NATO has much more reason to fear Russia than Russia does - fear NATO

NATO has much more reason to fear Russia than Russia does - fear NATOThe Internet is now walking a lot of photos of the “wunderwaffe” of the Libyan rebels - amazing samples weapons type of armored troop-carrier in a jeep or absolutely fantastic homemade MLRS, literally welded on the knee. In Russia, on this occasion, it is customary to scoff at the wretched "fighters for democracy."


Meanwhile, there is nothing to mock. If people have been doing such miracles for four months, and then they are fighting them, it means that they are fighting for the idea. And already therefore deserve respect. And the second conclusion - the NATO members do not have any real support for their "hirelings" either with weapons or with money (therefore, the rebels are not any "hirelings").

The rebels are in despair: they seriously thought that NATO was a mighty military bloc. They did not notice, the poor, the example of Georgia, which NATO tried so much to like, and the “aggressive imperialist bloc” not only did nothing to help it at a critical moment, but, in fact, imposed tough sanctions against it (“NVO” wrote about this in the article “NATO scares its weakness” by 15.4.11).

Meanwhile, the NATO members themselves began to have problems. For example, six Danish F-16s, having achieved no success in Libya, managed to spend the entire stock of Danish Air Force bombs in this country. Now the Danes are asking Holland to share bombs, because the Dutch Air Force only carries out “patrols” over Libya, although it has not had three months aviation. Norway, on the other hand, is reducing its “grouping” from six F-16s to four, and will withdraw them by August 1, since it is a small country and cannot fight for so long (this is not the irony of the author, this is the official explanation of the Norwegian Minister of Defense).

POWER ON PAPER

If the European countries of the alliance used at least a quarter of the potential that they have on paper, the Libyan campaign would have ended a maximum in a month. But it lasts already 3,5 of the month, and there is no end in sight.

In this connection, outgoing US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke out. He said that NATO is on the verge of collapse, the avarice and lack of political will of the leadership of the bloc can accelerate its disintegration. Gates noted that military operations in Afghanistan and Libya revealed the weakness of NATO. Despite the fact that the alliance formally has more than 2 million military personnel, the maintenance of 45 thousand soldiers and the necessary combat and transport equipment in Afghanistan is a serious problem for the bloc. Therefore, "the US Congress may lose patience and will no longer spend American money to finance those who cannot and do not want to properly participate in ensuring collective security." Gates noted in his speech that only five NATO countries from 28 spend the defensive 2% of GDP (and one of them is Albania) on defense.

Apparently, the principle of collective defense in NATO somehow imperceptibly developed into the principle of collective irresponsibility. Nobody wants to make their own contribution to the defense. Everyone hopes for others, reducing their own aircraft. At the same time, apparently, forgetting that there are no special separate NATO armed forces. NATO aircraft is the sum of its members. The smaller each term, the smaller the amount. As a result, all hopes are pinned on the United States, and if they suddenly refuse to fight, complete shame occurs.

As Douglas Bandou, a political analyst in the Reagan administration, wrote remarkably, “the French and the British, who were aggressively pushing through this war, thought that good States would come and do all the work for them. There was no “plan B”. “Gaddafi must go. Gaddafi should leave, Gaddafi will leave, ”NATO officials repeat. This mantra became their dream and prayer ... If in three months the strongest coalition in human stories could not even understand how to overthrow Gaddafi, then these people can not be seriously considered. And the longer the conflict lasts, the more stupid (if not insane) members of the alliance look. ”

Unfortunately, in Russia they manage to ignore this. And they continue to repeat another mantra that is becoming increasingly absurd - about the “threat” of Russia from NATO. Interestingly, in connection with this mantra, the remarkable phrase is repeated: “It is not the intentions that must be responded to, but the possibilities”. It would be very good if this phrase actually became the motto for some of our experts. Which, it seems, have no idea, in particular, about the possibilities of NATO and domestic military equipment, about the potential of the groupings of the parties in Europe.

WHAT ARE THREATS?

In the framework of the concept of “NATO threat” it is very difficult to explain, for example, the radical reduction of NATO forces in Europe (NVO wrote in detail about this in the article “What should we do with NATO?” Dated 15.10.10). So far, in order to prepare for aggression, forces have been increasing, not reduced. It is even more difficult to explain within the framework of this concept the fact that so far not a single American base has appeared in any Eastern European country, although all of them are actively inviting Americans, and the more, the better. In order to prepare for aggression, forces in the advanced regions must be built up first of all, so far no one has succeeded differently. The USA still has a certain number of objects in the territory of the "old" NATO members (Germany, Great Britain and Italy) since the Cold War. But if on January 1, 1990, the USA had 5904 in Europe tank, 5747 BBM, 2601 artillery systems, 626 combat aircraft and 243 attack helicopters, as of January 1, 2010 they had 100 tanks left (20 times reduced over 59 years), 606 BBMs (9,48 times), 206 artillery systems (in 12,62 times), 209 aircraft (3 times) and 48 helicopters (5,06 times). Again, a very strange preparation for aggression is obtained - by minimizing the tools for it. Of course, theoretically, the United States can increase its contingent in Europe at times and even orders of magnitude due to the forces deployed now in this country itself, as well as in the Near and Middle East. But this takes a very significant amount of time (for the ground forces we are talking about months, for the Air Force - about weeks), huge expenses, and, most importantly, it is absolutely impossible to make it unnoticed. A massive transfer of US troops to Europe will be tantamount to "I’m coming to you" in relation to Russia. If there is no surprise factor in aggression, then its price will automatically increase many times. Accordingly, in terms of preparing for aggression, Washington’s behavior is not even abnormal, but simply absurd.

However, supporters of the “threat of NATO” concept have recently gained some sort of argument in their favor: Obama promised that, starting with 2013, the F-16 squadron from the 31-th wing deployed to Aviano (Italy) will be based on rotation in Poland. Since the F-16 can carry nuclear weapons and has a combat radius of 1315 km, there is clearly a nuclear attack on Moscow.

It should be noted that in Eastern Europe, especially in the Baltic States and Poland, they reacted very painfully to the August 2008 war in the Caucasus. At the same time, in Poland and the Baltics, Russia is considered a centuries-old aggressor in relation to itself. It makes no sense in this case to argue with how correct it is, the fact is that they think so. Moreover, with our extremely aggressive rhetoric regarding these countries, we are doing everything to strengthen our opinion in our opinion. On the other hand, these countries fully share the principle of NATO’s collective irresponsibility, that is, they spend not too much on their defense, but they demand that the Americans protect them. For Poland, an additional blow was Washington’s rejection of missile defense in the previous version (Polish-Czech), and Warsaw was very offended by the form of refusal (in fact, the Poles learned about it from the media).

Therefore, Obama had to somehow demonstrate solidarity with the Eastern Europeans. He did it in a minimalist style. The first full-fledged base of the USA in Eastern Europe will not appear, American planes will fly to Polish bases. The total number of American fighters in Europe will not increase, since they will fly to Poland from Italy.

DO NOT LOSE FROM CONTEXT

Now the main thing - about the possibilities. One squadron, perhaps, is not enough for a threat. The threat may be represented by the group as a whole, and not one squadron “pulled out of context”. Grouping, as mentioned above, is constantly decreasing. Already, therefore, seeing a threat in one squadron is somehow strange, well, you cannot commit aggression by just one squadron. Moreover, the aircraft F-16.

A person who has at least something to do with aviation knows perfectly well that the aircraft’s combat radius depends on its combat load (the larger it is, the smaller the radius) and flight profile (the longer the flight at low altitudes, where the air density is at its maximum, the smaller the radius). The F-16 really has a combat radius of 1315 km. But only at high altitude and in a purely fighter configuration (with four air-to-air missiles). On the pages of "NVO", perhaps, it is not necessary to explain in detail that such a flight to Russia is, firstly, impossible, and secondly, it does not make sense. If we are talking about striking ground targets, which we seem to be wary of, then with bombs (nuclear or conventional) the F-16 has a combat radius when flying along a large-small-high profile 550 – 630 km. Even from the most eastern Polish airbase “Deblin” it will not reach even a single point in Russia (except, of course, the Kaliningrad region). By the way, this conclusion applies to all NATO aircraft in Europe: its aircraft in a shock configuration, even from bases in eastern Poland, are usually not able to reach Russia, only the most modern can slightly hurt the western regions of the Smolensk and Bryansk regions, where there are no major objects we do not have. The situation can be changed by refueling in the air, but it would have to be carried out in the airspace of Belarus, which is hardly realistic. It would fundamentally solve the problem of the deployment of NATO aircraft on the airfields of the Baltic countries that would very much like this option. But for some reason the “aggressors” do not fly to the Baltic.

On the other hand, the Su-24M front-line bombers air base is located in the Kaliningrad region. When flying only at low altitudes, they have a combat radius of 560 km, “punching” all of Poland, reaching the north-east of Germany and Copenhagen. When flying at high altitude (which is unlikely in a real war), the radius increases to 1300 km, the Benelux countries, northeast France and Italy, the whole of Eastern Europe, except Bulgaria, most of Norway, fall into it. And Tu-22М3 bombers are stationed at the Shaykovka airbase in the Kaluga region. Even when flying at low altitude, their combat radius reaches 1650 km, covering the whole of Eastern Europe, half of Germany, Norway and Denmark. When flying at high altitude, the radius increases to 2400 km, then the “Backfires” will get all of Europe, except Spain, Portugal, southern France and Wales.

Thus, if we focus not on intentions, but on possibilities, NATO has much more reason to fear Russia than Russia does - to fear NATO.

A similar story with missile defense. If we proceed from the possibilities that are determined by the laws of physics (no one has yet succeeded in canceling them), the trajectories of American antimissiles, even from Poland (Romania have nothing to do with it) under no circumstances can intersect with the trajectories of our ICBMs and SLBMs. NVO wrote about this in the article “Who will be bad if we do not agree” (3.06.11). Now, some domestic experts have matured a new creative idea: missile defense is actually directed against our tactical missiles, with which we were going to fight off NATO aggression, perfected by conventional forces. That is, missile defense this aggression should cover. But even here something does not add up, if we proceed from the possibilities.

An American missile defense system is supposed to be deployed in Romania and Poland in a stationary (mine) version. Accordingly, they can threaten our tactical missiles only if they themselves come to them. Of course, this is possible, because our missiles are installed on mobile chassis. But the fact is that the range of the “Point-U” is 120 km, and the “Iskander” - 480 km. Therefore, the American "Standards" will be able to shoot them down only if the launchers of our missiles are on the territory of the NATO countries. That is, in a situation where they are not against us, but we will commit aggression against them. Accordingly, if we are not preparing aggression against NATO, then the American missile defense system is absolutely “parallel” to us. If we are preparing ... Then I must admit that the efforts of the United States and NATO to parry it are completely inadequate.

IMPOSSIBILITY OF WAR

As it is easy to understand, in the case of aggression against Russia, even if the war is waged only with conventional weapons, the losses of NATO both in people and in technology will be several orders of magnitude greater than in any of the current NATO wars. No matter how “full of holes” our current air defense system is, it is incomparably stronger than the air defense of Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya combined. Even American pilots, not to mention European ones, have never met in combat with C-300P and B, C-400, “Beeches”, “Torahs”, “Armor”, Su-27, MiG-31. And at the same time, there is still a high probability of a Russian nuclear strike, and it is much more convenient to strike it in Europe than in the United States. I wonder how a similar metamorphosis will happen to European societies? Now for them, the losses in 100 people are practically unacceptable, and suddenly they will agree to many thousands (and in the case of a nuclear war - to the millions, mostly civilians) of the dead. Now they cannot assemble 100 airplanes in one place - and suddenly they will throw all their air forces into battle. Now it’s problematic for them to send an extra battalion to Afghanistan (which will still sit on the base), sending ground troops to Libya is not even discussed - and suddenly they will send all their ground forces to Russia for a real cruel war.

FOR WHAT

In this regard, the question arises, and for what, in fact, should NATO commit aggression against us, especially considering the fact that after the collapse of the USSR between Russia and the West there are no antagonistic ideological contradictions? We will leave the version of the irrational pathological Russophobia of the West to psychiatrists. Apparently, the only rational reason for aggression could be the seizure of our hydrocarbons. However, this version refers in fact exclusively to the field of psychiatry. Because, being in sound mind and hard memory, it is impossible to imagine the capture and retention by NATO forces of the entire territory of Russia from the western borders to the Tyumen Region inclusive. If only because there are simply no such forces. And even if there were, the capture and retention of oil and gas fields and the ways of their transportation would have cost such an astronomical sum that it will never be able to "repel" it.

It is clear that for the Kremlin’s full-time propagandists, constant exaggeration of the “NATO threat” theory is a well-paid job. But now military people must sometimes face the truth. And to proceed not from intentions, but from possibilities.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

57 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Helmut
    Helmut 11 July 2011 10: 54 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Si vis pacem, bellum for fellow
  2. MichaelVl
    MichaelVl 11 July 2011 11: 12 New
    • -3
    • 0
    -3
    The NATO attack on Russia is really not only unlikely, but even impossible at the moment. But this is because our country has retained its potential, is being restored and strengthened. NATO’s attack on Russia will loom if some kind of third Reich ripens somewhere in the world + by this time many other countries will be captured ... Otherwise, aggressors will not have enough strength and resources, at least for the next 10 years , we can live guaranteed peace.
    1. Max79 11 July 2011 11: 22 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      I believe that an alliance between several countries, perhaps even the BRICS countries, would further guarantee the inviolability of the territories of Russia for more than 10 years.
      1. Superduck
        Superduck 11 July 2011 20: 46 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        BRIC will never become a military alliance because most of the countries in it are competitors, do not console yourself.
        1. Max79 12 July 2011 09: 45 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Superduck, Yes, I know what kind of union it is. I wrote it possible. It seems to me in a critical situation, if there was one, these countries would unite. I am just sure of that.
          1. Superduck
            Superduck 12 July 2011 14: 19 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            A critical situation is if the US declares war on everyone right away? I don’t see one yet.
      2. Ivan35
        Ivan35 12 July 2011 17: 57 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        The only real alliance with Russia may be with some of the former republics of the USSR — and Belarus and Kazakhstan just need to be taken back into one state as their native lands and peoples. BRIC, Syria Iran Venezuela often have coinciding positions with us and we can support each other on similar issues
  3. figwam 11 July 2011 11: 18 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    But the only point is that the Tochka-U range is 120 km, the Iskander range is 480 km. Therefore, the American "Standards" will be able to bring them down only if the launchers of our missiles are in the territory of NATO countries.


    I did not understand how long since the tactical missiles Iskander and Tochka-u should shoot down NATO missiles, they have other tasks in principle.
    And who told Mr. Khramchikhin that the US missile defense is only stationary? AEGIS SM-3 and THAAD systems will be installed in Europe, the latter is a mobile system for intercepting tactical missiles.

    It seems that Khramchikhin is working for NATO or a complete layman in the military sphere.
    1. Ivan35
      Ivan35 11 July 2011 20: 22 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      He works exactly for NATO, and he no longer has any contradictions and is already sending it to psychiatrists - but still, NATO remains an aggressive bloc. His politics are unprincipled and mean and unscrupulous. And they prove it with every new bombardment of a new defenseless country.
      But Russia is now weaker than NATO and it’s dangerous - we’ll continue to weaken and we’ll be squeezed (if they find something to dig into - they’ll say there is little democracy, you won’t let go of Chechnya - they’ll organize a couple more letters from the Russian officer)
      1. Winchester
        Winchester 11 July 2011 20: 41 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Since when did principles, honor and conscience exist in international relations?
        1. Ivan35
          Ivan35 11 July 2011 20: 49 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Well, well - let’s say so - they are enemies and their interests are against ours. Will be stronger - will crush. The 3 above things won't bother them. The only thing that holds them back is nuclear weapons
          1. Winchester
            Winchester 11 July 2011 23: 25 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Well - interests. This is another matter. And then unprincipled, vile, unashamed)))
  4. Russian officer
    Russian officer 11 July 2011 11: 22 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    The author of the article, of course, is an authoritative person. But. Here Helmut already wrote. I would add, whoever is warned is armed. And Russia is no longer an empire. Still, one must turn to history more often. Why is Russia so big? Because everyone wanted to tear a piece from her. In the best case, they got in the teeth, in the worst, they got in the teeth and lost their territory. Not surprisingly, the Balts and Poles are angry at Russia. After all, they did not get anything from her. And so they wanted to grab a piece in due time. They didn’t know that in Russia there was a saying - Whoever comes to us with a sword will die by the sword.
    1. MichaelVl
      MichaelVl 11 July 2011 11: 36 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Russian officer
      Well said! Ah well done! :)))
      So it was, is and will always be!
    2. Winchester
      Winchester 11 July 2011 20: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Why is Russia so big? Because everyone wanted to tear a piece from her. In the best case, they got in the teeth, in the worst, they got in the teeth and lost their territory.
      Iron logic ... Goebbels resting)
    3. Ragnarek 12 July 2011 08: 18 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      and I do not agree with the author of the article, in no case should you underestimate NATO. Nato, as it was our enemy, remains and while NATO is weak, it is urgently necessary to modernize the army
  5. Goldy
    Goldy 11 July 2011 12: 11 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    good article
  6. DEfindER
    DEfindER 11 July 2011 13: 15 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The article is certainly understandable, and logical, but the author did not take into account one moment, and if you attack Russia, it is the most convenient place, it is not the West but the Far East! Moreover, Japan is still in a state of war with us and may at any time begin military operations with the support of the United States. Yes, and China will not be on our side. he also wants to overcome the southern regions with resources that he badly needs. And the correlation of forces is the following - only in one Japan the army is equal in size to ours, but significantly superior in quality .. The only thing that is on hand is that it will be difficult to maintain such a territory, although it is quite realistic to capture the southern regions of the Far East, at least for the sake of a colony of resources .. The only reason why the Far East is still Russian is our nuclear legacy from the USSR
    1. Winchester
      Winchester 11 July 2011 18: 48 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      The number of the Russian army is 1 million, the self-defense forces of Japan - 300 thousand.
      They are afraid of, first of all, China, and not Japan.
  7. dimitriy
    dimitriy 11 July 2011 14: 22 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    All lovers of NATO, do not be lazy, read
    http://perevodika.ru/articles/19091.html
  8. RUSICH
    RUSICH 11 July 2011 16: 04 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The article is logical with good facts. I think the author of rights, openly NATO
    will not trample, will spoil from the underside, with his well-fed and sleek faces.
    Here is China with its ambitions and lack of fertile land.
    Here is the number-1 threat to Russia in an open war, and the Pindos will do everything
    forces to push us.
    1. frame5 11 July 2011 18: 57 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The vector of expansion of China is traditionally directed to the south.
      There the climate is much better, ethnically close population and huge fifth columns of emigrated Chinese. Moreover, they are armed much worse than Russia, and in which case they will not be able to hurt hands badly. Plus, the absence of nuclear weapons and any serious defensive pacts, a common story with a cloud of claims and the fact that they were all already under the rule of the great Chinese empire.
      In addition, there is an extremely fortified and militarized bridgehead in the form of North Korea, which also has an army of two million people and half a million commandos.
      1. Marat
        Marat 11 July 2011 21: 49 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        God grant that it be so. But it was somehow calmer for me in Alma Ata during the Union when SAVO was here. And now it will be calmer when we complete the integration
      2. Ragnarek 12 July 2011 08: 23 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yes it is. almost the entire north of China is not populated, and the entire population is concentrated in the south. therefore, the dreams of China about our Siberian lands, as it were, are not true.
        1. Superduck
          Superduck 12 July 2011 14: 20 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Mao thought otherwise
  9. Kaylan
    Kaylan 11 July 2011 17: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    An article on the style of custom, designed to lull the vigilance of the Russian "Ivanov" lying on the stove.
    DEfindER, you write: "And the balance of power is as follows - only in one Japan does the army have the same strength in numbers,"
    Why is there such interesting information?) The number of self-defense forces in Japan is only 300 thousand people + 50 thousand reservists, while the number of armed forces of the Russian Federation is not less than a million people. As for quality, it is generally ridiculous, especially in light of recent events and the deep economic abyss in Japan after them.
    1. Winchester
      Winchester 11 July 2011 19: 03 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      Rather, custom-made permanent Kremlin anti-Western propaganda. Now, NATO has no opportunities, nor even significant reasons for such aggression. And for the Russian authorities, they simply need a classic image of the enemy - it’s better if everyone is persecuted against vile Pindos than through a corrupt government that continues to plunder natural resources. It is always easier to say that there are enemies all around than to deal with internal changes in the interests of the entire population.
    2. Helmut
      Helmut 11 July 2011 21: 35 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Dear Kailan, is it really not clear what the RF Armed Forces in the Far East mean? We have troops there with gulkin x ... th. The transfer to the destruction of the Trans-Siberian Railway is unrealistic. Those. in the Far East, the Japs have almost twice as much strength. There is no million there, because our army covers both Europe and the Caucasus and Wed Asia and the North and so on, so on I want to say that there, in the Far East, there are far from a million, but only a part of these troops and the transfer is not possible. There you go.
      1. Marat
        Marat 11 July 2011 21: 54 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        And there is nothing in Kazakhstan either - our vaunted army, with all the "oil" funding in recent years, can only slow down the progress of the Chinese in the conflict.
        Although I consider NATO to be the main threat - but in the south you need to have an argument - then the Chinese will be “friends” longer. In general, for thousands of years, nothing good has crept out of the Dzungarian gate onto our territory.
      2. MichaelVl
        MichaelVl 12 July 2011 00: 01 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Helmut
        but after all, the Japanese themselves will have to swim across our territory through a water barrier. Not only will we need to transfer forces, but they themselves, and they also need to carry out the attack during the transfer.
      3. Ragnarek 12 July 2011 08: 28 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        but Japan is on the islands. that is, as a minimum it is necessary to prepare a large landing operation, which is unlikely to be hidden with modern technologies. so it’s quite problematic to sail and land the Japanese, all the same, no matter what condition the Pacific Fleet is in, but it will drown most of the landing ships, plus strategic missile carriers from the Kamchatka division also contribute little to a calm approach to the coast, plus a coastal defense line. And those Japanese troops that still sail and land will not be in the quantity to fully gain a foothold in the bridgehead. So war with Japan is unlikely
  10. datur 11 July 2011 18: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The author wears from one extreme to the other.
  11. Sergei
    Sergei 11 July 2011 19: 09 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    You didn’t hear about the poplar that Americans are afraid to death. They somehow admitted that if we launch a rocket from it, the only thing they can understand is that in a couple of seconds they will be killed because even Soviet rockets like Satan cannot shoot them and others have nothing to say about what entered the Russian army in 2010
    1. Winchester
      Winchester 11 July 2011 19: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Competent post ...
      ... even Soviet rockets like Satan cannot shoot them down ...
      Do you think that Poplar is more difficult to bring down than Satan? No comments...
  12. His
    His 11 July 2011 19: 39 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Solid lies wrote
    1. Winchester
      Winchester 11 July 2011 19: 56 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Any arguments against the "lies" are?
      1. His
        His 11 July 2011 20: 14 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Currently, the most powerful military alliance in the world is NATO, the United States alone is the global military leader.
        1. Winchester
          Winchester 11 July 2011 20: 36 New
          • -4
          • 0
          -4
          Nobody argues. As a world leader, the United States is interested in maintaining the current situation. Simply put, they benefit from stability. Aggression against the Russian Federation, in addition to huge casualties and a likely retaliatory nuclear strike, will literally blow up the situation in all of Eurasia. Moreover, with the advent of Obama, the Americans consider the main threat to the PRC, and the Russian Federation - one of the few states that can restrain the PRC, i.e. probable future ally. So now, NATO has absolutely no reason for a hypothetical attack on the Russian Federation, as well as opportunities (for example, Libya).
        2. Ragnarek 12 July 2011 08: 29 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          naturally the strongest in the world. that's just an amendment - there are no other military alliances in the world
  13. Ivan35
    Ivan35 11 July 2011 20: 30 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Listen - this comrade is clearly a mishandled Cossack - everything is repeating about the Chinese threat and the absence of threats from NATO.
    Such propaganda is beneficial for the Pindos and NATO’s aggressive bloc - push us against China

    With China, of course, not everything is simple - but he is waiting (you just need to strengthen and strengthen alliances and he will exercise caution) - but the Pindos and NATO are crushing right now
    1. His
      His 11 July 2011 20: 43 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      They are just from Ukraine
  14. DAGESTAN333 11 July 2011 21: 08 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Those who need a war with Russia usually did not fight it themselves.
    1. MichaelVl
      MichaelVl 11 July 2011 21: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      That's right, Dagestan :)
      And a lot of such “probers” are just in NATO :))) Let us whisper to the rest of the potential “probers” how gloriously it turned out - to fight our mother!
      1. Draz 12 July 2011 01: 54 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Just the same, we have good relations with France and Germany, which at one time were piled up properly. Only the "new" NATO members snarl, aka our former republics, and England, with their imperial manners. Given the current state of affairs, the only way of an armed struggle with Russia is: financing separatists inside the country and setting individual countries against us and provocations from them.

        As for Japan, there was an article on this site about the number of "self-defense" forces, although this is before the disaster, now priorities have been shifted for years to 5-15. Even with their own Chernobyl at hand, some Japanese politicians manage to raise the topic of smoking and negative attitudes towards Russia.

        I would also like to remind the author of the presence of the 14 Ohio submarine with a strategic nuclear weapon on board each of approximately 150 warheads. Patrol in the Atlantic and the Pacific. Do you think these warheads are aimed at Iran, Iraq, India, Libya, China? I personally doubt it. Then, taking into account the state of our armed forces, equipment, organization, and reforms. I do not think that our armed forces are so dangerous that the NATO generals jump out of the windows in a paranoid attack, as was the case during the USSR. So that........

        All in all a good article.
    2. Ragnarek 12 July 2011 08: 30 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      for sure. british for example
  15. netsurfer
    netsurfer 12 July 2011 02: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    the author is lying, weapons are being transported to kirenaika by land and sea, and they were thrown into the mountains from the air (the French themselves recognized)
  16. Пол
    Пол 12 July 2011 02: 44 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The article has a certain smum .... To fight with us, at the moment, no one will! For the reason for the availability of nuclear deterrence. Any aggression from East and Asia will “fade out” after 2-3 bombings of tactical missiles (at the stage of transfer of troops across the state border of the Russian Federation)
    They are also not afraid of the West (dependence on gas and hydrocarbon supplies, which will stop instantly, or in a couple of days - as a result of the "partisan" movement).
    Now is the time of "menopause", during which we need to get angry and grow our claws in order to defend our interests in the world .... Let us miss the moment - let's * beat everything !!!!
    1. Ragnarek 12 July 2011 08: 32 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      exactly
  17. Stepan
    Stepan 12 July 2011 09: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It is good to knock on the clave another opus at leisure, as it would be good if. Only today I was living in Vladivostok with great difficulty found a tire fitting where I was able to fix a puncture. In one place we do not have any patches or glue, in another, with the complete absence of a 3 hour tool, brake pads changed and there was no desire to engage in a wheel, I wanted to spit on the sledgehammer itself and change the old-fashioned corner. In the third Tajik did. And what kind of rearmament can there be. Damn the right bolt you will not find the whole city to travel around.
    1. MichaelVl
      MichaelVl 12 July 2011 09: 27 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Stepan,
      Here is a comment ... And how many people inhabit Vladivostok? I was surprised by your story about these very services. In Yekaterinburg, for example, a dime a dozen services. Last year, I also got a shot, the work took 10 minutes and, in my opinion, they asked about 180 rubles ...
      If this is the case, then the Japanese will have to stick the wheels in the whole city. And in the morning I’ll come to visit :) I’m joking, of course, but somehow your comment surprised me.
  18. DEfindER
    DEfindER 12 July 2011 10: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    To kailan
    What kind of economic Japanese crisis are you talking about? Japan is the 2nd economy in the world, and ours is somewhere in the distant railway station. One can speak about the quality of the Japanese army on the basis of their technologies, and their industriousness, unlike our gouging. For example, their Mitsubishi tanks, in terms of characteristics and ours, are superior in everything. And in terms of the number of the Japanese army, I'm not talking about the self-defense forces, but about what kind of army they can afford based on the fact that the population of Japan is equal to the population of Russia, and at the same time concentrated in one place, when everything is scattered across us 1/5 of the land ..
  19. DEfindER
    DEfindER 12 July 2011 10: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And yet - we are unlikely to be able to use nuclear weapons against Japan, because the launch of our ICBMs will instantly lead to the launch of the US and NATO ICBMs and the total destruction of the land ..
  20. Andrei
    Andrei 12 July 2011 11: 34 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In the current situation, the destruction of the Japanese economy as a result of a retaliatory strike will provide a powerful impetus for the restoration of the stagnant US economy.

    Yes, and it is difficult to imagine the Yankees with the slogan "forward, revenge for Japan."
  21. 916-th
    916-th 12 July 2011 13: 13 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    They beat them with a butt
    They beat me with a gun
    And now we’ll hit the brain with a rocket!
    If necessary
    three-story mat -
    Tram-taram, taram-taram, taram-taram-taram!

    (verse from our, still Soviet times, drill song)
  22. datur 12 July 2011 13: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    916-th, ONLY ON THIS AND HOPE.
  23. figwam 12 July 2011 13: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    All the mess will begin by 2020, then the US missile defense will reach its peak.
    It is not in vain that our rulers are pushing the army to this date, but it may start earlier, there are such examples in history.
    The article writes about the F-16, strikes in Moscow. Well, what kind of aircraft?
    Cruise missiles with a range of 3000km, here is the US baton.
    I repeat, the article is about nothing!
  24. 916-th
    916-th 12 July 2011 14: 09 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    But seriously, the alignment of a possible scenario STARTED, maybe this:
    0) Nobody directly does not attack Russia, nor China, nor NATO, nor the United States.

    1) There is an artificial escalation of any local conflict away from Russia between nuclear countries, up to the exchange of limited nuclear strikes. Options: India-Pakistan, Korea-Korea, Arabs-Israel.

    2) Silently, “sworn western friends” make hidden provocative launches from the conflict area in Russia (allegedly flew by accident, due to deviation of the trajectory). Not deadly, but insulting ...

    3) Russia, having fallen into time trouble, redirects part of its strategic nuclear forces and missile defense systems already cut down by the very impossibility to the conflict area. Maybe even responding.

    4) The United States, using the moment, under the pretext of protecting democracy and freedom, strikes a preemptive strike in the back of Russia. Will there be forces to answer?

    PS Maybe everything will happen otherwise, BUT MAIN: both the 1st and 2nd world wars began with PROVOCATIONS. 3rd will not be an exception, only it will be a nuclear provocation. It is in the spirit of the Anglo-Saxons.
  25. Oleg Rosskiyy
    Oleg Rosskiyy 7 July 2012 23: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    NATO doesn’t need a full-scale war, they take starvation and targeted, but large-scale strikes, not dividing them into civilians and terrorists. They do not care about the deaths of civilians, unless of course they are their citizens, although a handful of victims of their people are not disdained for the sake of world domination Masons.