Military Review

The threat of NATO invasion: myths and reality

The threat of NATO invasion: myths and reality

Because of the policy of tolerance, the Western world is not ready for war and sacrifice, and participation in hostilities is economically unprofitable

The previous articles dealt with the armed forces of the Russian Federation and its neighbors. Now about the armies of countries that do not border with Russia, but to one degree or another affect our security. In particular, for NATO countries, except for the previously described United States, Canada, Norway, Finland, the Baltic countries and Poland. But first about the North Atlantic alliance as a whole.

In matters of geopolitics and external threats, the Kremlin’s official position and public opinion almost do not diverge. At the same time, there are a number of frank double, if not triple standards.

The massive build-up of the combat power of the Chinese army is either silenced or otherwise distorted in the direction of understatement and is not seen as a threat to Russia.

The perennial cuts in the Russian armed forces are interpreted as a collapse, a catastrophe, and national treachery. The long-term and slightly smaller reductions in the armed forces of NATO countries are either, again, silenced, or interpreted as optimization, which only increases the military power of the alliance, which is aimed at preparing for aggression against Russia.

As it is easy to see, there’s nothing to do with anything. Arms buildup has always meant preparation for war, and their reduction is just the opposite. Writing off a large number of old equipment does not greatly undermine the military potential, but this applies equally to all (China, Russia, NATO). At the same time, if the old equipment leaves without any replacement at all, then, of course, this leads to a decrease in the military potential. An old tank (aircraft, ship) has limited potential, but those that are absent generally have zero potential.

In NATO countries over the past two decades, replacing old tanks 1 new vehicles went to new ones at a ratio of about 15:15, that is, for each tank received from industry, 1 vehicles irrevocably left. Moreover, not all of them were old. In artillery systems, the ratio is approximately 20:1, for combat aircraft 4: 1. The fact that one new aircraft can replace four old ones is primitive fairy tales, and even more so about tanks in a ratio of 15:XNUMX. Moreover, these values ​​are averaged over NATO as a whole, after the end of the Cold War, some countries did not receive a single tank and combat aircraft at all, only equipment for counter-guerrilla wars was acquired: armored personnel carriers and transport helicopters.

A sharp reduction in combat vehicles in the same proportion reduces the amount of ammunition that they can use.

The current NATO, consisting of 28 countries, today has much less military equipment of all classes without exception than 20 years ago, when the Alliance had 16 states. Most European countries have already passed the "point of no return", when they alone are unable to wage any war at all. In the future, while maintaining current trends, and nothing indicates the possibility of their breakthrough, Europe will pass the next “point of no return”, having lost the ability to fight already and collectively. At the same time, the principle of collective responsibility in NATO imperceptibly changed the principle of collective irresponsibility - no one wants to protect anyone, everyone shifts the responsibility to each other and ultimately, of course, to the United States.

Back in Russia, the myth of the “NATO bases” surrounding our country for the preparation of aggression is popular.

But there is no clear description of the “base”. If this is an object that is permanently operated by several NATO countries, then they exist only in Afghanistan and will cease to exist this year. There are also objects that individual NATO countries have on the territory of other countries. Britain and France have several bases on the territory of their former colonies in Africa and Asia. The contingent of British troops in Germany will be fully withdrawn to its territory next year. The United States maintains several bases in Germany, Britain and Italy, while the grouping of their troops in Europe as a whole has decreased by an order of magnitude over the past two decades.

As for the new members of the Alliance, no “NATO bases” on their territory have ever appeared, unless they declare as such the facilities of the armed forces of these countries themselves. In particular, there are no bases in the Baltic countries, although they have been members of NATO for ten years and very actively urge the “senior comrades” to host these facilities.

Residents of Poduyevo greet NATO soldiers, 18 June 1999 of the year. Photo: Jeremy Selwyn / AP

What prevented NATO from deploying bases in Ukraine during the five years of Yushchenko’s presidency and, moreover, in Georgia during the ten years of Saakashvili’s presidency, who really wanted to? But the Alliance did not even have any plans to deploy "NATO bases" in these countries.

Many Russians, including among the country's leadership, are sincerely convinced that there is iron military discipline in NATO and that everyone obeyed orders from Washington unquestioningly. This was not quite the case even at the end of the Cold War; today, this view has nothing to do with reality. The NATO discipline was falling apart before our eyes, which was very clearly demonstrated during the wars waged by the Alliance.

Before the aggression against Serbia in 1999, 19 at the time of the NATO countries against the war was one Greece. She was mollified for almost a month and finally bought by the fact that she herself could not fight. Otherwise, there would be no consensus, without which such principled decisions are not accepted at NATO.

In 2001, the year before the invasion of Afghanistan, consensus was, of course, immediately. But it must be recalled that after the events of September 11 it was worldwide. In particular, the invasion of Afghanistan in every way welcomed Moscow. Even Pyongyang found the meager words of support for America at that time.

Washington did not even try to design the 2003 Iraq War of the Year as the NATO war, initially knowing that this was impossible.

In the operation against Libya in 2011, although she obviously did not threaten any losses, exactly half of the members of the Alliance - 14 from 28 - refused to participate in any form. The fact that a country that does not want to fight has the full right not to do this is now taken for granted in NATO, if only it would not impose a veto on a common decision.

The apotheosis was the unsuccessful operation against Syria. 25 of 28 members of NATO refused to participate. To a large extent this is precisely why intervention did not take place.

In fact, repeated reductions in armaments, the principle of collective irresponsibility and the breakdown of discipline reflect the processes taking place in Western societies. Europe in this way is far ahead of the United States, which affects, in particular, the military sphere.

The famous American military theorist Edward Luttvak, at the end of 80, called the current psychological state of the West “post-heroic epoch”. Over the past period, the situation has been aggravated many times due to postmodernism and tolerance.

Such psychological attitudes preclude readiness for war. This was fully expressed in the total transition of the Western armies from the draft to the hired principle of recruitment under the slogan "the military profession is the same as everyone else." It is difficult to come up with a more brazen lie. The military profession is the only one that implies the obligation to die. And that is why it is categorically not the same as everyone else.

The current European values ​​categorically do not imply the possibility of sacrificing life in order to protect even oneself, one’s family and one’s own country, and it’s simply out of the question to die to protect Ukrainians and Georgians.

It is logical that during the Iraqi and Afghan wars, as part of the European armies, only British Gurkhas and Italian Carabineers showed themselves more decently. Gurkha is from Asian Nepal, and the carabineers are accustomed to war on their own territory against the mafia.

In the event of war against Russia, even if for some unknown reason it does not use nuclear weapons, the victims will be gigantic. Apparently, the only rational cause of aggression could be the seizure of hydrocarbons. The version that the West (especially, of course, the United States) everywhere and always fighting for oil is extremely popular all over the world, including the Western countries themselves. But it seems that numerous adherents of this theory do not quite understand what they are talking about.

ISAF soldiers at a military base in Kabul. Photo: Musadeq Sadeq / AP

In the Yugoslav and Afghan wars, the underlying oil can not be found even with very high voltages. As for the Iraq war, the question arises: what is meant by the phrase "the United States seized Iraqi oil"? They rocked it for free from Iraqi bowels and took it overseas? Apparently, there is no need to specifically explain that this scenario has nothing to do with life. In fact, all Iraqi oil all the time belonged to and belongs to the Iraqi state, which sells it. Of course, the United States bought and bought oil in Iraq for money, without any discounts, including during the period when they occupied the country. At the same time, the United States spent about a trillion dollars on the Iraq war. Even with the price of $ 100 per barrel, this money could have bought over a billion tons of Iraqi oil. Taking into account the cost of the war, the price of Iraqi oil for Americans was at least seven times higher than the market.

Since 1996, the regime of Hussein, despite the sanctions, was allowed to sell oil. During the period 1996 – 2002, 150 million tons of oil was imported to the USA. That is, it would be more advantageous for the Americans not to touch Hussein than to capture and hold Iraq. If you go back to the only option in which the phrase “war for oil” makes sense - the export of resources from Iraq to the US is free, then in this case there would be a complete economic collapse of Iraq, almost the entire budget of which is formed from the export of natural resources. In this case, the US spending on the war would have increased even more, since then the resistance to the occupation would not be almost exclusively Sunni, but universal.

The situation is similar with Libya. At least 85% of oil produced in Libya before the start of the war was exported. 77% of Libyan oil exports accounted for Europe and 6% for the USA. Moreover, oil was extracted mainly by Western companies. Accordingly, the "seizure of oil" did not make the slightest sense for the West, it went to the West anyway. But now, after the intervention of 2011 of the year, due to the internal chaos, oil exports from Libya have declined several times, but NATO is not making the slightest attempt to seize it.

It is clear that, as applied to Russia, the seizure and retention of oil and gas fields and the ways of their transportation would cost such an astronomical sum that it will never be able to "repel" it. And the West does not need territories for living, the population of almost all NATO countries is declining, and if it is growing, it is solely due to migrants from Asia and Africa.

The expectation of military aggression by NATO is either paranoia, or incompetence, or propaganda. And after the Crimea, it should be clear finally. As one of the Polish newspapers wrote, “Thanks to Putin for another reminder to us that the current NATO is not even a paper tiger, but a soap bubble.”

Only two questions arise. Will we continue to bully ourselves with a soap bubble? And some countries of the former USSR will continue to hope that the bubble will ever protect them from anything? Surprisingly, the answers to both questions are likely to be positive. And most of all, it will be precisely those two countries that will tear themselves into NATO, of which the Alliance has been "thrown to the fullest extent": Georgia and Ukraine. And we will have to wait for “NATO bases near Kharkov” and count “American aircraft carriers in the Black Sea”. NATO is no longer a Western military organization, but our mental diagnosis of the entire former USSR.

At the same time, however, we must understand that NATO will never be our ally. Firstly, it is useless in this role precisely for the reason that it is senseless to consider it as an adversary — NATO is not going to fight. Secondly, it is impossible not to see that the West does not like us very much. Immediate neighbors (the Baltic countries, Poland, and to a lesser extent Norway) are seriously afraid, seeing in Russia a potential aggressor. The rest of the aggression is not expected, but they do not like us for ideological reasons. For the fact that Russia does not fit into the current Western ideological and political concepts, moreover, it begins to openly confront them.
91 comment
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. zzz
    zzz April 23 2014 20: 31
    And here is how partisans of Lugansk live
    1. maks-101
      maks-101 April 23 2014 21: 02
      I’m not going to fight, the NATO soldier says until toilet paper is brought up.
      1. voldmis
        voldmis April 23 2014 21: 25
        NATO's expectation of military aggression is either paranoia, or incompetence, or propaganda.

        Do not underestimate a potential adversary! Cape envy has never brought to good ...
        1. Akulina
          Akulina April 23 2014 21: 55
          I totally agree. Some paranoia is even useful - it does not let you relax. But since modern wars are provoked no longer by fierce hatred, but by calculation of financial expediency, the article is quite convincing. In this regard, China is somewhat annoying - there the economic benefits of the invasion (God forbid) are obvious. And they certainly will not regret the people - this good there is in bulk, and discipline is iron.
          1. yur
            yur April 24 2014 00: 39
            Quote: Akulina
            about the article is convincing enough. In this regard, China is somewhat annoying - there the economic benefits of the invasion (God forbid) are obvious. And people
            Let me, Marina, disagree with you. If you agree with the conclusions in the article that the seizure of Russian resources is not financially beneficial to NATO countries (it will be too expensive), then why suddenly it can become beneficial to China? Further. Looking at the hypothetical "aggressiveness" of China, we see that under his nose is a much sweeter piece - the whole of Southeast Asia. And the last thing. Any war with a sufficiently serious enemy (and even more so with Russia laughing ) will certainly weaken China and here the "world community" will not doze from overseas. So I am confident that the likelihood of a war between Russia and China tends to zero in the foreseeable future.
            1. philip
              philip April 24 2014 04: 22
              So I’m sure that the probability of a war between Russia and China in the foreseeable future tends to zero.

              It is thought that not to zero, but to a negative value. And here it is the multiple superiority of the Armed Forces of China that plays a major role. The war between Russia and China, can only be nuclear, but no one needs it. IN THIS CASE, even a large Atlantic puddle will not save anyone. But the union of two states such as RUSSIA and CHINA is deadly for the so-called European civilization.
              And not in the military sense, just the union of two states such as RUSSIA and CHINA will put all the emphasis on the question of what Europe is, in a place with its North American convicts DESTROYED IN HIS TIME THE INDIAN CIVILIZATION AND WORKING AFRICA.
            2. Al_lexx
              Al_lexx April 24 2014 06: 05
              Quote: yur
              Any war with a serious enough enemy (and even more so with laughing Russia) will certainly weaken China, and then the "world community" from across the ocean will not doze. So I am confident that the likelihood of a war between Russia and China in the foreseeable future tends to zero.


              The most lousy scenario for China is to get into a fight with Russia, which the US and NATO will immediately take advantage of. You don’t need to go far for examples. The same intervention.
              Why the hell does China fight with Russia if there are much weaker countries nearby, to which China has historical territorial claims? And then, well, it is obvious that if such a large-scale conflict begins, then Russia will simply be forced to use nuclear weapons. At a minimum, make the most of multiple launch rocket systems. Comparing Chinese aviation with ours is generally ridiculous no matter how many planes they have. The situation is the same with the fleet. No matter how many ships they have, our submarines and naval aviation will quickly thin them to zero.
              I am not a fervent patriot, but it seems to me that these are obvious things.

              The article is chaotic and under the fog of seemingly logical reasoning, an openly hostile doctrine of global confrontation is being served.
              About oil and all the more funny. What difference does it cost if paper money and it can be printed endlessly, and raw materials are finite? At the expense of the fact that America did not pay for the invasion of Iraq - complete nonsense. I think that they took out values ​​there, into two new wars. Afghanistan is generally a separate issue. This is an Asian crossroads and the best position for bases. By the way, they built them there and despite the withdrawal of troops, they are not going to turn them off.
              Put a minus.
            3. Cron1982
              Cron1982 April 24 2014 09: 08
              The world community does not doze off only when it sees a profit for itself. The threat of China is quite real, the Asian countries located near China are numerous and do not have the necessary resources and territories. It seems to me that the article is a little disingenuous at the expense of the United States' disinterestedness in energy, what then are the interests of the United States? At the expense of NATO, it may be so, it’s hard to say that it does not have all the information, but it can be argued that Europe is not profitable to protect the US gigimonian ambitions and be a gag in all conflicts not related to Europe.
          2. Barrcode
            Barrcode April 24 2014 18: 06
            Reading about the wars allegedly over oil, everyone was waiting for the author to "open the veil of secrecy" and tell about the real reasons ... But no, the author decided to leave the reader guessing ... Perhaps the wars were due to attempts to shake the dollar? (gold dinar for example)
        2. COLUN
          COLUN April 23 2014 22: 00
          Article provocation. unambiguously "-"
          1. mch1950
            mch1950 April 24 2014 01: 36
        3. steel_balls
          steel_balls April 23 2014 22: 06
          Article minus. The wars were fought not because of oil, but mainly for the world domination of the NATO bloc led by the United States, against those who decided to go against the system + the arms lobby played a role. But really, now China looks like a more dangerous opponent, I do not believe something in our friendship ...
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I April 24 2014 03: 58
            Quote: steel_balls
            War was not about oil

            And because of oil as well. What a "convincing" argument: "The United States has occupied Iraq, but oil is bought at world prices." ? The reality is that oil-producing countries have repeatedly threatened to use oil (production, supplies) as a "weapon" against the US: for example, to declare an "oil" boycott. When does the US control the oil-producing regions, try to declare an embargo! Does the US pay world prices for oil? And what would these world prices be if oil-producing countries "arbitrarily" cut oil production and supplies? Behold at the root! (I think, Kozma Prutkov)
        4. ZU-23
          ZU-23 April 23 2014 22: 13
          A fun article before bedtime, although there are sad predictions at a subconscious level, we will win if that, but with what blood, because we have a demographic hole after Chechnya and Afghanistan.
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I April 24 2014 03: 41
            Quote: ZU-23
            after all, so after Chechnya and Afghanistan we have a demographic hole.

            We have unas a "demographic pit" after "experiments" with the economic, state "reorganization" of the country. Glory to Yeltsin! Glory to the "crap"!
            1. Al_lexx
              Al_lexx April 24 2014 06: 12
              Quote: Nikolaevich I
              Quote: ZU-23
              after all, so after Chechnya and Afghanistan we have a demographic hole.

              We have unas a "demographic pit" after "experiments" with the economic, state "reorganization" of the country. Glory to Yeltsin! Glory to the "crap"!

              During the perestroika period, we lost almost more of the population than during the Second World War.
        5. The comment was deleted.
        6. avg
          avg April 23 2014 23: 49
          Quote: voldmis
          Do not underestimate a potential adversary! Cape envy has never brought to good ...

          Sorry for the time spent. First I read the article, and only then looked at the name of the author. From now on, there will be science.
        7. svp67
          svp67 April 23 2014 23: 53
          Quote: voldmis
          Do not underestimate a potential adversary! Cape envy has never brought to good ...

          Right and
          The threat of NATO invasion: myths and reality
          - more reality than myth, NATO IS NEEDED Ukraine, as a bridgehead and already many facts indicate that Crimea was already being prepared for NATO base and that American ships should have been stationed in Sevastopol ... Why did they go crazy and flew over and spent , which is the most offensive for Americans ...
        8. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich April 24 2014 05: 39
          Quote: voldmis
          NATO's expectation of military aggression is either paranoia, or incompetence, or propaganda.

          Do not underestimate a potential adversary! Cape envy has never brought to good ...
          yes it’s a pity that I can minus only once ...
          Even in Russia, the myth of the "NATO bases" surrounding our country for the preparation of aggression is popular .... negative all tovarisch Khromchikhin ... further read your "opus" - do not respect yourself! you are apparently a liberal my friend ... negative
      2. GradusHuK
        GradusHuK April 23 2014 23: 11
        Softly stiletto.
    2. Pavel Sinko
      Pavel Sinko April 24 2014 00: 08
      I'm talking about the article, what a dust in the eyes, what kind of misinformation the author of the article has absolutely no understanding of the situation in the world. As for here, they will be misleading. I answer the author of the article, and maybe there is a reduction in tanks and so on in NATO, but the author It doesn’t take into account anything else that NATO is building up high-tech systems. A huge US base has strangely grown on the fragments of Yugoslavia in Kosovo, go further Afghanistan The USA monopolized there and put opium production on stream, in other words, at least the production of opium in Afghanistan with NATO there increased 40 times. Iraq and Libya and of course all the oil was not taken from the people for the time being but taken under tight control and at the right time the United States can easily influence world oil prices to the peak of Russia. How can one be so criminally far-sighted. full death and bullshit please please good people not to pay attention to such articles and think wider friends and then all p. rem with such analysts.
      1. Igor39
        Igor39 April 24 2014 04: 08
        Vasily listened to what they were saying, smiling slyly and slowly straightening the ax on the bar.
  2. Xeueys
    Xeueys April 23 2014 20: 31
    Ukrainian junta, etc. etc. ......
    They are helpless puppets. It is necessary to kill the main mongrel, the Yusovites. And not by military means. It is necessary to gradually make the word "dollar" evoke an ironic smile and in no way be associated with money.
    1. Speedy
      Speedy April 23 2014 22: 47
      Khramchikhin is not the first time he has been seen in a clear understatement of NATO forces, and the demonization of China. Who benefits from this? Correctly. Those who write other manuals in bulk and others like them. Fear China, and the west is either friendships and an example for stalking, or a soap bubble, which is sin to fear. At the same time, Khramchikhin puts in quite childish statements about the oil interests of the West. Hedgehog it is clear that the shtatovtsy is not interested in oil in itself, they are interested in trading in it in $. This is their vital interest. And last but not least, they are very afraid of just trading between Russia and China in national currencies. In short, the Cossack mishandled along the way.
  3. woron333444
    woron333444 April 23 2014 20: 33
    reassuring article, can begin to disarm and invite pin_dosov?
    1. iConst
      iConst April 23 2014 21: 00
      Quote: woron333444
      reassuring article, can begin to disarm and invite pin_dosov?

      The same thoughts: bayu-bayushki-bayu ...

      The author carefully avoids the topic of missile defense. Sent Cossack ...
      1. dmitriygorshkov
        dmitriygorshkov April 23 2014 22: 43
        Quote: iConst
        Sent Cossack ...

        100 pounds!
        Uncle kind of explained because of what the wars are not being waged, and because of what are being fought, forgot to add.
        Afghan-an unfortunate example! "Twins" were blown up by the Americans themselves, obviously not because of oil-heroin! They needed heroin and what it brings to the world!
        The author believes that these are good goals? Uncle minus definitely! You're lying! Do not put to sleep!
    2. Arhj
      Arhj April 23 2014 21: 47
      I agree. If we take everything as truth, NATO will fall apart tomorrow and today it is useless for anything. Only here about the "Chekhov" gun should be remembered. Today the aggregate military potential of NATO is 3-4 times higher than the Russian one, I will not say anything about the economic potential.
      I also do not believe in NATO’s intention to fight with Russia, but the reason for this is solely in the disproportionate losses that the alliance will suffer even in case of victory. And the fact that the NATO bases along the perimeter of our borders are called in some other way does not reassure me, because in principle I am not happy with the fact of the existence of an alliance sharpened against my country.
      MY THOUGHT April 23 2014 22: 14
      why soothing ?, the author simply said that we are not afraid of them, I absolutely agree with him. And you shouldn’t disarm, you just need to arm first of all not the Northern Fleet and the Tsvo, but two and the Pacific Fleet !!!
      1. volkodav
        volkodav April 23 2014 23: 51
        I absolutely agree with you, and change Minister Showman and clean the general staff a bit, and stop rewriting combat training programs from manuals from the 60s
      2. alicante11
        alicante11 April 24 2014 02: 00
        Why didn't the Chinese please you? They are not our friends, but as long as NATO exists, they are not enemies. Because Russia and China are "windows" for each other, which will remain open in any blockade. As long as Russia and China exist, NATO cannot do whatever it wants. And there is no need to step on the same rake that we already stepped on in WWI when we went to drag chestnuts out of the fire for the Naglo-Saxons. And how it ended, you also remember.
  4. fvandaku
    fvandaku April 23 2014 20: 34
    How can Europe defend its interests, if in power from LGBT people?
    People who do not hear and do not see.
  5. vezunchik
    vezunchik April 23 2014 20: 36
    "Right Sector" creates a battalion "Donbass" to fight separatists in the eastern regions of Ukraine. This was stated at a press conference by the leader of the "Right Sector", presidential candidate Dmitry Yarosh, reports the media center "Dnepr Post".
    “We support the Geneva accords, but we see that the invaders do not understand the peace negotiations, and the only way to get rid of them is to conduct a quick and decisive anti-terrorist operation. The Right Sector is ready to take part in it, and has already provided people ready for combat. ... I declare that from now on "Right Sector" takes under protection the entire population of Donbass and guarantees its free and comprehensive development. ... We are now working on the creation of the "Donbass" battalion, which will work successfully in the territory of Donbass in order to stop anti-state actions, "Yarosh said.

    According to him, the battalion will be formed in the shortest possible time, no more than three days, and will consist of 800 people.

    “Many of the residents of Donbass are already addressing us with a request that the Right Sector come and put things in order. But the Right Sector is not an independent military force, and we coordinate all our actions with government agencies,” Yarosh said.

  6. vezunchik
    vezunchik April 23 2014 20: 37
    Russian Emergency Situations Ministry
    Puchkov Vladimir Andreevich
    Dear Vladimir Andreyevich!
    In connection with the current difficult and tense situation in Ukraine, the anti-terrorist operation in the South-East, which resulted in the wounded and killed, I, as a candidate for President of Ukraine, simply must contact you for help.
    To date, residents of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions of Ukraine who are forced to fight for their future, according to the current government, have turned out to be “criminals”. Life in these regions is very politicized and far from legal regulation.
    We are faced with the fact that the authorities are trying in every possible way to prevent the supply of essential goods: medicines, insulin for insulin-dependent people, food, hygiene products. Ordinary citizens suffer, but these are children, pensioners, and people with disabilities. In this situation, there is no place for politics.
    From the Russian Federation, Ukraine has repeatedly received both financial assistance and humanitarian support, for which I am very grateful to you.
    I am convinced that the Russians are not indifferent to the fate of Ukraine, because many here have relatives, friends and close people who are in a desperate situation.
    I ask you to provide emergency humanitarian assistance (food, hygiene products, medicines, insulin, medical equipment, clothing) to Donetsk and Lugansk regions of Ukraine.
    In turn, I am ready to work together to assess the amount of necessary humanitarian assistance to the Donetsk and Lugansk regions of Ukraine, and also personally and through the efforts of my supporters I am ready to organize humanitarian aid delivery points in these regions.

    Deputy of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, candidate for President of Ukraine O.A. Tsarev
  7. vezunchik
    vezunchik April 23 2014 20: 38
    On April 23, a Skype inclusion from Kharkov with the participation of journalist Andrei Warty took place at the Southeast Front information center.
    “Today was an extraordinary meeting of the city council,” said Andrei Wart. - Considered the requirements that the people presented to the board. And as a result, they decided to support the preservation of a single indivisible Ukraine and did not support the position of city activists.
    The gathered crowd near the regional state administration demanded Gennady Kernes and when he left, they met him with insulting cries.
    Also today, the action “Do not shoot at children!” Was held. They talked about the inadmissibility of attracting military forces and actions. Among others, the head of the Kharkov association "For cultural and linguistic equality" Gennady Makarov also spoke. Mentioned cadets of the Academy of Internal Troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, who died on the Maidan as a result of a call to protect the state. They are not forgotten and are a prime example of what civil wars lead to.
    As regards the arrest of Konstantin Dolgov, I want to say that an appeal will be filed on April 25-26. Now preparations are underway and the necessary documents are being collected. ”
  8. aksakal
    aksakal April 23 2014 20: 42
    even if the author of SABZH is right, it is better to overdo it than to miss it. This is the first thing. And secondly, the American army, the main one in NATO, is still strong, the American Navy has eleven AUGs, and Russia has one, and that is defective. Wow "paper tiger". laughing Something the author went too far.
    As for oil - well, graduates of vocational schools can understand geopolitics in such a simplified way, and most understand it adequately, not so primitively that Americans attack solely because of free oil.
    1. iConst
      iConst April 23 2014 21: 04
      Quote: aksakal
      As for oil - well, graduates of vocational schools can understand geopolitics in such a simplified way, and most understand it adequately, not so primitively that Americans attack solely because of free oil.

      I agree - the author needs to learn how to play GO. He will understand how a set stone at one end of the board changes the situation at the other.
    2. family tree
      family tree April 23 2014 21: 26
      Quote: aksakal
      even if the author of the Sabbath is right, it is better to overtake than not to finish ...

      First comment on the topic. And at the expense of the subject, not only armies are waging wars. And military action is not always a clash, Churchill said that war requires three things, money, money and money. If there is money, the war may well be waged only by the forces of the country that you are going to "conquer". Free oil, of course, is good, in a sense, but it's better to just take control of its production and distribution and get leverage. And at the expense of the bases, let me remind you, missile defense, as a guarantee of an unrequited nuclear strike. In general, the author is trying to push the bullshit.
  9. Dezinto
    Dezinto April 23 2014 20: 43
    Yes. Some kind of calming article. They don’t want anything. They can’t do anything. All versions of their motives are not true. They buy oil from Iraq, they don’t pump it at all, without discounts ... What?
  10. awg75
    awg75 April 23 2014 20: 43
    what kind of NATO turns yellow and fluffy ... it just hurt and it turned green and slippery. the author of the campaign Cossack mishandled
    1. shaman-25rus
      shaman-25rus April 23 2014 22: 05
      White and fluffy in the sense of "gray and hairy"?
  11. ReifA
    ReifA April 23 2014 20: 44
    The author refutes some reasons and does not say others. And just like that, even flies do not fly.
  12. nicollider
    nicollider April 23 2014 20: 45
    Do not underestimate the enemy. NATO should not be afraid - but it is not necessary to neglect this military bloc.
  13. waisson
    waisson April 23 2014 20: 47
    -------------- hiscared
    1. Arhj
      Arhj April 23 2014 21: 49
      Here I am talking about too. Good must be with fists.
  14. waisson
    waisson April 23 2014 20: 50
    here is my answer
  15. Monk
    Monk April 23 2014 20: 52
    In fact, repeated reductions in armaments, the principle of collective irresponsibility and the breakdown of discipline reflect the processes taking place in Western societies. Europe in this way is far ahead of the United States, which affects, in particular, the military sphere.

    But this is not a reason to relax us.
  16. Leshka
    Leshka April 23 2014 20: 58
    the future will show
  17. ya.seliwerstov2013
    ya.seliwerstov2013 April 23 2014 20: 58
    It’s time to dissolve the NATO killer.
    To stop the fate of people ..
  18. combat66
    combat66 April 23 2014 21: 01
    Come on, NATO is "Mother Teresa" ... gee .... And we just have to stroke them on the buttocks.
    An article without proof, some inferences (poorly informed optimist, or worse). In general, everything is much more complicated and this is not "two plus two". America is remaking the whole system for itself and it is stupid, naive to believe that this is being done for the triumph of democracy. Figuratively speaking: If I am the owner of a supermarket, then I am not offended and a check at the checkout for a bottle of "kefir" to break through.
  19. free
    free April 23 2014 21: 04
    The author wrote a frank get along!
    1. 0255
      0255 April 23 2014 21: 25
      Quote: free
      The author wrote a frank get along!

      ... clearly paid
  20. typhoon7
    typhoon7 April 23 2014 21: 07
    Complacency is not a best friend. How many wars we had with Western countries, it’s not worth it to deceive ourselves, these peppers will always hit in the back on occasion.
  21. Kapralwdw
    Kapralwdw April 23 2014 21: 08
    "sweet" article but there is one thing, but you can never relax, otherwise we will get a knife from where we did not expect!
  22. Visitor
    Visitor April 23 2014 21: 09
    The article is weak. NATO must be taken seriously not only because of the states looming behind its back, but also because of the information war that is being waged with us, including with such "reassuring" articles. I would not be surprised that the customer of the article is either s or Geyropovtsy. Minus!
    1. koshh
      koshh April 23 2014 21: 17
      This is our response from NATO and the US
  23. Xeueys
    Xeueys April 23 2014 21: 22
    The leader of NATO is star-striped garbage. From a historical point of view, what is the USA? This is a giant garbage dump of the world. This is a bunch of rabble, lumpens, lazy, stupid and absolutely incapable monkeys who simply could not survive 300 years ago in Europe (which by that time still seemed not to be inclined to any homosexual). Over time, a group of black monkeys strengthened them (honestly, I have nothing against African blacks). And now this garbage can wants to make garbage the whole planet. Well, I do not.
    1. andrewvlg
      andrewvlg April 23 2014 22: 03
      Quote: Xeueys
      This is a bunch of rabble, lumpens, lazy, stupid and absolutely incapable monkeys who simply could not survive 300 years ago in Europe (which by that time still seemed not to be inclined to any homosexual). Over time, a group of black monkeys strengthened them (honestly, I have nothing against African blacks).

      You must write with the author of the article. If anything, lumpenism and laziness are not inherited. A significant part of Australians are descendants of convicts, for example. By your logic, their modern descendants are entirely criminals?
      Regarding the black monkeys you have nothing against:
      "I hate racism and blacks!" (from)
  24. 0255
    0255 April 23 2014 21: 24
    I read the first 2 paragraphs, guessed who the author was, looked and made sure who the author was, and did not read further.
  25. siberalt
    siberalt April 23 2014 21: 24
    NAT is blown away before our eyes. To be afraid of her is only to inflate a bubble of her importance. Russians do not give up.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Harin Oleg
      Harin Oleg April 23 2014 22: 00
      During his extreme press conference, Putin, answering a question from Dmitry Kiselev, said: "You shouldn't be afraid of anyone, we ourselves will crush anyone."
      But this does not mean that you can relax — if you did not correctly evaluate your enemy (and NATO is an enemy, without any doubt), it is doomed to defeat.
    3. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I April 24 2014 03: 32
      Lord, how bored this massive "shapkozakidatelstvo" !!! Moreover, the most "active" bawlers are those who have not served in the army.
  26. Vorodis_vA
    Vorodis_vA April 23 2014 21: 26
    I fundamentally disagree with the author, minus the article. Maybe oil revenues go to the budget, but do they get it? (Iraq, Libya), and it’s not oil that matters and market management is to become the director of a world store (petrodollars). Otherwise, it turns out that the United States is stirring up a joke of war.))) And what is important is not the quantity but the quality and location of the troops. If they do not use the capabilities of NATO in detail, it only proves why they need it. Russia also does not use a lot of things, but only gets enough to show. The war between the Russian Federation and NATO is possible with the weakening of Russia and the persecution by the United States.
    1. mpa945
      mpa945 April 23 2014 21: 40
      Her exclusively for democracy
  27. sv68
    sv68 April 23 2014 21: 27
    sorry, but such an article could have been written either as a deletant or as a provocateur. Third is not given.
    1. Tulip
      Tulip April 23 2014 21: 33
      I agree!!
  28. Tulip
    Tulip April 23 2014 21: 30
    States will not fight directly for oil, but for the right to control the extraction of energy resources and the management of their distribution - is mandatory. To date, the Fed can save from the crisis only such control and management.
  29. dr.star75
    dr.star75 April 23 2014 21: 32
    The article is ambiguous, there are inaccuracies, offhand: Libya and Iraq were bombed not only and not so much for oil (although a trifle is nice), but because they were going to introduce oil trade for their "gold" money, and the Sshasas they were not at all satisfied with pale green. The US has a monopoly in only one thing - the dollar. All other countries can do whatever they want, just not print a sovereign national currency. China is preparing for this, so it is pumping up the army, we seem to be too. China will not attack us, 100500 have already discussed this.
  30. Tanechka-clever
    Tanechka-clever April 23 2014 21: 33
    "The expectation of military aggression on the part of NATO is either paranoia, or incompetence, or propaganda" - the author of the article can see the serious paranoia of "infant pacifism". - but most likely "mowed" from the army. In his sane mind, a man will not write such lines, unless of course there is no goal - to drain the misinformation.
  31. A1L9E4K9S
    A1L9E4K9S April 23 2014 21: 34
    An article in the twenties, to calm the weak-minded. NATO is falling apart, disarmed, does not want to fight, and I want to pat and pity the poor, poor NATO.
  32. arkady149
    arkady149 April 23 2014 21: 34
    According to the author’s logic, Russia should not worry about anything from NATO? Is China annoying? So it seems not China, but namely NATO has unleashed ALL (or almost all) conflicts over the past 30 years. Is Ukraine also destabilized by accident? Lame logic. IMHO.
  33. maestro123
    maestro123 April 23 2014 21: 36
    Before The USSR and the USA were pulling muscles, now Russia and the USA, NATO has sharply substantiated ....?
  34. frol
    frol April 23 2014 21: 48
    I still do not understand for what reasons NATO is fighting. Such a big Porthos "I fight because I fight"? The author has clearly smoked pot. Here in Latvia, 150 whole NATO paratroopers are going to place. And what should we do with this "good"? laughing
  35. Giant thought
    Giant thought April 23 2014 21: 50
    A good bedtime story, I thought the author was G. H. Andersen.
  36. Harin Oleg
    Harin Oleg April 23 2014 21: 52
    Khramchikhin Alexander Anatolyevich
    Brief description: political scientist, head of the analytical department of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis. Author of several hundred publications on political and military topics in various print media (NG, NVO, LG, Vremya MN, Znamya, Otechestvennye zapiski, etc.) and on Internet sites (, ,,, etc.), and also acts as an expert in TV and radio programs (VGTRK, REN-TV, Radio Rossii, Mayak-24, Business FM).
    What is falling in: Paranoid obsessed with the Chinese threat, drives all his thoughts under this idea, based on innocent facts. He invents absurd scenarios of the imminent Chinese invasion of the Russian Federation. At the same time, he assures that NATO is catastrophically weakened and poses no threat.
    He does not understand military equipment and makes silly mistakes in articles.
    (based on the material of the Global Adventure, thanks to Gosh)

    (source punctuation and spelling preserved)
    Born June 3, 1967

    He graduated from the Physics Department of Moscow State University (1990).
    From 1995-96, he worked in the analytical structures of the electoral headquarters of the NDR, then the headquarters of B.N. Yeltsin, in 1999 he participated in the election campaign of the Union of Right Forces / Kiriyenko.
    In IPVA since the organization was established (January 1996) on the basis of the information and analytical service of the headquarters of the PDR.
    The areas of activity are domestic policy at the federal and regional levels, foreign policy, issues of military development and the armed forces in Russia and abroad.
    The main author of the books “Elections to the Sixth State Duma: Results and Conclusions”, “Elections of the President of the Russian Federation: Results and Conclusions”, published by IPVA in 1996.
    Author and host of the database on the political situation in the regions of the Russian Federation, available in IPVA.
    He is the author of several hundred publications on political and military topics in print media (NG, NVO, LG, Vremya MN, Banner, Patriotic Notes, etc.) and on Internet sites (,, ima,, etc.), as well as speaking as an expert in TV and radio programs (VGTRK, REN-TV, Radio of Russia, Mayak-24).
    Deputy Director of the Institute for Political and Military Analysis
    And a lot more interesting at:
  37. samuil60
    samuil60 April 23 2014 21: 58
    The article is rather strange, in the spirit of the Gorbachev era. Anyone who underestimates the enemy - bothers the battle, or even the whole war. The current situation in the world proves the existence of a world government, to which a resurgent Russia with its values ​​and indestructible vitality is a bone in the throat. Well, it really bothers. Some states simply physically could not force almost the whole world to blow in one tune, as is happening now.
  38. Sergey S.
    Sergey S. April 23 2014 22: 07
    “Thanks to Putin for yet another reminder to us that the current NATO is not even a paper tiger, but a soap bubble”

    I do not share the author’s views on Russia's security surrounded by NATO bases.
    The fact is that the general herd is one opinion, and the leaders are a completely different point of view ...
    Who pretends that he does not understand, let him remember our recent past under EBN.
    He ruined everything, made loud statements, and organized two Chechen massacres ...
    So the NATO godfathers can also get things done.
    You must be prepared for this.

    But the epigraph that pulled out of the article is very characteristic of our time.
    Wherever they are afraid of exacerbations, national traditions, worship of the great Heroes, wimps begin to dominate, rootless and cowardly, in fact - homeless people.

    NATO! - Dissolve yourself until you become a laughing stock ...
  39. maxbrov74
    maxbrov74 April 23 2014 22: 16
    It seems like we all went through this in the late Perestroika and at the beginning of 90x. It was remembered from each matyugalnik that the USSR, and then Russia, had no enemies, and only peace-loving well-wishers. And what did this lead to? The country was barely swept a second time. Enough. As Al Capone said, with a kind word and a gun you can achieve much more than just a kind word.
  40. andj61
    andj61 April 23 2014 22: 16
    The history of NATO (and NATO and the United States at present, by their very nature, if not equivalent, then very close) of the last two decades indicates the aggressive nature of this supposedly defensive alliance. Twice Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan - is that paranoia, incompetence? And maybe propaganda? And the constant expansion of NATO to the East during this time, despite the urgent requests of Russia? At the same time, assurances are constantly followed that this cannot threaten Russia. And earlier there were assurances that after the reunification of Germany, NATO will not expand at the expense of the countries of the former Eastern Bloc, but this promise has been safely forgotten. But at the same time, to conclude a legally significant agreement that would guarantee that there would not be a threat to Russia's security from the territory of the new members of the alliance, NATO also refuses!
    Is it possible to trust them at all under these conditions? Therefore, do not be surprised that Russia is preparing to defend itself. Si vis pacem, para bellum - “if you want peace, get ready for war”.
    A minus article. It is wrong to underestimate a potential adversary.
  41. Aleksandr65
    Aleksandr65 April 23 2014 22: 17
    The author is inadequate. After 1991, NATO adopted 16 European countries. And EVERYTHING is near our borders. Does this mean that NATO is non-aggressive? And missile defense in Poland, Romania, for beauty? The truth, in my opinion, is that Europe is really afraid of victims, afraid of upsetting its small blessed world. But if at least the slightest opportunity presents herself to UNPUNISHED to destroy us, they will do it without hesitation. To do this, create missile defense, create precision weapons, etc. Therefore, Europe should be declared clearly and without equivocation: it will be destroyed guaranteed and many times in the event of the slightest aggression by Russia's nuclear weapons. Only this can reason Europe.
  42. Yugra
    Yugra April 23 2014 22: 20
    This templechikhin fulfills 30 coins from NATO? Speech of the next Shenderovich and others like him
  43. razved
    razved April 23 2014 22: 23
    Again zaslanets again "about the old cow." I must have received another fee, won how much I wrote ...
  44. nevopros
    nevopros April 23 2014 22: 37
    Oh, Khramchikhin! How familiar. Again, casually decided to tell about the "most terrible_worst" Chinese threat? He works all the time on his own line, the Chinese one.
  45. cerbuk6155
    cerbuk6155 April 23 2014 22: 38
    The author Alexander Khramchikhin is not an amateur, he is an adequate provocateur is not simple. He is a writing provocateur. Such people cannot be judged, for them there is only one measure - according to the laws of wartime ..... am
  46. Valter1364
    Valter1364 April 23 2014 22: 41
    It seems to me that the author is a Cossack mishandled. Who is this article for primary school students? And all these videos, that everything drowns and doesn’t fly, tomorrow they’ll come to surrender to all NATO, for what? When they start talking about the enemy like that, you need to think and see who writes this, and for what? You have to be wiser.
  47. basmach
    basmach April 23 2014 22: 57
    In part, the author is right. Indeed, multinational forces under an incomprehensible general leadership - like a swan, a cancer and a pike - each will seek to substitute a neighbor for themselves. From a military point of view, this is absurd. And it is said correctly about the contract army (but Machiavelli spoke about this very accurately in work "Sovereign" already in the 14th century). However, the author somehow one-sidedly talks about NATO, only casually mentioning China. China is sorely lacking resources and living territories. At the same time, the direction of China's expansion is determined to the south. However, the strategic location and presence resource base, as well as food and water resources, the lack of supply lines in case of war, the small number and the actual inability of the Eastern VO to defend the territory from Baikal to Vladik are the main reasons for China's future movement to the north and the determining factors of the war. The supply of the entire Far East is tied through the Trans-Siberian, these are huge territories, after all the reforms and reductions, practically not covered by military groupings, the low population and, as a consequence, the lack of a local personnel reserve, the absence of a clear system of defense of the region (or rather its complete absence) are just a few factors which could lead to the loss of the entire region in the event of war. In fact, China has no other direction for expansion. In addition, over the past 20 years, so many Chinese have settled in Transbaikalia and the Far East that this is not even a fifth column, but an entire army and how it will behave during the war.
    The European theater of war has lost its paramount importance and the Asia-Pacific theater of war comes to the fore as the main threat. It is here and now that the basic knots and contradictions are tied up, which will be the cause of the wars of the near future.
  48. Svetovod
    Svetovod April 23 2014 23: 01
    Peacetime soldiers and wartime soldiers are different items. Who wants to die for money, which in theory still needs to be spent.
  49. Hecate
    Hecate April 23 2014 23: 23
    NATO’s expectation of military aggression is not paranoia, but caution.
    The buildup of NATO military bases in Europe should strain, regardless of their equipment! And you shouldn't turn your back on China either! "If you want peace, prepare for war" is a phrase for all time!
    SERGEYTSIKALUIK April 23 2014 23: 37
    I can not agree with all the arguments of the author.
    The author gives an argument with which I generally agree. I absolutely agree with the fact that the United States does not support NATO countries today. Except, perhaps, the 51st state, Great Britain. But excuse me: the USA has ALWAYS been the main firepower of NATO. The US Army today is about 50% of NATO and much more than 50% in real terms. We say NATO, we mean the United States. SO IT WAS ALWAYS. If the United States decides to attack someone, they will not look at the number of allies and their presence at all. Many NATO member countries supported the US in the Vietnam War? None!!!
    Second: the United States is fighting not only and not so much for oil. The USA periodically shows who is the boss in the house. Maintains its sun in good shape. Runs in new weapons. It creates favorable conditions for the development of its defense industry and science and technology as a whole. Eliminates political opponents when other methods are exhausted. Do not forget that a defeated country is not only its oil but also everything that can be taken out, in general, all the way to beautiful girls. And a defeated country is a lesson for many years to come. Some time after the next military triumph, it is enough for America to show its teeth and many will give everything themselves.
    The United States fought and will fight. It is very convenient for the USA, you get used to the good quickly.
    Regarding military bases near the borders of Russia. There are really VERY many of them. Just any military base, airfield, port, military camp of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Czech Republic, Germany, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, Aghvnistan, Georgia, South Korea, Japan. At any moment they are ready to accept the reinforcement in the form of American troops. U.S. airmobile units can be relocated fairly quickly to these bases. Look at the map!!! It turns out a tight ring around Russia (the only gap is China). Add to this the opportunity to bring the fleet's strike force to the sea coasts.

    The situation is frankly frightening.

    PS "A ray of light in the dark kingdom"
    In recent years, the real level of combat training of American soldiers has been falling, while Russian soldiers, on the contrary, are growing. If the United States did not dare to attack us in the 90s and 2000s, now it is generally from the category of fantasy. THEY'S GLASSES! According to some estimates, with the loss of 15-20% of the personnel of the units, mass desertions will begin. You don't have to go far for examples. Take the situation with the American destroyer Donald Cook and the Russian Su-24 reconnaissance aircraft. 27 crew members of the destroyer "Donald Cook" have submitted their resignation. Pentagon spokesman Colonel Stephen Warren told Reuter that the Russian bomber flew twelve times at low altitude near the American destroyer. He called these maneuvers frightening and unacceptable, as it demoralizes the ship's personnel and negatively affects the general psychological climate among the military.
    Warren noted that the destroyer was patrolling the waters in the western Black Sea when the incident occurred. According to him, the ship is now safe in the Romanian port, where it was urgently evacuated. The ship's crew members undergo the necessary procedures with a psychologist to recover from the stress they endured. As a result, the Donald Cook's crew was forced to sail with a shortage of personnel, and the dismissal of another 27 crew members, which may be followed by others, endangers further successful implementation of the task.
    Can you imagine what awaits the Americans if they converge in a combined arms battle with the Russian formations? And the first street fights? And the big stars across the ocean are well aware of this. And they’re scared !!!!
    1. iConst
      iConst April 24 2014 12: 15

      Second: the United States is fighting not only and not so much for oil. The USA periodically shows who is the boss in the house.
      The United States fought and will fight. It is very convenient for the USA, you get used to the good quickly.
      Add to this the opportunity to bring the fleet's strike force to the sea coasts.

      The situation is frankly frightening.

      PS "A ray of light in the dark kingdom"

      In recent years, the real level of combat training of American soldiers has been falling, while Russian soldiers, on the contrary, are growing. If the United States did not dare to attack us in the 90s and 2000s, now it is generally from the category of fantasy. THEY'S GLASSES! According to some estimates, with the loss of 15-20% of the personnel of the units, mass desertions will begin. You don't have to go far for examples. Take the situation with the American destroyer Donald Cook and the Russian Su-24 reconnaissance aircraft. 27 crew members of the destroyer "Donald Cook" submitted their resignation.

      It is for the resources: hydrocarbons (at the head), financial management, the demography of the planet. Hence, "who is the boss".

      They will fight, but they are fighting more and more cautiously: a "course" has been taken to reduce the number of "fire" infantry subunits while maintaining or even increasing their combat potential due to technical superiority. Hence the concept of minimizing losses: to fight remotely and only in exceptional cases, direct fire contact of personnel.

      As for pulling the fleet to the shores - well, where will they be pulled? In the Black Sea da Barents. We do not take Baltic and Pacific Fleet into account. Russia is not Iraq and maritime groupings are very vulnerable with the slightest approach to the coast.

      The same superbomb within a radius of several hundred meters can turn ships over, damage outdoor equipment and cause serious damage to such a connection.

      And where is the information about Donald Cook? Somehow, it is hard to believe - information about the dismissal of aircraft drugs is not public. How did you get it?
        SERGEYTSIKALUIK April 24 2014 21: 09
        ALL COUNTRIES FROM THE INVENTION OF THE BOW AND ARROW keep the course to minimize losses due to distance war and superiority in the range of weapons !!!! Today, weapons have reached a point where further growth of firepower does not make sense. New samples are superior to old ones in EFFICIENCY and replace several units of similar equipment of obsolete types !! All this is called the concept of network-centric warfare. Today, even China is building its aircraft on this principle !!

        I just wanted to say that if you add the very possibility of a landing in almost anywhere on the coast, it turns out to be a difficult task for someone who will build defense plans for Russia. It turns out a circular defense. Something like Poland before the German attack in 1939: the Poles did not know where to expect the main blow.
        Next: if the United States nevertheless decides to aggression, it will have to break into the coastal defense. I hope this will not be an easy walk for them. But do not forget that the firepower of the US Navy is able to erase some states in one day of fire contact. In the case of landing operations, the United States is the best. They have tremendous experience in this. I'm certainly not a great tactician. But weighing the pros and cons
        : I see no reason to hinder landing directly. It is reasonable to wait for the landing, and then counterattack and drop the landing into the sea.

        In black and white: "As the Pentagon spokesman Colonel Stephen Warren told Reuter ..."