Military Review

Territorial defense in modern conditions

Territorial defense in modern conditions

The ongoing scientific and technological revolution, the introduction of social technologies of society transformation into the practice of preparing and waging war led to the emergence of new types of military conflicts, new forms and methods of warfare (operations).


Today, concepts such as information warfare, cyber warfare, the struggle for supremacy in aerospace, global strategic attack, etc. have become familiar to hearing. Today, these and other forms of struggle are actively discussed both by professionals and amateurs, they have heated debates, and proposals to the military-political leadership for the development of the armed forces and the military-industrial complex of the states entrusted to them are being accumulated.

Many of them are deeply developed and in demand. So, in 2013 "Independent Military Review" published a series of articles by the candidate historical sciences, reserve colonel Igor Popov on the new nature of the war of the future. In one of them, almost a year before the events in Ukraine, the author focused on the emergence of a new type of military conflict in the XNUMXst century: can be called a new type of war of the modern era.

Such a war goes beyond the traditional concepts of it, acquiring a combined character, turning into a tangled tangle of political intrigues, a fierce struggle for resources and financial flows, and irreconcilable civilizational clashes. All possible means are used in the course, the parties resort to any, the most dishonest methods and methods of actions, both forceful and non-force ones. ” No less interesting conclusions can be found in the materials of some other domestic researchers.

However, even a superficial analysis of publications in the domestic media on the topic of future wars testifies to the systemic flaw that has developed in military science. The absolute majority of the conclusions of specialists are aimed at explaining how to fight on the front lines (at the front line), which troops and weapon this requires, in what organizational structure it is better to have them and in what forms it is better to use, etc. Of course, these are very important questions of military theory, the quality and completeness of the answers to which directly affect the quality of preparation for the war of the future of any state. The problem is that equally important issues of countering the enemy throughout the rest of the state remain undeservedly forgotten - issues of organizing territorial defense.

Formally, of course, everything is there. For example, in Russia, the need to organize territorial defense is enshrined in Article 2 “Organization of Defense” of the Federal Law “On Defense”: “Organization of Defense includes: ... 9) planning and implementation of civil and territorial defense measures ...” The importance of the task is emphasized by the fact that the documents for its resolution — the Statute on the Territorial Defense of the Russian Federation, the Territorial Defense Plan of the Russian Federation and the Civil Defense Plan — are approved by the President of the Russian Federation. The same approach exists in almost all developed countries of the world. And yet, it can not be considered reasonable for modern conditions.

To clarify this thesis, it is necessary to understand: when did the need arise for the organization of territorial defense, under what conditions are its methods of conduct effective and will the character of future wars be in line with these conditions? To answer these questions we will consider the development of territorial defense in a historical retrospective.


Almost until the second half of the XIX century there was no need for the organization of territorial defense. And although some modern scholars say that territorial defense was organized in ancient times during the reign of Tsar Pea, in order to impart scientific knowledge to its research, in fact this is not the case.

In fact, until the end of the XIX century, the army of opponents "chased" after each other, trying to defeat during the general battle. At that time, this idea was in the minds of the generals of all European armies, including the Russian one. Indeed, by the age-old experience of wars, the winner of such a battle received the entire defeated country. There was no reason to be distracted by other actions, including the organization of hostilities in the rear of the enemy. For the Russian-speaking reader, the initial stage of the Patriotic War of the 1812 of the year (from June to September of the 1812 of the year) may be the most obvious. During this period, the Russian army, striving to unite its 1 and 2 th Western armies, retreated from the borders of Russia to Moscow, and Napoleon all the time tried to stop it and force it to accept a general battle. How sad this endeavor ended for him, we all know well.

The question arises: why did the troops in those days so eager to come together in a giant meat grinder? Why for centuries no one even planned to deploy large-scale actions in the deep rear of the enemy and did not expect such actions in his rear? There were many grounds.

At first. Weak army capabilities and fleet intelligence operations outside the area of ​​operations of the main forces. Various raid units were forced like a wind, headlong rushing through the army rear of the enemy and returning to the location of their troops as soon as possible. There were several reasons for this. The main one is the difficulties in ensuring the actions of the troops outside the location of the main group with both information and various material means. The reconnaissance was organized mainly by riding, whose capabilities were limited by the endurance of horses and the range of visual detection of riders. Even when organizing a raid deep into the enemy’s defense, the detachment commander, in order to maintain the minimum permissible size of the main group, was forced to devote insignificant forces to reconnaissance. Otherwise, his entire detachment could be destroyed in parts even by local residents.

Secondly. Low means of information transmission. Pigeons and messengers did not provide a stable connection with the main forces. Therefore, the army commander could not “scatter” in the theater of military operations with his troops. He always sought to have an iron fist that could oppose the enemy.

Thirdly. Insufficient possibilities for transporting its troops to the depth of the enemy’s territory. The daily cavalry transfer using fodder could reach 50 km, and at the pasture (in summer, for fresh horses) 25 – 30 km. If this rate was exceeded, 1 – 2 rest days should be done every few days. Such rates, of course, were not enough for the rapid penetration and long-term actions of large masses of cavalry in the deep rear of the enemy.

Fourth. The military economy in almost all countries of the world until the twentieth century was rather relative. This was due to the fact that the main vehicle was a horse, and the main armament in the army was a saber and a rifle. Special powerful industries for their production and maintenance was not required. Horses, though of low quality for cavalry, could be requisitioned in every village, and with regular lubrication and careful handling, weapons could be stored and stored for decades and centuries in any region of the country.

Fifth. Even if significant detachments, ignoring the enemy's army, and broke through into its deep rear, there were no significant objects, the capture or decommissioning of which would give a cardinal advantage to the main group. For example, until the twentieth century, in many European countries there were few pronounced industrial centers. Yes, and their capture could not dramatically affect the strategic situation. A typical example is Napoleon’s seizure of Moscow. In addition, the main steel mills and weapons factories were located at a distance of several hundred, or even thousands of kilometers from the state border, which made the likelihood of unimpeded access to them and their sudden attack by the enemy almost zero.

At sixth. The rural way of life of the majority of the population also did not allow to cause critical damage to the rear. Constant clashes in each village with its subsequent “stripping” would not only slow down the pace of the enemy’s advancement, but were fraught with the approach of larger enemy groups and defeat.


The consequence of these reasons was that until the beginning of the broad motorization of the army in the twentieth century, in the deep rear of the enemy, only individual saboteurs or small detachments with tactical targets could operate effectively. Their actions could not have a significant impact on the strategic position of either their own or foreign armies - their combat capabilities were too insignificant. Therefore, the arson and technical sabotage by the hands of the saboteurs were the main method of damage to the economy and rear units of the enemy.

For the fight against them for a long time there were enough militias or militias formed according to the territorial and residual principle of recruitment. The provision of material and other means, including weapons, was carried out at the expense of the local base. The leadership was entrusted to the local nobility. Of course, such a militia, even with the police, was incapable of long and methodical actions against the regular army, but there were enough forces against the saboteurs and small enemy units.

In the wars of a new generation of cavalry raids gave way to central network operations.

Sometimes you can find the statement that the task of territorial defense in Russia was solved by the Internal Guard, which existed from 1811 to 1864 year. However, this is not quite true. In effect, the Inner Guard was a purely police body that had a military organization. Indeed, in accordance with the “Provision for the Internal Guard” approved by Emperor Alexander I, its main tasks were: “assistance in the execution of laws and court sentences; capture, prosecution and extermination of criminals; pacification of disobedience and violence; catching fugitive, departed criminals and deserters; assistance in collecting taxes and arrears; preservation of the order and tranquility of the church rites of all confessions, by the law of the tolerant; maintaining order at fairs, trades, folk and church festivals; escort recruits, criminals, prisoners and prisoners ", etc.

Within the framework of these tasks, the Internal Guard, of course, fought against saboteurs, but only as criminals. For the first time, the task of ensuring preparedness for the protection of objects and main transport communications from enemy sabotage and terrorist groups was formulated in 1864 for local troops.

The role of territorial defense, along with the attitude of the military-political leadership to it, began to change only in the twentieth century, as the industrialization of states, the transition to mass armies and their increasing dependence on timely and versatile logistics and technical support.

First of all, this was manifested in the allocation at the theater of military operations of the frontline strip - a strip of terrain adjacent to the front line, within which the formations, units and rear institutions of the operational-strategic association were located. A special regime for the civilian population was established in the territory and the actions of its troops were envisaged in the event of the appearance of regular enemy troops in it. The allocation of a special legal regime in the front-line zone was caused by the fact that even individual terrorist or sabotage actions by the enemy (for example, the destruction of front headquarters or front-line depots with ammunition) could seriously affect the course and outcome of combat operations in the theater of operations. In the rest of the territory of the state, territorial defense was planned in the old manner, in order to counteract individual saboteurs.

A new factor that directly influenced the organization of territorial defense was aviation. Its effective actions during the First World War, along with the demonstrated capabilities to inflict damage on the population and the economy in the strategic depths of the defending forces, forced the military-political leadership of the leading European states to create air defense forces on the territory of the border military districts. The basis of the organizational structure of the new type of troops in the 20s of the last century was air defense points, which were part of the air defense sector, whose command was responsible for the air defense within the district.

Subsequently, an increase in the radius of action of the enemy’s combat aviation required new approaches to the organization of territorial defense in airspace. In particular, in the USSR in November 1941 of the year, despite the desperate situation on the fronts, the Air Defense Forces built up the country's territory - a type of armed forces designed to repel enemy air strikes against the main administrative and political centers and other important forces and groups in the rear, which form the basis of the economic and military power of the state. This was a revolutionary step, which recognized the beginning of fundamental changes in the nature of the organization of territorial defense. After all, the Air Defense Forces of the territory of the country, in fact, were the troops of territorial defense against an air enemy!


After the end of the Second World War, it would seem that military science would inevitably have to take the next step in its development and propose a new theory of the organization of territorial defense as a system of interrelated actions on the ground and in the air. However, the rapid introduction of nuclear weapons into the troops, a fundamental change in the nature and content of military conflicts had a negative impact on the development of the main provisions of territorial defense. Neither the military science nor the practitioners made correct conclusions from the cardinally increased maneuverability and combat capabilities of the formations and units of the types and types of troops. For example, in the USSR, the task of air defense of a strategic rear was recognized as a nation-wide one, and its decision was entrusted to the commander-in-chief of the country's air defense forces.

However, the solution of the problem of territorial defense on earth for some reason still continued to be considered a matter of secondary, insignificant. No one began to take into account the sharply increased operational capabilities of ground forces, capable of organizing, together with aviation, a new front in the deep rear of the enemy. Even in the 80 of the twentieth century, the attitude to the organization of the defense of its rear in the depths of the country remained the same. It was supposed to counteract individual saboteurs and small enemy detachments performing private, tactical tasks. Accordingly, if the country's Air Defense Forces were preparing to fight against the enemy air formations and formations as part of its regular army, many military leaders still believed that the main tasks of the troops in the framework of territorial defense in the strategic depth of defense would be to combat individual saboteurs and small sabotage detachments.

Subsequently, at the turn of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the influence of the results of the scientific and technological revolution on the organization of state defense only increased. Today, organizing an effective state defense requires interconnecting the actions of dozens of ministries and departments and tens of millions of people. For example, at the end of January 2013, at a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu reported that the actions of 49 ministries and departments are interconnected in the submitted state defense plan for approval. It is clear that not all of these state structures are involved in active hostilities, but it is indisputable that the activity of each of them directly affects the effectiveness of defense. This is confirmed by the comment of the Minister of Defense at the above meeting that "... for the first time it was possible to take into account all the programs related to the defense of our country: the armament program, the mobilization program, and the programs of all ministries and departments throughout our country."

An approved defense plan should certainly be the basis for territorial defense planning. There are certain theoretical and practical groundwork for this. For example, the practice of organizing joint actions of multi-departmental forces and means in solving a common task. To this end, territorial defense zones are created in each military district, which, in turn, are divided into territorial defense districts. As a rule, military commissars of the respective republics, territories and regions are appointed as commanders of territorial defense zones, and district (city) military commissars, in some cases commanders of formations and units, and commanders of military schools, are appointed commanders of territorial defense districts. An important role is also played by the authorities of the subjects of the state and local self-government, which are required, together with the military authorities, to participate in planning and ensuring the implementation of territorial defense measures on their territory. There are a number of provisions on the organization of territorial defense that can ensure its effective organization.


However, all efforts and achievements here negate the preservation of the two main combat missions of the territorial defense forces (forces): guarding the most important state and military infrastructure facilities and fighting against enemy assault and sabotage forces and illegal armed formations. This, in our opinion, is the main discrepancy between the existing approaches to the organization of territorial defense and modern conditions.

Initially, it is assumed that the fighting in the deep rear will, like 100 years ago, be of a tactical scale. Of course, this approach is very convenient for many: it is still possible to allocate forces and funds from formations, units and institutions of various law enforcement agencies and other ministries and departments on a residual basis, as necessary. But is effective rear protection provided? Hardly.

Complete disregard for fundamental changes in the economy, industry, weapons, and social technologies of the last decades is fraught with grave consequences for any country. The lag in understanding the essence of modern military operations is especially dangerous in conditions when more and more armies of the world are being rebuilt in accordance with the new technology of war, the main points of which were published 25 years ago. For example, in October 1989, the article “The Changing Face of War: The Fourth Generation,” published in the American Marine Corps Marine Corps Gazette newspaper, stated: “The war will be non-linear to such an extent that it is quite possible there will be no identifiable battlefield and front lines. The distinction between “civilian” and “military” is likely to disappear. Actions will be simultaneously directed to the entire “depth” of the parties involved, including their whole society, understood not only in its physical, but also in the cultural aspect ... Success will greatly depend on the effectiveness of joint operations, since the dividing lines between tasks and responsibilities of different participants will be blurred ".

In Russia, they also engaged in theoretical research in this area. Thus, at the beginning of 2000, the author of these lines worked on the basics of the theory of promising forms and methods of conducting military operations. The results showed that the active development by the likely adversary of new complex forms and methods of conducting modern military operations requires similar changes in the theory and practice of organizing and conducting military operations not only at the front, but also within the framework of territorial defense. After all, the whole country became a battlefield.

Today, operations have received new content, initially involving the holding of quick and decisive maneuvers not only on the flanks, but also in the rear of the enemy. The main factor determining the nature of hostilities was the ability to conduct central network operations of multi-purpose tactical groups controlled from a single strategic center and simultaneously operating on individual key elements of the state and military control system, units and divisions of retaliatory forces throughout the opposing side.

This conclusion means that the tactical unit of the enemy’s regular army, supported by all its might at any distance from the front edge, may be the object next to any strategically important object for the defending side. The commander of such a unit does not need to be directly subordinate to any specific specific expensive weapon systems - he only needs to make an application through the network for their use in a given area at a given time to solve a specific task or bring the current situation to a higher commander - and support will be provided . Will the “network” of such interspecific tactical groups acting according to a single plan and plan throughout the territory of the victim of aggression, hastily assembled “troops and territorial defense forces”, not supported by aviation, nor by EW forces, or cyber warriors, not having a single plan and plan with your regular troops? A rhetorical question.

For example, the attempt of the military-political leadership of Iraq in 2003 to organize territorial defense based on the approaches of the second half of the twentieth century turned out to be a catastrophe. After all, initially no action was taken against the regular army in such a deep rear, and when, a day after the outbreak of hostilities, a large American group was in their rear, the situation was not even saved by the suicide attacks of the Guardsmen.

It can be assumed that over the past 11 years, the capabilities of the US Armed Forces to conduct central network operations have only grown. For example, the most important feature of modern operations that directly affects the organization of territorial defense is the misleading of the military-political leadership of the country - the victim of aggression about the evolving military-strategic situation due to the pseudo-partisan (pseudo-terrorist) actions of his troops, causing damage under the guise of man-made disasters or natural disasters, actions of the population with religious, ethnic or other slogans. Such actions today can be widely observed during the so-called color revolutions, when the first persons of the state - victims of aggression fall into prostration, not understanding what is happening around.


What is usually supposed to be opposed to the new methods of hostilities of the enemy in their deep rear by the leadership of the majority of modern states, importing not only material means, but also military theory not of the first freshness?

Probably all that 70 had accumulated years ago to the end of World War II: special operations, combat service, operational activities, operational combat operations, search, cordoning, blocking, regime-preventive, isolation-restrictive actions, rescue-evacuation , emergency restoration work, etc. It is hardly possible even theoretically to recognize them as adequate to the modern conditions of the situation.

Today, the relevance of new approaches to the organization and conduct of territorial defense has increased even more than even 10 years ago. The division into operations in the front line and the conduct of territorial defense loses its original meaning. A rethinking of the whole theory of state defense organization is required.

The main thing to understand: "game" has become a "hunter". In the rear of the state - victims of aggression - not lone saboteurs who dream to go out to the object of sabotage and just leave unnoticed, but regular troops operating according to a single plan and plan and having appropriate systems of intelligence, control, fire destruction and support, will act.

The hope that, within the framework of existing approaches to territorial defense, it will be possible to effectively disrupt the operations of the regular troops of the enemy by different departmental, rather heterogeneous groups of their troops, may not be justified. Moreover, the focus of the regular army only on countering the enemy’s regular forces in the forefront, along with the expectation that the Internal Troops or other formations such as the US National Guard will cope in the rear, is fraught with the consistent defeat of the entire military organization of the state. This conclusion is well illustrated by the events in Libya, Syria and Ukraine.
41 comment
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Tumbleweed
    Tumbleweed 22 March 2014 15: 27
    Now the only way to protect the territory is the availability of nuclear weapons ... All other methods do not work, then the winners are not judged, and the media can prove to the average person that black is white and white is black ...
    However, I forgot about economic self-sufficiency, otherwise they can be crushed by economic sanctions and blockades.
    1. ele1285
      ele1285 22 March 2014 15: 32
      Quote: rolling the field
      Now the only way to protect the territory is the presence of nuclear weapons ...

      The council of the village of Strelkovoy in the Kherson region, on the southern outskirts of which are both Ukrainian and Russian roadblocks, decided to move the Ukrainian roadblock to the northern outskirts. The prosecutor's office of the Kherson region opened a criminal proceeding under Part 1 Art. 367 KKU (official negligence).

      Kherson villagers decided to drag border posts to end up in Russia

      It is also reported that the materials of this criminal proceedings were transferred to the SBU of the Kherson region for appropriate verification.
      Meanwhile, deputies of the city council of the city of Genichensk, Kherson region, decided to hold an extraordinary session at which they will consider the issue of the city’s accession to Crimea.
      1. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K 22 March 2014 16: 38
        What you described about the village of Strelkovoye is not a war, but the result of anarchy. Only that revolution is worth something if it can defend itself.
        And the nuclear weapons used against the advancing aggressor even on their territory are peaceful, with a simultaneous blow to the aggressor country. Therefore, the theory is theory, and NATO, the USA, Japan and China cannot apply these theories in the vast territories of Russia.
      2. I read the news
        I read the news 23 March 2014 01: 57
        Kherson villagers decided to drag border posts to end up in Russia
        It's five.
        Well, they could have held a referendum.
        As I understand these villagers.
        We are waiting for the unauthorized transfer of border posts throughout Ukraine.
        Bring the pillars to the southeast, sorry or what? You yourself will be surprised how much they will be dug in the west :)))
    2. nizrum
      nizrum 22 March 2014 15: 45
      Nuclear weapons will not help if there is no one to use them.
      Now the main weapon is the media.
      Without controlled media, any power will merge.
      1. W1950
        W1950 22 March 2014 16: 01
        Media under control, the fifth column on the construction of the national economy, bribe-takers for life.
      2. infinite silence ...
        infinite silence ... 22 March 2014 16: 25
        I totally agree! They will take advantage of nuclear or not, but the media is engaged in brainwashing around the clock! The most recent overthrow, with the help of the media, was the overthrow of Yanukovych ...
        To challenge the importance of the media is foolish.
      3. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K 22 March 2014 16: 41
        This is known from the Stone Age when the leader of the tribe set his tribesmen against another tribe. So you haven’t come up with anything new.
        1. infinite silence ...
          infinite silence ... 22 March 2014 17: 07
          Invented - not invented, but the facts are on the face!
          The news feed overthrew Yanukovych. Laid on information hunger - nobody knew the terms of the agreement with the EU! Youngsters generally dreamed of a visa-free entry to Europe ... Neither by sleep, nor by spirit.
          If the information was delivered to the masses on time and not one-sidedly, such a scenario could have been avoided.
    3. Egoza
      Egoza 22 March 2014 15: 49
      Quote: tumbleweed
      Now the only way to protect the territory is the presence of nuclear weapons.

      Well, they somehow "forgot about it!" And, of course, Yulia blamed Yanukovych - "It was he who destroyed our army!" I didn't remember, poor thing, what they did with the army and with the SBU, she and Yushchenko !!!
      BUT! Probably the first time (and I hope) the last I will support Julia !!!!!

      "Tymoshenko about the Rada: We need to disperse this viper It is necessary to hold early parliamentary elections as soon as possible," said Yulia Tymoshenko, recently released from prison. “With regard to the early parliamentary elections, I want to say that this, sorry, adder, the sooner the better, you must definitely change to a new one,” - she said on the air "Schuster live." “What happens there cannot be called parliament,” Tymoshenko emphasized. She also opposed the majority election system. Recall that early presidential elections will be held on May 25.
      I had enough strength in the hospital sitting up! And from hunger I took everyone to a pencil !!!! laughing
      1. Tumbleweed
        Tumbleweed 22 March 2014 16: 06
        Quote: Egoza
        BUT! Probably the first time (and I hope) the last I will support Julia !!!!!

        Elena hi But this ... in the same place claimed that the Russian military kept at gunpoint the children of the Ukrainian military in kindergartens until they went over to the side of Russia ... How's that? What does it take to "overeat" to talk like that? Or, according to the Goebbelian principle, the bigger the lie, the faster they will not believe ...
        For me, after yesterday’s interview, she doesn’t exist as a politician.
        Here are her yesterday's "pearls" (not mine, taken from the commentary on the Look):
        1. Putin is the number one enemy.
        2. Putin is to blame for everything.
        3. In what Putin is not to blame, Putin’s agents are to blame.
        4. The attack on Ukraine for Putin is a “grenade without a check”.
        5. We will not let Putin take a step on mainland Ukraine.
        6. We will fight with Putin if he takes a step.
        7. NATO troops will not fight with Putin, but we will become cooler than NATO troops.
        8. The country has both a war with Putin and a default due to the war with Putin.
        9. As soon as Europe refuses Putin’s Russian gas, it will also include a reverse for us.
        10. By 2020, we will completely throw off Putin’s energy shackles.
        11. We do not need nuclear fuel from Putin.
        12. We do not need Putin’s markets - Europe has opened markets for us.
        13. The damned Putin reached out to the Ukrainian army and SBU and cleaned it up.
        14. On a peace march in Moscow, hundreds of thousands marched against Putin.
        15. There are two Russia. Our future is not Putin's Russia. Our future is Makarevichevskaya Russia.
        16. Our President of Russia - Makarevich, wrapped in the Ukrainian flag.
        17. Putin and Hitler. The analogy is striking.
        18. It was Putin who campaigned for Ukraine to join NATO.
        19. Putin has destroyed the status quo, which will lead to its self-destruction. The world will not stop.
        20. Putin will end up in a bunker.
        21. In Crimea, 34% voted for joining Putin's Russia. And that seems to be true.
        22. We need the Crimean military to protect the eastern borders from Putin.
        23. The Crimean military was forced to disarm at gunpoint of Putin’s military machine guns, which were aimed directly at children in kindergartens.
        24. Putin’s goal was not even Crimea, but all of Ukraine. In general, he was going to go further.
        25. Until Putin liberates Crimea, negotiations with him are impossible.
        26. 11 billion that we supposedly owe to Putin, we will transfer to him on a Visa card.
        27. Let the world speak in plain language with Putin, and then Ukraine will return to its Crimea.
        28. Putin’s agents are filled with the country like air.
        29. Putin’s agents are even on the Maidan. They are organizing pogroms in Kiev.
        30. Federalization is Putin's ultimatum.
        31. Federalization in the understanding of Putin is impossible.
        32. By federalization, Putin wants to turn the "horseshoe" of the South-East into the Crimea.
        33. The Eurasian space is Putin's painful dream. Messianism of Putin.
        34. The beautiful Russian woman Novodvorskaya is waiting for us in Russia with the liberation army.
        35. In Putin's Russia they are already shouting: "Glory to Ukraine!", "Glory to the heroes!" and "Gang - get out!"
        36. Militaristic Putin's Russia cannot live without us.
        37. Putin teaches us to live without Russia in a non-aggressive environment.
        38. The Baltic was drowning with wood, and we need to leave Putin's orbit.
        39. Forcibly sweet Putin will not.
        40. Let's recover once and for all.
        1. Egoza
          Egoza 22 March 2014 17: 03
          Quote: tumbleweed
          But this one ... claimed in the same place

          I had in mind the support in the sense that all this viper - the Verkhovna Zrada (betrayal) must be dispersed and these elections held first, and then the president should be taken. We have it, and to the end of the term it BE!
        2. starhina01
          starhina01 22 March 2014 17: 08
          I read the pearl data in shock belay need to be treated fool however, as in this person, the brain was dried, the diagnosis: for compulsory treatment in Germany to the best doctors for life without the right to return to their native land hi
        3. Alexei
          Alexei 22 March 2014 17: 36
          Kiev will accept up to 10 thousand refugees from Crimea, - Bondarenko

          In Buryatia, a rally was held against Russian aggression in the Crimea

          The invaders are preparing for the assault in Belbek: the Ukrainian military refused to surrender, the Russian army surrounds part

          "Berkutovets": Against the Maidanites we were given cartridges for stopping cars without much control

          The assault on the air base in Novofedorovka

          The sailors blocked in Donuzlav will have enough food for 10 days, - Gayduk

          Fighters of the Chechen divisions are really present in Crimea, - Chubarov

          Crimean separatists took hostages of the Ukrainian military,

          NATO Secretary General: We are for dialogue, but Russia behaves as an adversary

          Sheremetyevo deprives Ukrainians of their passports and offers to renounce their citizenship

          Here is such a news feed on the censor. belay
      2. sniper
        sniper 22 March 2014 19: 16
        Quote: Egoza
        , adder, the sooner, the better, on new must be changed unambiguously ”,

        One adder, on the other ..... And the point ????? What is the positive? Elena, maybe what I didn’t understand about senile dementia ???
    4. homosum20
      homosum20 22 March 2014 16: 49
      And if they hit the country with non-nuclear high-precision weapons? In factories, HF? 98% of the population is intact. The entire nuclear potential of the enemy is idle (but it can also be used in response to your nuclear strike). A country in the Stone Age with a full population.
      And what will your nuclear potential give? Moral satisfaction? Self-satisfaction can be easier.
      1. Alexei
        Alexei 22 March 2014 17: 54
        Quote: homosum20
        And what will your nuclear potential give?

        Nothing! It's like two people having a conversation, and each grenade has no checks. This gives an understanding that if pressed, there will be nothing to lose.
        Quote: homosum20
        And if they hit the country with non-nuclear high-precision weapons? In factories, HF? 98% of the population is intact.

        Which country? Specify. If in Russia, it will be possible to slightly dilute the population density concentrated in large cities (villages are empty). In factories and HF? Hmm, do you have any idea how many factories and HF are scattered across Russia? And these high-precision non-nuclear missiles in addition to the fact that they are not nuclear, not yet shot down and not visible? As everything just turns out ... I just took orders and non-precision high-precision missiles rushed into the sky, and the power (which has been at war for thousands of years) simply goes into the Stone Age ... Cases. Thanks - enlightened. winked
      2. Sulfuric acid
        Sulfuric acid 22 March 2014 18: 57
        In the near future, an unanswered disarming strike with conventional, non-nuclear weapons is impossible. This is all from the "Star Wars" Reagan and others like them. The reality is different, and we are not Iraq / Libya / Bantustan.

        And, yes, nuclear weapons are in many ways precisely a weapon of retaliation - no one will attack us, because knows that in retaliatory attack we will incinerate enemy cities. But your sentiments in the spirit of "we will be bombed by" smart missiles "and everything is gone" just lead to the fact that we are losing this opportunity of retaliation - "nuclear weapons are worth nothing in the absence of the determination to use them" (c) Mikhail Delyagin
      3. homosum20
        homosum20 23 March 2014 14: 57
        To those who do not understand.
        A grenade without a check is two corpses. Do you want your children to become charred corpses? I don’t. And there are no Americans.
        Therefore, they came up with a new strategy that eliminates the use of nuclear weapons. Today, the states in one volley of non-nuclear KR, which they can produce off our coast, have about one and a half thousand cruise missiles. And we have a similar salvo - about three hundred. Do you feel the difference?
        A significant part of American missiles will hit the strategic nuclear forces with high accuracy. The remainder will finish the missile defense. Of course, something will fall on the territory of the USA and Europe - but it will not be the end of the world for the United States. (about Europe - a separate conversation). After which the states will drop out. Their missile missiles will be hit by our airfields (a lot is not necessary), fur technology parks. and tank units, factories and research institutes. Probably - power lines and nuclear power plants.
        All - the party is done. Our population is almost intact. American too. But we have destroyed infrastructure (civil and military), industry, energy, communications - a country in the Stone Age. Amers have it all damaged, but it works. This is the concept I had in mind when I spoke about nuclear self-satisfaction.
        It is urgent to make submarines of projects 855 and similar. But they have few missiles (24 launchers). Urgently restore Nakhimov (more than one and a half hundred PU non-nuclear missiles) and so on.
        There will be no nuclear war. This is the past stage. (Just as there will be no war with batons, bows, then crossbows, muskets, etc.). The nuclear deterrence factor will remain. But you can lose the war even with nuclear missiles - all (most) will remain alive, but in financial bondage (as we have been for the last 23 years).
        Therefore, I consider your disadvantages to be undeserved by me and the result of your unwillingness to ponder what is written deeper.
        1. Alexei
          Alexei 23 March 2014 15: 25
          Quote: homosum20
          Therefore, I consider your disadvantages to be undeserved by me and the result of your unwillingness to ponder what is written deeper.

          I didn’t put you cons. And, after reading your clarification, I still did not like the idea of ​​a non-nuclear salvo. You do not know how many submarines we have, secret bases with missiles, because on the internet no one will ever write about it.
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. the polar
      the polar 22 March 2014 17: 44
      Well, if parts of the enemy’s regular army can quietly penetrate the deep rear of the state, then there is no reason for such a state to live.
    7. maks-101
      maks-101 22 March 2014 17: 59
      Now the only way to protect the territory is the availability of nuclear weapons ... All other methods do not work, then the winners are not judged, and the media can prove to the average person that black is white and white is black ...
      However, I forgot about economic self-sufficiency, otherwise they can be crushed by economic sanctions and blockades.
      a thermonuclear bomb of 500 megatons and you don’t need to throw it, according to the principle neither to you nor to me, it blew up the earth or people not the earth. Political society is degrading, you ask your people what they want and what they want, anyway sooner or later they will bury everyone, and there is nothing to do there.
    8. sv68
      sv68 22 March 2014 18: 01
      today there is only one way to protect the territory — it is truly a STRONG STATE USE supported by the people. otherwise, the external enemy and the fifth calon will eat you
  2. tnship2
    tnship2 22 March 2014 15: 46
    To read the works of V.I.Lenin at his leisure there are many usefulnesses for the country, society, and the state.While in China, with the true Confucian calm, the dogmas of capitalism and communism have grown together and nothing, the founders in a different world already care about and benefit contemporaries.
    1. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 22 March 2014 16: 54
      They did not fuse capitalism and communism. Their socialism is not suitable for socialism in the USSR, but that's not the point. The economy should work for the state, bringing profit and development. It's just that someone (the leader of the country) should take care of the well-being of citizens, the country, and the economy should be real, i.e. the costs should pay off. What is not profitable for the capitalist must be under state control. And the "leader" should manage this process, not anarchy, as it was under Yeltsin and now.
  3. kocclissi
    kocclissi 22 March 2014 15: 53
    Earlier, Russia tried to follow Europe, in almost everything! Now it doesn’t roll, according to their rules it’s more expensive to play! You need to invent your own rules, otherwise they will gobble up!
  4. tnship2
    tnship2 22 March 2014 16: 01
    Then I thought. It’s because the Ukrainians are Slavs! It can’t be that there wouldn’t be found in a difficult moment for the country a man who would say: Slash! Arrived!
    1. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 22 March 2014 16: 58
      You are greatly mistaken. Both workers and peasants served in the German army. And nothing, ordered and went to the USSR, otherwise the execution. By the way, the Germans have Slavic roots. For your information, the Germans have many surnames ending with "-s". The city of Berlin and many other cities created Slavic tribes. This is confirmed by the German archaeologists themselves.
      1. gunter_laux
        gunter_laux 22 March 2014 17: 13
        Alexei, very surprised! Archaeologists may be right, but you are unlikely! You still bring the Indians to the Slavs! Prost !!! hi
  5. Old warrant officer
    Old warrant officer 22 March 2014 16: 07
    It has already been proposed to use the Cossacks for the organization of territorial defense, legally authorizing them to own automatic firearms, following the example of some countries, obliging them to undergo annual gatherings and other events. As an incentive, provide for the provision of benefits and preferences, the complete abolition of taxes, the provision of land for life without the right to sell to third parties. people living in this territory will fight to the last for their homes, families, homeland.
  6. a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 22 March 2014 16: 13
    Let's talk about the topic! I very much agree with the conclusions of the author. Mobplans and mobilization through military registration and enlistment offices - sucks of past centuries - I declare as a former specialist in this matter. WE WILL NOT MAKE IT ON TIME!!!
    It remains, following the example of Israel and some other countries, to issue small arms to the verified citizens of OUR HOMELAND. Tasks cut into occupied territory. And information - where to go to supply the necessary.
    1. gunter_laux
      gunter_laux 22 March 2014 17: 23
      Absolutely agree! MO order No...forget however laughing The Instruction on ..., in short, is the main document defining the mobilization readiness of troops in the executive period. In the Soviet period it was difficult. and at present it’s practically impossible. And the human resource and equipment of the former household. soldier
  7. konvalval
    konvalval 22 March 2014 16: 14
    Quote: Old Warrant Officer
    Probably the first time (and I hope) the last I will support Julia !!!!!

    Oh, and in vain. Are there really no patriots-statesmen in the vast Southeast?
  8. Old warrant officer
    Old warrant officer 22 March 2014 16: 18
    Quote: konvalval
    Quote: Old Warrant Officer
    Probably the first time (and I hope) the last I will support Julia !!!!!

    I don’t need to ascribe other people's words!
  9. Rus2012
    Rus2012 22 March 2014 16: 27
    "territorial defense" ...
    at the current stop, undoubtedly in my opinion, it is necessary to be based on network-centric principles, i.e. principles of "citadels" self-sufficient both in matters of life and defense of territories ...
    For example, "Kaliningrad Citadel", "Uralskaya", now - "Crimean" ...
    Accordingly, d. and Rapid Response Forces - SBR, capable of instantly unlocking nearby besieged strongholds. At the same time, at the places of permanent deployment of the SBR, they should be formed on the principles of divisions. Which, if necessary, should ready to single out the RBU as one mobile brigade. Or, if necessary, move forward as a whole in the form of a heavily armed autonomous unit i.e. a division capable of solving operational-tactical tasks. And several divisions - the army - up to military strategic tasks, such as the invasion and retention of entire territories of small states. An example is the experience of Afghanistan by the force of the 40 Army ...
  10. a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 22 March 2014 16: 55
    Key word - DEFENSE territorial! The example of Afgan does not pass, and there was such squalor with the appeal - horror. And this is at the time of the "empire". To change the approach is definitely taking into account the realities and national traitors.
  11. Alekseev
    Alekseev 22 March 2014 17: 01
    Quote: Alekseev
    Quote: tumbleweed
    Now the only way to protect the territory is the presence of nuclear weapons ... All other methods do not work, then the winners are not judged

    Quote: tumbleweed
    I forgot about economic self-sufficiency

    You hurried it up.
    Peacetime nuclear weapons. And now no one will create shock groups to invade a "vigorous" power (or the country of its close ally). More dear to yourself.
    But it’s possible to create a troubles similar to Ukrainian (Caucasian) one. Here and nuclear weapons will not help.
    Especially if, as you have rightly pointed out, cause public discontent with economic sanctions. Yes, even if in our territory millions of guest workers and so on. Not quite trustworthy "comrades".
    It was then that the formation of territorial defense would be required, we can say the Cossacks in our time.
    Now the junta in Kiev seized on a similar army-national guard, like a straw. But without delving into the socio-political aspect of the problem, we can say that it is not easy to make combat-ready territorial troops purely military-technical. It takes time, money, personnel, etc.
    Late all ... guys. laughing
  12. a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 22 March 2014 17: 45
    Dear gunter_laux! That's right, that you "forgot" them, otherwise it was hefty secret, and practically not relevant. One term "combat coordination" during M + N is already ridiculous - who will allow us to carry it out.
  13. Capyar 48315
    Capyar 48315 22 March 2014 17: 45
    The article is crap. Yes, the mobility of actions is growing, but so is the mobile counter-action of the corresponding level. So there is no need to escalate that everything is bad and untimely in our country. And a quiet rear must be provided before the war: countering extremist groups, constant readiness for an information and cyber attack, and just social policy at last. So do not exaggerate: excessive reaction to all the enemy’s tricks only sprays forces
    1. Mainbeam
      Mainbeam 22 March 2014 18: 26
      I did not understand the meaning of becoming an article. It seems to make sense, but everything is water. It seems that the article is not complete. The diagnosis is made, but the prescription is not written out. I would write specifically what needs to be done in modern conditions.

      As I understand it, strong power is the solution to these problems.
      Do not allow the Orange Revolution-Maidanites will not ruin the country.
  14. Anatole Klim
    Anatole Klim 22 March 2014 18: 08
    After the army, I work in the Civil Defense and Population Defense system. Of course, it is simply impossible to compare the Soviet civil defense system and the current one, a lot has collapsed and ruined. Some will laugh and say: what civil defense in our time, who needs it, nothing will help us, let me disagree, it is the civil defense system that will allow us to preserve the working potential at enterprises, the population, and the mob in local conflicts (we won’t talk about a world war) . reserves of food, fuel, materials will allow the country to withstand any difficult situation, even at first. Do you think there will be no local conflicts? God forbid, but the situation in the world is escalating, the weak are being beaten, they will provoke us, the threats of ter.acts are real.
    A backfill question, what should be done after hearing the siren howling in the street? (I hope most know).
  15. a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 22 March 2014 18: 17
    "provide before the war" - and what time will it start? And who - which body should organize readiness? And day and night to work for many years without fatigue and loss of efficiency - a mythical creature of the state apparatus? For a long time probably have not been in the military registration and enlistment office, there are a lot of "interesting"
  16. Sergey Sitnikov
    Sergey Sitnikov 22 March 2014 19: 59
    Quote: Anatole Klim
    After the army, I work in the Civil Defense and Population Defense system. Of course, it is simply impossible to compare the Soviet civil defense system and the current one, a lot has collapsed and ruined. Some will laugh and say: what civil defense in our time, who needs it, nothing will help us, let me disagree, it is the civil defense system that will allow us to preserve the working potential at enterprises, the population, and the mob in local conflicts (we won’t talk about a world war) . reserves of food, fuel, materials will allow the country to withstand any difficult situation, even at first. Do you think there will be no local conflicts? God forbid, but the situation in the world is escalating, the weak are being beaten, they will provoke us, the threats of ter.acts are real.
    A backfill question, what should be done after hearing the siren howling in the street? (I hope most know).

    1. Anatole Klim
      Anatole Klim 22 March 2014 20: 33
      Quote: Sergey Sitnikov

      And listen to the message about further actions, thanks Sergey!
  17. alicante11
    alicante11 23 March 2014 07: 54
    Oh, these network wars again for me. First, the author did not offer anything positive. Only the negative that "we are not ready again." What to do to be "ready" is not said. It is easy to criticize, but to offer something real is difficult. Secondly, again the rotten example of Iraq, the size of which does not correspond at all to the size of the territory of Russia. By and large, the operation carried out by the Americans in Iraq is a classic "deep operation", which were carried out by the Germans back in 40 and 41. What are the main features? Striking on the open flank (breakthrough through the Ardennes, bypassing the 3rd tank group of the right flank of the ZF), or breaking through the front in depth, also desirable at the junction of military formations (breakthrough of the 2nd TG to the rear of the ZF, breakthrough of the 1st TG to the rear SWF, etc.). Organization of a bypass supply route, or supplying troops through a "corridor" held by units of the second echelon. The difference is that the Germans completed the operation by encircling and creating two blocking rings (the border battle in the ZF zone, the encirclement of the South-Western Front in August and the Vyazemskaya defensive operation), while the Americans set the main task to disorganize the rear and capture rear objects. In principle, however, forcedly, the 1st TG had to do the same, since the 11th Army and the Romanians went on the offensive much later and did not have sufficient success (since they did not have large mobile formations and, in general, the balance of forces was not so much in favor of fascists, as in the ZF). What are the prerequisites for the success of deep operations? Insufficient mobility of units of the Red Army, as well as of Saddam's troops, these generally did not plan to wage a mobile war in conditions of overwhelming enemy air superiority, but planned to defend strategic points. On the front of the ZF, the Germans also managed to create local air supremacy through the massive use of aviation (two air fleets). As well as on the direction of the 1st TG, the Germans also massaged their aviation, while in the memoirs of the combined-arms armies of GA "South", you can often find messages about the superiority of Soviet aviation, which did not have time to react to the transfer of the severity of actions of German colleagues. Those. we see that the principles of action of both the Germans and the Americans are the same, and the prerequisites for success are also the same, which means that we are dealing with an ordinary deep operation. The only element that was truly revolutionary for the Americans was communications and intelligence. However, with regard to communications in war, it is quite possible to say that "there is never too much communications." Well, the awareness of the Americans was based on the overwhelming superiority in the manufacturability of their aircraft (the presence of a satellite constellation, AWACS aircraft, developed communications), and also, to a large extent, on the betrayal of Iraqi generals.
  18. caesar-roll
    caesar-roll April 1 2014 21: 14
    The article is good. I make a repost.

    alicante11, sofa strathex or what?