the first.
  31. adler
    adler 9 March 2014 10: 52
    0
    A great example is the six-day war of 1967, Israel vs Arabs. To learning the experience!
  32. bender8282
    bender8282 9 March 2014 14: 18
    +1
    no one will decide to unleash a nuclear war! our air defense system will not work, and the land landing of the required amount of infantry and equipment will not work ... the only option is military bases near our borders .. but will dare Europe become drawn into the third world ....
  33. ioann1
    ioann1 9 March 2014 18: 57
    0
    In any case, Russia must act as the situation requires. And within reason. Most importantly, partners must understand that Russia has the right to a preemptive strike.
  34. denkastro
    denkastro 9 March 2014 20: 17
    0
    Recently, changes were made to the military doctrine of the Russian Federation. The new version of the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation provides for the possibility of a preemptive nuclear strike against an aggressor in critical situations for national security. It was published and discussed on this site. It is strange that "in all seriousness" many do not know this.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. staryivoin
      staryivoin 9 March 2014 23: 39
      0
      This should be known to those who should know it. And those who are interested in knowing this.
      Everyone else, especially strongly democratic in Russia, does not need to know about this. These "transatlantic" planned a victory over RUSSIA during the "strategic air - offensive operation of the US and NATO armed forces" for 40-60 days. At worst, they think they will beat us in a year.
      This is what their drafts party looks like according to Mr. Brzezinski.
      I think when DAM made adjustments to the Military Doctrine of Russia, he understood what he was doing.
      Himself a native of the Strategic Missile Forces. Marked more than 800 days on the database. As we used to say, "The rocketeers won't let you down if they don't freeze at the top ..."
  35. staryivoin
    staryivoin 9 March 2014 23: 45
    0
    Very sorry for the combat missile system R-36M2 UTTH "Voevoda" (according to NATO classification "Satan"). Thanks to the "one-fingered" cut almost everything. A magnificent DBK from the toilet bowl in construction 2 to combat equipment, when even with a missile defense penetration complex, the "machine" could carry 14 nuclear warheads. And how they were afraid of us then
  36. denkastro
    denkastro 10 March 2014 00: 44
    +1
    Quote: staryivoin
    "The rocketeers won't let you down if they don't freeze up at the top!"
    This is true, our man doesn’t let him in a critical situation. And about 40-60 days, there have already been such figures, with their blitzkriegs, where they are now. We are few, but we can burst the ball, especially when there is nothing to lose. and this goes if you don’t rest, then everything - your feet will be wiped out and they will be forgotten that there were such Russians. VVP certainly understands all this and so far in my opinion the amateur is doing everything right.
    1. Petrix
      Petrix 10 March 2014 13: 18
      -1
      Quote: denkastro
      .And this goes if you don’t rest, then everything - your feet will be wiped out and they will be forgotten that there were such Russians.

      I support. It is better to decline civilization and again from stone axes than the final victory of fascism and the entry of the planet into space on the side of inferno. However, God also does not sleep. If the Russians fail in their mission, the cosmic cataclysm will correct.
  37. Crang
    Crang 10 March 2014 08: 10
    0
    No guys. With them you need to start a nuclear war in case of what. So these animals will not quit.
    1. MBA78
      MBA78 10 March 2014 15: 37
      0
      why ... no need for a nuclear war ... we urgently need to curb thermonuclear fusion and direct it in the right direction ... well, for example, into a laser beam and shoot down any evil spirits that flies where they are not asked ... or use it, for example - in the case of a massive attack, let's say "any pallosaty dgovna" no matter how modern and even somewhere beautiful it was ... here's free scrap metal and nuclear fuel for fusion ... although ... one low-power and maneuverable OUR racket as a present in the Pentagon, you can insert ,,, yes, such that they will not cross ... so that they know such a Russian phrase that-where-when
      1. clidon
        clidon 10 March 2014 17: 00
        0
        "-You can create a magic wand so that he waved it and all the enemies hit. Or here's an invisibility hat, put it on a tank or here's an airplane and that's it, the adversary rushes about, but he can't do anything, his guards strikes everywhere. ..
        - Private Sidorov, stop talking. Keep digging the trench! "
  38. vlad.1924
    vlad.1924 10 March 2014 09: 31
    0
    Urgently bring down the dollar and there will be no war ...
    1. clidon
      clidon 10 March 2014 17: 00
      0
      To buy or sell?
  39. nowarnow
    nowarnow 10 March 2014 12: 17
    0
    Quote: Igor39
    A preemptive strike must be struck against the current financial system and the dollar in particular.

    I completely agree. And also be ready at any time for the vaccine strike described in this article. And of course, in the event of an unfavorable development of the situation, do not stop using nuclear weapons.
  40. Kornilovets
    Kornilovets 10 March 2014 13: 28
    0
    Our whole story says the opposite, we slowly harness, but then there’s not enough room for everyone ...
  41. Jager
    Jager 10 March 2014 18: 20
    0
    Before the operation, the country will be destroyed politically, some of the top leadership will be bought. incl. command. The thought of a preemptive strike is a fairy tale. there will be no one to apply it. All hopes for stationary radars in their current quantity are nonsense. They are the first targets to be destroyed. And they will be demolished first, albeit with losses. And without a radar, any country is a training ground. In fact, except for a nuclear "club" in the event of a serious strike on the country, we have nothing, neither qualitatively nor quantitatively, we are not able to fight off NATO forces.
    Why did the West get to Ukraine? Because they "overslept" or did not want to deal with this problem. And she matured for a long time, but you have to portray "democracy"! Except for chatter from our politicians, you won't hear anything else, let alone actions ...
    But what about the Crimea, you ask? If they also push him back, I’ll get him out of here, because this will be a betrayal and the collapse of the entire already rotten "system".
    It is high time instead of Lavrov in the negotiations to replace Shoigu!
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 10 March 2014 18: 31
      0
      Quote: Jager
      If he’s also pushed back, I’ll get out of here,

      Judging by the comment already, though mentally, but dumped.
      Of these _

    2. Asgard
      Asgard 10 March 2014 18: 40
      +1
      Quote: Jager
      It is high time instead of Lavrov in the negotiations to replace Shoigu!

      Shoigu has an order from the Maltese cross for the collapse of the USSR ....
      You don’t need to buy it .... Masons just don’t give crosses)))Kozhugetovich-This is one of the shadow tools.

      On July 4, 2012, the Grand Master of the Sovereign Order of Malta visited Moscow for the first time in 200 years since Alexander I expelled the Maltese from the borders of the Russian Empire. Undoubtedly, the visit is dedicated to the celebration of the Nativity of John the Baptist on July 7. During a meeting with His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, the Grand Master M. Festing presented a particle of the Holy Cross as a gift to the Russian Orthodox Church. In addition to the usual protocol meetings, there was one more - a landmark one, during which on July 5 at the Italian Embassy, ​​the highest award of the Order of Malta was presented - the Knight's Military Cross to the former head of the Russian Emergencies Ministry SKShoigu. Upon presentation of the order, the Grand Master declared:
      -The decision was made to award Sergey Shoigu with a large cross in recognition of his contribution to the development of EMERCOM of Russia and the role he played in assisting. This award recognizes his contribution to strengthening the ties, friendship and cooperation between Russia and the Order of Malta.

      Here I have questions - what contribution “to the strengthening of ties, friendship and cooperation between Russia and the Order of Malta” did S.K.Shoigu make, what did he do for this, what goals and objectives did he solve? It is worth recalling that, together with S.K.Shoygu, the Knights Cross awarded are: B.A. Berezovsky, P.P. Borodin, G.E. Burbulis, M.S. Gorbachev, B.N. Yeltsin, V.V. Ilyushin, V.V. Kostikov, M.Yu. Lesin, S.F. Lisovsky, E.M. Primakov, A.V. Rutskoi, S.A. Filatov, M.Sh. Shaimiev, S.M. Shakhry , V.B. Yumashev, S.V. Yastrzhembsky. What does the former chief rescuer of Russia do in this company, which put the destruction of the great state of the USSR, the collapse of industry, science and education, the extinction of Russian people and the spiritual impoverishment of the nation as the main business of its life? The Knight's Cross is awarded by the Masonic Order for aiding the world behind the scenes in the destruction of Russian statehood, the Russian People ???????


      These are the thoughts of comrades (gloomy) .... The main thing is to draw the right conclusions and it is GOOD that not everything depends on the authorities of the corrupt (illegitimate)) with 149% in the electoral lists))))

      For some reason I remembered that in the movie "The Hunt for Red October" the captain of the submarine had two assistants, one was called Borodin (probably the one who received the Maltese cross (higher in the list)))
      and the second, whom the captain killed one of the first, Putin ????

      Initiations, I think, however, such a coincidence)))))))
      1. Akuzenka
        Akuzenka 10 March 2014 19: 32
        0
        It seems to me that Shoigu understood for a long time that how much ...... and hung up a cross in the need.
        And the Maltese, in those years were replaced by the Naglichansky Freemasons. Because Pope Alexander 1 (who does not know this, Paul 1) plagued the citizens with his consent in order to chop Malta off of Russia. And they chopped off after all.
        1. Ignatiuss
          Ignatiuss 10 March 2014 21: 06
          0
          Leave Shoigu, he is a good guy
  42. kplayer
    kplayer 11 March 2014 00: 07
    0
    Quote: Spasatel
    ... they got the teeth, as it was in Korea, Vietnam ...

    Naivety! They did not get in the teeth (by the way, without losing a single battle), they retreated in Korea (by order, due to the participation of the PLA) and left Vietnam, just their American mentality cannot understand how you can win by losing hundreds of thousands, or millions of people and most importantly "for what?"
  43. Ignatiuss
    Ignatiuss 11 March 2014 01: 36
    0
    [quote = kplayer] [quote = Spasatel] ... they got in the teeth, as it was in Korea, Vietnam ... [/ quote]
    Naivety! They didn’t get too tough (by the way, without losing a single battle), they retreated to Korea (by order, due to the participation of the PLA) and left Vietnam
    Received the same.