Military Review

Western media: strategist Putin decided to win

91
Not only in Ukraine, in Syria, but also in Turkey, and indeed everywhere where Moscow has its interests, Vladimir Putin uses the strategy of “quickly striking a blow,” some Western experts say. As part of this strategy, Syria has become for Putin a “testing ground” for practicing the actions of military forces and a place for running in “new toys”.


Western media: strategist Putin decided to win


The article "Putin seeks to win," dedicated to the "roots of Putinism" and published "News1" (Israel; translation source - "InoSMI"), Ph.D. Uri Milstein notes that Putin’s strategy in Ukraine, Syria, Turkey, and everywhere where only Russia has interests that require the use of force, comes down to “quickly striking to solve the case”.

According to the expert, the roots of such a strategy “go back to the failure of Stalin’s political step, which concluded an agreement with Hitler, as a result of which the USSR almost ceased to exist”. In addition, the strategy of the President of Russia was the result of numerous military invasions that this country knew.

In 1941, the Russians made one conclusion: one cannot rely on diplomatic agreements like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. And another conclusion: you should not count on a large and well-equipped army if it does not act as expected.

“In order for Russia to continue to exist, it is not enough to have a large army armed with the latest technology. It is necessary to openly use the army for a decisive victory, if a threat arises to Russia's vital interests. Therefore, it is not only President Putin. Such is the Russian military culture. ”


The United States behaves differently because of its stories. They prefer political action to war. If war cannot be avoided, then “it is better to entrust this work to others and support them.”

The personality of Obama and the personality of Putin, the expert believes, were formed as a result of the collapse of the USSR. And here are two different conclusions. The conclusion of "Obamism": no need to use force to defeat the enemy. And the conclusion of "Putinism": you need to get stronger and beat the enemy first to prevent re-collapse.

From here, Uri Milstein derives two results.

1. The US military doctrine is falling apart; All US military operations after the collapse of the Soviet Union failed.

2. The military doctrine of the Russian Federation, on the contrary, is developing. Putin’s military operations are effective.

Reed standish in "Foreign Policy" writes that Russia uses Syria as a testing ground for the army, and at the same time as an excuse to try out “new toys”. The catalyst for such initiatives was a short war with Georgia at the time, the author recalls. In the Kremlin in 2008, “victorious moods” took place, as Georgian forces were quickly defeated. True, the campaign turned out to be chaotic and bloody, and the land and air forces of the Russian Federation showed themselves “not in the best way”, the analyst is sure. Dumas about this led Vladimir Putin to the idea of ​​the need to launch a program to reduce excessive levels of armed forces and to replace old types of weapons with new ones.

And Putin realized this idea: the war in the air, which Moscow is waging against terrorists in Syria, is demonstrating the fruits of army reforms. The observer recalls that this week the Russians managed to hit targets near Raqqa (the “capital” of the IG militants) with cruise missiles launched from a subtle submarine in the Mediterranean. The Russians achieved another goal: by intensifying the airstrikes, they helped the Syrian special forces get the “black box” from that bomber that the Turkish air force was shot down last month.

The journalist is convinced that all this demonstration of power speaks of the readiness of the Kremlin to continue “to play with muscles”. Putin is using a campaign in Syria to test new types of weapons and equipment. So Moscow gives a warning to the West: they say that we, the Russians, have restored military power.

A senior naval analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, Chris Harmer, told the correspondent in a commentary: “The missiles launched from the submarine were, I think, political weapons, whose strike was intended for Washington, and not at all by military weapons directed against IG. According to the expert, the Russians simply did not have “tactical reasons” for the use of such weapons.

According to Mark Galeotti, a professor at New York University, Russia in Syria "is experiencing new technologies and new ways of applying old technologies." And he is engaged in a kind of advertising: shows “potential customers” what things Russian weapons are capable of doing.

The publication also recalls that Moscow has deployed C-400 anti-aircraft missile systems in Syria.

Reed Standish writes that Putin at the same time "flaunts" publicly, hinting at even the possibility of using nuclear weapons against the terrorists of the "IS". True, the President of the Russian Federation immediately made a reservation, noting that, as he hoped, nuclear weapons "would never be needed."

What are the plans of Moscow? According to the modernization plan of the armed forces launched by V. V. Putin in 2010, the country provides for the replacement of 70% of Soviet-made military equipment (by 2020), receiving Navy fifty new ships, Air Force - hundreds of aircraft and ground forces - thousands of new cars. On the other hand, for such major transformations, money is required, and the Russian economy is actually sinking - it is being reinforced by Western sanctions and rolling down prices for crude oil. Putin cherished his projects in those days when the price of black gold was much higher than the current ones. Now, Putin’s military budget reduction is inevitable. The mentioned Galeotti, for example, says that economic difficulties will affect at least the pace of defense modernization. He argues that Russians are already reducing their projects today.

Yet the Kremlin’s strategy has proven its effectiveness in Syria. Mr. Galeotti objectively points out that Moscow simply by launching an operation in Syria “frustrated much of the foreign policy plans of the United States”. And Putin needed for this to use only three dozen aircraft.

Thus, we will add in conclusion that Western experts clearly do not advise the White House and the entire West to underestimate the Kremlin’s strategy and the speed and surprise of Putin’s decisions. Cheek brings success!

Observed and commented on Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
91 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. parusnik
    parusnik 14 December 2015 06: 39
    43
    Moscow, just by launching an operation in Syria, "thwarted a significant part of the foreign policy plans of the United States."..... The conclusion is correct ...
    1. SSR
      SSR 14 December 2015 06: 52
      41
      The conclusion is correct, but their reasoning is painfully clumsy.
      Type-the goal of Putin to win.
      I wonder which creator starts the game to lose? Everyone tries to win and you can "lose" the queen, but you can win the game and every normal person, seeing a losing combination, will try to bypass it and not rush into it with a bonsai shouting. )))))
      1. qwert
        qwert 14 December 2015 07: 04
        +4
        And no one came across information about the number of aircraft in our combat aircraft in flight condition? I would like to estimate the real forces of Russia.
        1. cniza
          cniza 14 December 2015 07: 42
          +8
          Type-the goal of Putin to win.


          Well, in any way they can not understand what is the meaning of victory, and apparently they should not prove something to them, they must do their job without fussing.
          1. sa-ag
            sa-ag 14 December 2015 09: 54
            +2
            Quote: cniza
            Well, in any way they can not understand what is the meaning of victory

            By the way, what?
            1. Alexander Romanov
              Alexander Romanov 14 December 2015 10: 01
              +2
              Quote: sa-ag
              By the way, what?

              And they really can't lol
              1. Mahmut
                Mahmut 14 December 2015 10: 39
                0
                getting the Navy fifty new ships

                cant, in Russia there is no Navy.
              2. Spnsr
                Spnsr 14 December 2015 14: 10
                +2
                Quote: Alexander Romanov
                Quote: sa-ag
                By the way, what?

                And they really can't lol

                not the right word, they can’t, especially since in their understanding, to win is akin to kneeling! laughing
            2. Stirbjorn
              Stirbjorn 14 December 2015 10: 10
              +1
              Quote: sa-ag
              By the way, what?

              Yeah, especially on the example of Syria or Ukraine. What are our specific goals?
          2. Asadullah
            Asadullah 14 December 2015 22: 50
            +3
            Well, they can’t understand what is the meaning of victory,


            Why do you think so? For Americans, any meaning is expressed empirically, but described by a precedent. So "victory" in the Cold War, they prescribed for themselves, was precisely an empirical approach. After all, if the enemy is struck by, say, lightning, then this is a victory. In the use cases, we describe our role in this. For example, the Afghan war and intergovernmental agreements on lowering oil prices were described as the willful factors of the US leadership in the victory of this war. That is why the author notes:

            the Russian economy is actually drowning - it is being crushed by Western sanctions and rolling oil prices.


            - They firmly believe that the precedent is repeated and with all the power of the administration, the precedent factors are raised to the power. Flipping through Western analytics, it is clear that they are in the immediate expectation of upheavals in Russia, right up to the color revolution. Moreover, quite academic figures discuss this, diverging only in determining the terms, but they also differ not for years, but for months. They seek and find reasons for delaying the deadlines. As I understand it, they already planned 2017 as a year without Putin. Are waiting. Well, we are waiting for their expectation to end. Terribly interesting.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Patriot 1
          Patriot 1 14 December 2015 08: 10
          10
          Quote: qwert
          And no one came across information about the number of aircraft in our combat aircraft in flight condition? I would like to estimate the real forces of Russia.


          Type of aircraft

          The number of aircraft of this type in the Russian Air Force


          Strategic and long-range aviation
          Tu-22M3 - 150
          Tu-95 - 32 + 60 in reserve
          Tu-160 - 16

          Frontline Aviation
          Su-25 - 308 + 100 in reserve
          Su-24 - 164
          Su-34 - 29

          fighter aircraft
          MiG-29 -288
          MiG-31 -268
          Su-27 -463
          Su-30 -10
          MiG-25 - 25
          Su-35S-10

          Reconnaissance aircraft
          MiG-25RB - 20
          IL-20M - 20
          Su-24MR - 100
          A-50 - 27 + 8 in reserve
          IL-38 - 10
          Be-12 - 6
          Tu-142 - 22

          Transport aircraft
          IL-76 - 210
          An-22 -12
          An-72 - 20
          An-124 - 22
          An-12 - 36 + 4 in naval aviation
          L-410 - 47
          An-140 - 1

          Tankers
          IL-78 - 19

          Training
          L-39 - 336
          Yak-130 - 32
          1. SSR
            SSR 14 December 2015 09: 19
            12
            You have very outdated data))) only on Su35 is not infa


            Ministry of Defense P
            Russia December 25, 2012 received six Su-35 fighters. In 2013, the Air Force received another 12 Su-35 fighters. Taking into account the delivered party, the Russian fleet amounted to 22 units.

            In February 2014, the combat forces of the Russian Air Force replenished with 12 fighters. By the end of 2015, the Ministry of Defense should receive another 50-60 such aircraft. The Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation emphasized that in 2015 a deeply modernized fighter of the 4 ++ generation Su will be adopted
            1. Patriot 1
              Patriot 1 14 December 2015 09: 34
              12
              Perhaps outdated. Took on the internet ...
              But with your information, things are even better.
            2. The comment was deleted.
          2. Don
            Don 15 December 2015 16: 23
            0
            Some data you have is not accurate
            Su-34 is not 29 and 80. Su-27 is not 463 but 360. Su-30 is not 10 but 61. Su-35S is not 10 but 40.
            1. avebersek
              avebersek 15 December 2015 22: 40
              0
              And do not forget that there are no secret developments in open sources.
        4. The comment was deleted.
        5. S_last
          S_last 14 December 2015 11: 39
          +1
          The Chinese press writes about 62 units in Syria, as far as this is true I do not know.
          1. Spnsr
            Spnsr 14 December 2015 14: 15
            0
            Quote: S_last
            The Chinese press writes about 62 units in Syria, as far as this is true I do not know.

            Like fse chinese
            lol
      2. kodxnumx
        kodxnumx 14 December 2015 09: 28
        +3
        It’s good that they understand this in the USA and in the West in general, there’s a chance the world will come to an agreement, and what’s stopping if the SA wants it to punish these terrorist accomplices, soak their towers in the bay and the whole song, here’s the price for you and stop sponsoring terrorists!
      3. Altona
        Altona 14 December 2015 11: 29
        +3
        Quote: SSR
        The conclusion is correct, but their reasoning is painfully clumsy.

        ------------------------
        Reasoning from the same dusty propaganda Lego set recorded in the State Department's training manual: 1) Russia will die from sanctions (wait a month or two at most); 2) Putin is a cunning strategist; 3) Russia in Syria shows a renewed "Kuzka's mother"; 4) USA is the stronghold of the forces of good and peace.
      4. The comment was deleted.
      5. siberalt
        siberalt 14 December 2015 18: 02
        +3
        It is possible to win, if not to bow with orders to, as it were, our own, "manufacturers" of weapons. Such halfway the entire economy will be fat free. It is necessary to change the constitution and have an ideology. And so, "without a rudder and without sails .... You cannot win a war manually.
    2. Skif83
      Skif83 14 December 2015 08: 30
      20
      The conclusion is correct, just discussing Uri Milstein is ridiculous!
      They have the whole situation as if flat, and the conclusions, too, in fact, everything is much more voluminous, three-dimensional.
      If they have such doctors of philosophy, i.e. scientists, we only need to be wary of insane obamas having access to launch ICBMs, etc. For the rest, they only need to assent, they will outlive themselves, well, perhaps, to help a little ...
      In general, the West (both Europe and the USA) live in a virtual world, their politicians can be laughed at without stopping, listening to their plain nonsense. The generation of Churchill, de Gaulle is gone, they have no strategy because the ideology of profit has no other purpose than to tear someone else's way, and this is a vicious circle.
      Ukrainians are absolutely in the European "wake", in fact, and jokes about "... I won't eat everything, but I will bite ...", also in the spirit of the same ideology. Therefore, one should not be surprised at the "great ukram".
      As for Syria, Iraq, etc. There, again, the interests of profit, the interests of the Rockefellers and the Arab Semites, clashed. And the subject of the clash on the territory of Iraq and Syria.
      So Putin’s goal is to lead the country along the development path, and tactical military or political victories are not enough for this, a powerful economy is needed, i.e. the rear of a powerful army. We need a healthy and educated people, we need a secured old age for the elderly, in the end, we need a different development strategy for the country, different from that imposed by the last of Gaidar and Chubais.
      1. madjik
        madjik 14 December 2015 09: 10
        +6
        capitalism...
      2. Shark Lover
        Shark Lover 14 December 2015 13: 20
        +2
        I can’t affect the economy. Healthy people are healthy, I regularly visit the gym at 51, I often confuse a sofa with female people passing by, again, healthy)) Education is not bad, a military school under the USSR. I work, earn and pay a pension. How can I help the elderly? Or someone else, how can I influence the members who are responsible for the economy and, accordingly, responsible for the size of the food basket that the elderly need?
      3. alexej123
        alexej123 14 December 2015 17: 14
        +1
        You know, I myself am gnawing at the idea that all the "lapses" of the West are from "staff shortages." After all, an official of the State Department - well, you fool, forgive God. What kind of balanced policy can we talk about then? Yes, during the reign of EBN and co. in Russia, the West was corrupted, and they stopped keeping their nose down. So get the results. The maximum, in my opinion, who remained is the "Sovietologists" from the old stock. Will they advise much?
      4. The comment was deleted.
    3. Imigrantt
      Imigrantt 14 December 2015 08: 31
      11
      Alaverdi: Hello my dear, I waited for you, you came to me alone - and I was at a loss !!!!!! Wait for the Russians and are at a loss !!!!!!! And about the beat - why get involved in a fight - what would you lose ????? No, we used to WIN !!!!!!!!! Victory will be ours !!!!! No other way !!!!!!!!!!!!
    4. Askin
      Askin 14 December 2015 10: 41
      0
      What are Moscow’s plans? According to the plan for the modernization of the armed forces launched by V.V. Putin in 2010, the country provides for the replacement of 70% of Soviet-era military equipment (by 2020), the receipt of fifty new ships by the Navy, hundreds of aircraft by the air force and thousands of new vehicles by the ground forces.
      What nonsense! Which 70%?
      In aviation, the new is only the T-50, and the rest is the modernization of Soviet models.
      Or will we have 4% of Armat in 70 years?
      And out of 50 new ships, how many are 1st rank?
      Yes, for cars - everything will be replaced.
      1. Tektor
        Tektor 14 December 2015 12: 19
        +5
        Why are you so pulsating? 70% are not enough for you? Then calm down: strategic forces will be updated by 90% ... Su-34 will be 144 units (now about 80), Su-35 - about 96, MiG-35 - about 48. And the rest will be ready for about 50% of the payroll , i.e. no less than 350 fighters. We are far behind in warships (it was planned to build 100 new ones). Only in the part of submarines can we exceed the plan: 16 nuclear (8 pcs. 955,7 pcs. 885 + 1 special purposes) and 14 non-nuclear (6 pcs. - 636 and 8 pcs. - 677), total - 30 pcs., Although it was planned a little less. But still in parallel is the modernization of projects 945, 949, 971, 667BDRM, etc. ... This will be the main defensive and striking power. Of the surface ones, they will go through modernization 1143.2, 2 pcs. - 1144, 3 pcs. - 1164. 956 combat readiness should be at least 3 pieces, 1155 - 8, and 23560 Leader - 1 or 2 pieces. In total, combat rank 1 surface combat ships should be at least 18 by 2020. The main burden will lie on the construction of ships of the 2nd rank of projects 22350 and 20380, which should be 8 and 20, respectively. Well, I would also take into account 3 (6) 11356 and 9 Buyanov-M (21631) among the significant ones, which gives at least 40 operational tactical boards. There will be at least 50 combat surface ships of the far sea zone. + 17 new nuclear submarines and at least 20 upgraded ones. This will be our shock core by 2020 (about 87 units from the general list of 73 submarines and 207 NK = 280 today).
        1. Former battalion commander
          Former battalion commander 14 December 2015 14: 44
          +2
          strategic forces will be updated by 90%.

          What about the "strategic forces" that will be "updated" is just the most controversial issue ... MORE POWERFUL and long-range ones are replaced by less powerful and with shorter flight ranges ... So, after the "update", these strategic forces are STRONG will be more combat-ready than non-upgraded ...
        2. Askin
          Askin 14 December 2015 17: 13
          -2
          Quote: Tektor
          23560 Leader - 1 or 2

          and 100500 space cruisers!
          1. a housewife
            a housewife 15 December 2015 00: 19
            0
            Nevertheless, everything will be fine!
    5. Uran
      Uran 14 December 2015 20: 45
      -2
      do not wait for the Anglo-Saxons collapsing oil prices, destroy the military power of the Russian Federation!
      1. Tektor
        Tektor 14 December 2015 22: 15
        0
        "Everything is transient, but music is eternal."
        Oil dived to 38. And this is good: it can be such a cheap maximum - a couple of weeks. Just before the new year. Wait, sir.
  2. iliitchitch
    iliitchitch 14 December 2015 06: 40
    +5
    Listen to the Jews, the bourgeois, they are smart sometimes.
    1. Aleksander
      Aleksander 14 December 2015 07: 15
      13
      Quote: iliitch
      Listen to the Jews, the bourgeois, they are smart sometimes

      But Uri Milstein, who declared such nonsense

      The roots of such a strategy, according to the expert, "go back to the failure of Stalin’s political step, which concluded an agreement with Hitler, as a result of which the USSR almost ceased to exist."
      .

      -You can't call smart
      1. iliitchitch
        iliitchitch 14 December 2015 21: 42
        -1
        That's why I wrote "sometimes". laughing
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Nymp
      Nymp 14 December 2015 21: 45
      0
      In their assessment, they again underestimated Russia. Our economy is really breathing! Putin said the other day that there would be no cuts in the budget for the defense industry! Do not believe? But GDP so far has not given cause for mistrust.
  3. Tatar 174
    Tatar 174 14 December 2015 06: 40
    11
    Western media: strategist Putin decided to win

    In their opinion, "to win" means to enslave and make you dependent. Wrong opinion! Russia has never done this and Putin is also a Russian. To make Russia an independent, self-sufficient and Great Power is not only Putin, but we all Russians want it. This is our Victory.
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 14 December 2015 07: 03
      11
      It is necessary to openly use the army for a decisive victory if there is a threat to the vital interests of Russia. Therefore, it is not only about President Putin. This is Russian military culture. ”
      So what is next belay The United States behaves differently because of its history. They prefer political action to war.
      So I was surprised then. Putin cherished his projects in those days when black gold prices were much higher than current ones. Now, a reduction in Putin’s military budget is inevitable.
      As I understand it, American experts have already buried Putin’s plans and our entire economy.
      What already zazyvat.
      1. Andrea
        Andrea 14 December 2015 07: 28
        +5
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        And then the United States behaves differently because of its history. They prefer political action to war.
        So I was surprised then.
        This has not been surprising for a long time. Only annoyance, who are we dealing with? Shulers and schizophrenics.
      2. Alexei
        Alexei 14 December 2015 07: 29
        +4
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        It is necessary to openly use the army for a decisive victory if there is a threat to the vital interests of Russia.

        They simply used to believe that such actions should occur only after their approval. Therefore, any independent political actions are regarded as a personal insult ...
      3. spolo
        spolo 14 December 2015 13: 39
        +2
        Strange, but when we created forces (from the times of the USSR) that were flush with the west, no one mentioned non-petty quotes.
  4. MolGro
    MolGro 14 December 2015 06: 43
    0
    Courage - this concept has become alien to the tolerant west !!
  5. meriem1
    meriem1 14 December 2015 06: 44
    +1
    Spiders in the bank fidget laughing
  6. Andrea
    Andrea 14 December 2015 06: 46
    10
    I, too ... with Newton’s binom. Only this is what you need to talk to the West. For centuries, they have been tricking cheaters with colts, but for us it’s just a candelabrum.
    We are learning. And we will soon set our standards, and they will be clear and certain, without cheating and distortion.
    1. dr. sem
      dr. sem 14 December 2015 13: 53
      -2
      "And soon we will set our own standards"
      In Russia, they always loved the blessed.
      Interestingly, but the West, which has already rotted, died, self-accumulated in the ground?
      With a naked woman .. poy (internal policy GDP + LADIES, etc.) "your standards" can only be installed incognito on the toilet while sitting, while no one sees ...
      The rattling of "calibers" will not impress the West ... And how many of them do we have? Production (any) actually sleeps in a lethargic sleep. And where is that PRYNTS that will wake up the sleeping beauty?
      To patriot with a button weaving is all great. And, poke on whose books and computers? Right China! Do you drive domestic cars? And household appliances whose production house?
      Rear of Russia is absent!
      1. Andrea
        Andrea 14 December 2015 14: 51
        +3
        ASUS unfortunately is not Chinese, among household appliances and cars there are Russian ones.
        What do you mean? Camembert wasn’t delivered?
        1. dr. sem
          dr. sem 14 December 2015 15: 31
          -4
          My dear, what about Camembert?
          Like, they wanted to throw a shortcut.
          Got it. Another apologist for the "Witnesses to GDP" sect. You can be offended, you can continue to hurray-patriot ... As you wish. And whose FLAG do you have?
          1. Andrea
            Andrea 14 December 2015 16: 24
            +3
            The flag was the USSR, somewhere else. what I never hung labels for anyone and I try to keep my irritation to myself. If I offended you, sorry. hi
            P.S. The minuses are not mine. I don’t put it in principle.
            1. 3axap82
              3axap82 14 December 2015 16: 32
              +3
              Quote: Andrea
              The flag was the USSR, somewhere else.

              I am also perplexed. Probably now the flag should reflect the geographical location of the author is simple. In order to avoid provocations on "Ukrainian" and "Israeli" topics.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Colonel
        Colonel 14 December 2015 17: 10
        +1
        Quote: dr. sem
        Production (any) actually sleeps lethargically.

        It is interesting to read, especially after a meeting with the chief engineer, with the distribution of elephants.
      3. a housewife
        a housewife 15 December 2015 00: 24
        +1
        Wow! The voice of the West erupted! Are you angry, jupiter?
  7. afdjhbn67
    afdjhbn67 14 December 2015 07: 00
    +3
    As they say - wait and see .. recent events are so kaleidoscopic that you don’t have to wait for results for years, but ahead of time this strategy, if it’s not in the author’s head and nowhere else, we’ll also see .. so I don’t see any reason to admire either more censure.
    1. dr. sem
      dr. sem 14 December 2015 14: 05
      +1
      We live in a CLIP ...
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 14 December 2015 19: 37
        0
        Quote: dr. sem
        We live as in CLI

        Do you have "CLI" = "ZHO"? Reset all the code and let's start a discussion!
  8. i80186
    i80186 14 December 2015 07: 02
    16
    The US behaves differently because of its history. They prefer political action to war. If war cannot be avoided, then "it is better to entrust this work to others and support them."

    That's just the last 30 years.
    October 25, 1983 - June 1985 - US military operation "Sudden Fury" in Grenada to overthrow the left-wing government of the island nation.
    April 1986 - after the introduction of economic sanctions, the United States launched military actions against Libya. Residential areas of the cities of Tripoli and Benghazi were bombed.
    December 1989 - US military operation "Just Cause" in Panama in order to remove from power the country's leader Manuel Noriega, accused of drug trafficking and the promotion of terrorism.
    January 17 - February 28, 1991 - a military operation by the United States and its allies to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, code-named "Desert Storm."
    1991-1995, 1998-1999 - Interethnic war in Yugoslavia and NATO aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
    17 January 1993 - The United States launched a missile strike at an object located about 20 km from the center of Baghdad, where, according to Washington, work was underway to create nuclear weapons.
    26 June 1993 - The United States launched a missile attack on the main Iraqi intelligence command and control complex in Baghdad in response to Baghdad’s allegedly alleged plans to assassinate US President George W. Bush.
    3 September 1996 - The United States launched a cruise missile attack on Iraq after Iraqi forces conducted an operation against the Kurds in the Erbil area of ​​northern Iraq.
    August 20, 1998 - a blow to the "terrorist targets" of Afghanistan and Sudan in response to terrorist acts against the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.
    March 24, 1999 Serbia - Operation "Allied Force". This historical review is especially interesting in terms of how the United States and Co. behaved in a situation where one independent country tried to pacify one self-proclaimed republic.
    7 October 2001 Afghanistan. The United States is conducting an operation in Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, allegedly launched in response to the September 11 terrorist act of 2001.
    20 March 2003 Iraq war - a military conflict that began with the invasion of US forces and their allies in Iraq, with the aim of overthrowing the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was codenamed Iraqi Freedom
    19 March 2011 year. The war in Libya. Under a far-fetched and deceitful pretext, they created an excuse for invading Libya.

    America can’t help but fight, with every year the ambitions of the world leader are higher, with every year the interests of the United States are wider. Someone will have to lower it from heaven to earth ..
    (C)
    1. Signore Tomato
      Signore Tomato 14 December 2015 07: 59
      +4
      Quote: i80186
      ..
      October 25, 1983 - June 1985 - US military operation "Sudden Fury" in Grenada to overthrow the left-wing government of the island nation.
      April 1986 ...
      (C)


      In none of these military operations did the United States achieve the goals they so vehemently declared in their press - such as democracy, freedom, etc.
      But their oligarchs seized unimaginable wealth for nothing, such as oil, deposits, etc.
      1. question
        question 14 December 2015 08: 38
        +6
        So this oil, these deposits, the destruction of competitors, the enrichment of oligarchs is the main goal of their actions. They spit on democracy!
      2. Boos
        Boos 14 December 2015 08: 45
        +4
        so this is their purpose.
  9. zulusuluz
    zulusuluz 14 December 2015 07: 14
    +2
    Western look. One-sided and, in its own way, correct. Only Russia in its time has repeatedly polished the statement "Russia has only two comrades: its army and navy." And the so-called. "friends", as a rule, were actually friends against Russia.
  10. Al_oriso
    Al_oriso 14 December 2015 07: 16
    +5
    Western strategists, professors and analysts quickly realized that rockets were launched more for them than for Syrian fighters. Let them worry and worry, this is good.
  11. sv-georgij
    sv-georgij 14 December 2015 07: 20
    +1
    It proves once again that the West continues to consider everything through the prism of its previous delusions. Or judge others by themselves.
  12. Tanker55
    Tanker55 14 December 2015 07: 21
    +7
    The United States behaves differently because of its history.
    The article is interesting. Incidentally, in comparison, I will say that America is a country without history !!! Refugees, bandits, who escaped from everywhere, etc.
  13. Glory to Berkut
    Glory to Berkut 14 December 2015 07: 21
    +5
    Courage of the city takes, and politeness - the regions :)
  14. nemec55
    nemec55 14 December 2015 07: 25
    +6
    The United States behaves differently because of its history. They prefer political action to war.

    Everything, the full paragraph, came on, you can not read.
  15. Clutch
    Clutch 14 December 2015 07: 31
    +4

    It turns out that their politicians are unimportant, because they fight regularly. The entire history of the United States is a series of military conflicts, and even wars, in which the main thing is the elimination of "undemocratic" regimes while simultaneously solving their economic interests ...
  16. AX
    AX 14 December 2015 07: 32
    0
    One analyte is exhausted ....)))
  17. avva2012
    avva2012 14 December 2015 07: 38
    +1
    Conclusion "Obamism": no need to use force to defeat the enemy. And conclusion "Putinism": you need to become stronger and beat the enemy first to prevent re-decay.

    In my opinion, the author went through with ano-zm.
    Reed Standish writes that Putin at the same time "flaunts" publicly, hinting at even the possibility of using nuclear weapons against the terrorists of the "IS". True, the President of the Russian Federation immediately made a reservation, noting that, as he hoped, nuclear weapons "would never be needed."
    Well, for those like you, the president and говорил about nuclear weapons, and he did not make a reservation.
  18. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 14 December 2015 07: 55
    0
    1. The US military doctrine is falling apart; All US military operations after the collapse of the Soviet Union failed.
    2. The military doctrine of the Russian Federation, on the contrary, is developing. Putin’s military operations are effective.

    For such a conclusion, we can applaud Mr. Israel.
    Russians made one conclusion: you can’t rely on diplomatic agreements

    And this conclusion was double-checked in the 90s thanks to Gorbachev.
  19. EvgNik
    EvgNik 14 December 2015 07: 56
    +3
    The United States behaves differently because of its history. They prefer political action to war. If war cannot be avoided, then “it’s better to entrust this work to others and support them”

    I wonder in what gateway this "Ph.D." student studied, if he doesn't know (or doesn't want to know?) About what people with school education know? Typical order of the states.
    And the name "Uri" inspired the memories of the film "The Adventures of Electronics", where Karachentsev played the same (to fuss).
  20. 31rus
    31rus 14 December 2015 08: 06
    +2
    Dear, disruption of the enemy’s plans, although it’s an achievement, but far from victory, I would certainly like to write, but the facts: Ukraine, the conflict is only frozen and further development is not yet clear, Syria tensions are growing, despite the successful actions of the air forces and the SA, may go to the Vienna-1,2,3 phase, etc., and there are reasons for this, the grouping is increasing in Europe, missile defense is ongoing, new NATO members are being adopted, sanctions continue to apply, as against this background there are no praise
  21. lehalk
    lehalk 14 December 2015 08: 11
    0
    Just some fooled underpants Nothing wrong, took off and wiped off. All that remains is washed away with water!
  22. Gardamir
    Gardamir 14 December 2015 08: 13
    +3
    What do Western media write can those who know English, French, German well. Spanish, Italian, and better all at once. And this article was written to raise the rating ... And why should he raise the rating, he has 101% support so far, you can even save money on elections.
  23. dr. sem
    dr. sem 14 December 2015 08: 15
    +2
    For the Naglo-Saxons, victory is about maximizing profit in an economic sense. There is NO other understanding of victory in the collective West. Therefore, they "pull" in time any conflict organized by them in order to "provide jobs" and profit.
    For "Russian thinkers", i.e. US, victory is, first of all, the defeat of the enemy in the shortest possible time, and business is not critical.
    A completely different mentality.
    1. dr. sem
      dr. sem 14 December 2015 15: 35
      0
      And, minus, it automatically popped up ???????????????
      Clearly personal dislike.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  24. oxotnuk86
    oxotnuk86 14 December 2015 08: 29
    +1
    The whole world threatens the national security of the United States. Politicians start shouting about it; as a result, there is reason to create a coalition and begin to eliminate the threat. It is enough to show the test tube and Iraq on fire, but what about the test tube? Yes, it doesn’t matter. Who is not in coalition is already a threat nat. US security. The article focuses on the emphasis of politics that doesn’t agree but set the conditions or do as we want, or the Sanktsians, the color revolution and the especially stubborn war. US politicians are not looking for compromises, but are looking for an excuse to turn their opponent's neck.
  25. ABVGDEZH
    ABVGDEZH 14 December 2015 09: 12
    +3
    "The US behaves differently because of its history. It prefers political action to war."
    The phrase pleased. It's ridiculously simple - Americans are diplomats.
  26. guzik007
    guzik007 14 December 2015 09: 15
    +5
    The personality of Obama and the personality of Putin, the expert believes, were formed as a result of the collapse of the USSR.
    -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
    -----------

    Regarding Putin, I agree. But Obama’s personality smiled. Obama's personality was formed in a pederast tavern under a tight jamb.
  27. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 14 December 2015 09: 39
    0
    On the other hand, such major transformations require money, and the Russian economy is actually drowning - it is being crushed by Western sanctions and rolling oil prices. Putin cherished his projects in those days when black gold prices were much higher than current ones. Now, a reduction in Putin’s military budget is inevitable. Mentioned Galeotti, for example, says that economic difficulties will affect at least the pace ofdefense modernization. He claims that the Russians are already cutting back on their projects.


    Across the ocean, everyone hopes that Putin will not have enough money ..... they used to say that the Russian army is not capable of anything and will never rise, etc ......
  28. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 14 December 2015 11: 12
    +1
    Uri Milstein, I even hung "live". An interesting guy. Was at his lecture
    on the military history of Israel. He is a "debunker of myths".
    But the whistleblower is useful. It’s more useful to learn from your mistakes,
    than stick in a new war under the influence of the myth of the previous one.
  29. Yuri Y.
    Yuri Y. 14 December 2015 11: 16
    0
    In the article “Putin seeks to win”, devoted to “the roots of Putinism” and published by “News1” (Israel; translation source is “InoSMI”), Ph.D. Uri Milstein notes that Putin’s strategy in Ukraine, in Syria, in Turkey and everywhere only Russia has interests that require the use of force, comes down to "a quick strike to resolve the matter."

    In my opinion, the article is for the sake of the article itself. To show that the author, as it were, knows how to analyze something, the doctor nevertheless. Well, in the context of local installations or their creation.
  30. NordUral
    NordUral 14 December 2015 11: 31
    0
    Reed Standish writes that Putin at the same time "flaunts" publicly, hinting at even the possibility of using nuclear weapons against the terrorists of the "IS". True, the President of the Russian Federation immediately made a reservation, noting that, as he hoped, nuclear weapons "would never be needed."
    This is where he hinted at this, my friend?
    1. bumbarash
      bumbarash 14 December 2015 15: 56
      0
      I've been looking for this replica too, but I just can't find it.))
  31. Goldmitro
    Goldmitro 14 December 2015 11: 53
    0
    The United States behaves differently because of its history. They prefer political action to war. If war cannot be avoided, then “it’s better to entrust this work to others and support them”

    And no matter what the author of the article says, this line of behavior of Fashington in relation to Russia brings him certain positive results, is economically effective! How many for today in this way he managed to create Russia the most serious problems (and their number can be increased) and she ONE is forced today to strain all its forces, and they are not limitless to solve them and. moreover, there is still a threat of the need for direct intervention of the Russian ground forces in hostilities abroad! And Fashington, as always on the sidelines, uses his money and the willingness of the countries subject to him - accomplices to do all the dirty work for him, to provide their armies - cannon fodder for the implementation of his plans to fight against Russia! Therefore, first of all, the conclusion of Russia on its part begs to intensify political actions in all directions and, first of all, within the country (an unforgivable excessive "luxury" - the continuation of the existence of any pro-Western trash in the form of the 5th column) and, of course, find allies, to attract and use them in military operations: in Syria it is Iran, Iraq ...
  32. ARES623
    ARES623 14 December 2015 12: 10
    +3
    "The US behaves differently because of its history." Different than Russia. Yes, I agree. It so happened historically that a country created by convicts, murderers and bandits who fled from European states can only be like this. European civilization itself was able to flourish on the basis of plunder and colonization of neighboring and even non-neighboring territories. But the founding fathers of the United States stood out and did not get along even among the notorious robbers. Therefore, to plunder, plunder and plunder again, in various ways - direct military intervention, blackmail, bribery of the ruling elite, economic and technological pressure, recognizing only the right of force, and not some legal norms - only this is for the United States, or rather for some supranational structure is the main way to achieve the goal. And the goal is global domination over the world. Anything that does not fit into this scheme must be destroyed. Therefore, cooperation with ISIS is not surprising for the United States. Well, these are "brothers", only some with beards and knives, and others in jackets and ties, but self-esteem and attitude towards the surrounding peoples are the same.
    1. 3axap82
      3axap82 14 December 2015 16: 14
      0
      Australia is also created by convicts, more so than the United States. One of the most quiet and peaceful countries.
      It's not about the people, but about the political forces that control them.
      1. a housewife
        a housewife 15 December 2015 00: 36
        +1
        They are generally independent. But Aboriginal people were killed no worse than Americans. They don’t have neighbors, there’s no one to conquer, they’re like that - in the wings of Britain, mongrels. The sanctions against us were eagerly supported, and among other things, their athletes, only having arrived in Sochi at the Olympics, finally found out where Russia is.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  33. Yugra
    Yugra 14 December 2015 13: 12
    +2
    One old Kurd said correctly: give us weapons, we will set fire to five or six tankers in the Bosphorus, then we'll see what problems Turkey will have besides this ... We must give and train ...
    1. S_last
      S_last 15 December 2015 17: 09
      0
      What weapons are Kurds still missing? They are already 20 years old, all and sundry are arming themselves. USA, Israel, France, etc. etc. You want to see them come to your home with these weapons. Who decided why, if the Turks and Kurds have disagreements, then the Kurds will automatically become Russian brothers and sisters. They do not like Russian Kurds, they will take weapons, they will also take money, they will promise everything you want, but they won’t do anything. You are nobody for them, from the word in general.
  34. Seneca
    Seneca 14 December 2015 14: 27
    -3
    The consequences of the reign of this paranoid .. more than a decade, Russia will hiccup.
    1. ydjin
      ydjin 14 December 2015 16: 23
      +1
      Quote: Seneca
      The consequences of the reign of this paranoid .. more than a decade, Russia will hiccup.

      Let Erdogan hiccups to the Turks to vomit roar!
  35. Support
    Support 14 December 2015 15: 57
    +2
    That the East (a delicate matter), that the West (crusaders, pah) is respected and understood and heeded only a crude physical pussy .... sorry - to force. They perceive the other as weakness.
  36. 3axap82
    3axap82 14 December 2015 16: 10
    +2
    Foreign article cited by the author, written rather for "internal consumption" For the Obama dem team. the US party and NATO analysts. Like Russia is blown away, but don't relax. At first they frightened the terrible Putin, after our plane was shot down in Turkey in the foreign press, at first they were horrified, and then they began to laugh, and Putin ceased to seem so terrible. But defense concerns need money for armaments, and Republicans still need to "drown" Obama. Therefore, Putin's image is supported.
    We even cheer patriots know about the real state of the Armed Forces of Russia and NATO and talk about the inadmissibility of the conflict. Experts in the West cannot but know.
    The article is good.
    1. 3axap82
      3axap82 14 December 2015 16: 55
      0
      I apologize. The plane was shot down not in Turkey, but Turkey in Syria.
  37. dchegrinec
    dchegrinec 14 December 2015 17: 32
    +1
    Russia simply has no other choice but to win! It is like a law! Otherwise, Russia itself will not be! Therefore, we will do everything to make it everywhere and everywhere. And let our enemies be afraid to look up at Russia, we will be forced to leave them with nothing! And it will always be so!
  38. prawdawsegda
    prawdawsegda 14 December 2015 19: 04
    +2
    I heard somewhere that the enemy will be defeated and Victory will be ours !!!
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 14 December 2015 19: 46
      +4
      Quote: prawdawsegda
      I heard that the enemy will be defeated and Victory will be ours!

      You are lucky, you heard Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov! Lucky man! To live to such years and remember something at the same time. Das ist fantastish! 74 years have passed !!
  39. Stanislas
    Stanislas 14 December 2015 19: 48
    +1
    you need to become stronger and beat the enemy first, to prevent re-collapse
    Whom did Russia first hit? Always in response, and many even say that in response not always. Urinaut breshet!
  40. Koliamba_TV
    Koliamba_TV 14 December 2015 20: 55
    +2
    Mr. Galeotti objectively points out that Moscow, just by launching an operation in Syria, "thwarted a significant part of the foreign policy plans of the United States." Moreover, Putin needed to use only three dozen aircraft.

    It amuses me the most! laughing How much money did the US first add money to start a "rebellion" in Syria, a lot of money went into arms for ISIS. And where is it now? Putin destroyed all the successes, or rather the US plans, with one finger, and in one case, together with the collapse of the plan, the "denyuzhki" flew away ".
  41. Naval
    Naval 14 December 2015 22: 48
    +1
    It seems that not only ukrov, but mattresses with gay men ... laughing
  42. Fidel
    Fidel 15 December 2015 00: 16
    +3
    Just epic dolbo @ b this Uri Malstein.
    The scientifically-wise vyser in the spirit of the Fashingtos regional committee.
    It was especially touched by the fact that in the 41st year Russia learned that it was better to wipe off any papers signed with the West immediately. Well, everything else is in the same vein.
    But for the Americans roll))