A stab in the back by the Turks once again confirmed the correctness of the Russian Emperor Alexander III: “We must always remember that we are surrounded by enemies and envious people, that we have no Russian friends. Yes, we do not need them and provided to stand for each other. No need for allies: the best of them will betray us. Russia has only two allies: its army and navy. ”
Turkey’s complicity with Islamic State terrorists, deliberate attack on Su-24M, Russian retaliatory measures to ensure combat flight safety aviation in Syria’s sky related to escort of bombers and deployment of the S-400 complex, as well as statements by Turkish President Recep Erdogan that if a Turkish plane was shot down in Syria, Ankara would regard this as aggression - all this does not exclude the possibility of a Russian military conflict not only with Turkey, but also with the NATO bloc of which it is a member.
HISTORICAL NEIGHBORS DO NOT CHOOSE
A number of European countries belonging to the North Atlantic Alliance have common borders with Russia. And if historical neighbors are not chosen, they can be used and even formed with profit for themselves.
The imperative of Russia's behavioral strategy towards European countries should be to ensure peace and good neighborly relations. To this end, it is necessary to make all efforts to prevent hostile confrontation with European countries and to free European countries from American vassal dependence, primarily in matters of war and peace.
Nevertheless, it must be borne in mind that even if any of the European countries is friendly with respect to Russia, it will still have to fulfill its allied duty (according to the NATO Treaty 5) and enter military actions in case NATO unleashes a war with Russia.
Therefore, it is necessary to develop and apply behavioral strategies against European armies, taking into account their national characteristics, strength, combat experience and combat capabilities.
BEHAVIORAL STRATEGIES FOR THE “WEAK” EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
Armies of such European countries that are members of the NATO bloc, such as Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Greece, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Albania and Croatia individually, they pose no threat to Russia. The armies of these countries did not pass any serious tests in a large-scale war and are not ready for self-sacrificing battles in their moral status.
For example, Czechoslovakia was occupied by German troops in 1938 without a fight. The Albanian army was unable to counter the invasion of the Italian troops in 1939, and for two days Albania was occupied by Italy. The Polish army in the 1939 year did not render the Wehrmacht proper resistance and quickly surrendered, not having lasted even three weeks. During the first clash with the German army in 1940, the Dutch and Norwegian armies did not oppose the enemy and quickly fled. Denmark in 1940 was occupied by Reich forces for 6 hours. The Belgian army in 1940 capitulated 17 days after the onset of the German offensive. Iceland was occupied in one day by the British army in 1940, as was Luxembourg, which was occupied by the Third Reich in one day in 1940. Greece was occupied in 1941 by the armed forces of Germany, Italy and Bulgaria for one month. As for Hungary, Romania and Croatia, their armies were mercilessly beaten by Soviet troops during the Great Patriotic War.
In addition, the number of active troops of such European countries as Belgium (34 thousand people), Denmark (22 880), Iceland (0), Luxembourg (900), Netherlands (53 130), Norway (27 600), Portugal (44 900), Hungary (33 400), Czech Republic (57 050), Bulgaria (68 450), Latvia (5500), Lithuania (13 510), Romania (93 619), Slovakia (26 200), Slovenia (9 thousand.) , Estonia (5510), Albania (20 thousand), Croatia (51 thousand), allows us to speak only of their nominal participation in regional and large-scale wars. In large-scale and world wars, these countries will be able to participate only as part of NATO, led by American generals, while performing only auxiliary tasks.
Against the armies of the above-mentioned European countries, it is necessary to use a powerful fire attack, which demoralizes personnel. However, the armies of these countries themselves should not be the object of a main strike. The main blow must be applied to the strong groupings of NATO forces from the United States, Great Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and Turkey. At the same time, the direction of the main attack on these troops should be in the zones of responsibility of troops from "weak" European countries or at the junction of the troops of these countries with the troops of the United States, Great Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and Turkey.
Due to the weak moral stability, the troops of the “weak” European countries are most likely to leave their positions if they are subjected to a massive strike, to expose the flank and rear of the coalition forces and to sow panic among the more stable troops from NATO countries.
BEHAVIORAL STRATEGIES FOR SPAIN, ITALY, GERMANY, FRANCE AND GREAT BRITAIN
With regard to the armies of such European countries that are members of the NATO bloc, such as Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Great Britain, the following should be said.
The current army of Spain is 29-th in size (177 950 people) and 28-place in the ranking of the most powerful armies in the world. The lack of experience of participation in modern large-scale wars (the Spanish army has only experience of civil war (1936 – 1939) and the participation of the 250 division of Spanish volunteers in World War II on the German side) does not allow us to consider the Spanish army apart from the NATO bloc as a serious opponent of the Russian Army, and as part of the NATO bloc should not be considered the Spanish army as a very strong and reliable link.
The current army of Italy is 21-th in size (230 350 people) and 12-th place in the ranking of the strongest armies in the world. This is a fairly strong army with experience of the Second World War in a military alliance with Hitler’s Germany, as well as experience of the war in Afghanistan (2001 – 2014) in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and military intervention in Libya (2011) in the international coalition forces (mainly NATO countries). Nevertheless, one cannot say about the special resilience and dedication of the Italian soldiers (especially from the experience of their opposition to the Red Army in the Great Patriotic War).
The success of the Russian army in a military confrontation with the army of Italy can be ensured by a massive fire attack and the rapid onset of strong ground forces. Due consideration should be given to positions in the NATO bloc of the Italian army.
The current army of Germany is 13-e place in size (325 thousand people) and 7-e place in the ranking of the strongest armies in the world. The German army has extensive experience of participation in large-scale wars and is armed with modern weapons and military equipment.
Germany is one of the most active NATO countries, providing a military-political alliance in all peacekeeping operations (Afghanistan, Serbia, Macedonia, Kosovo, Somalia, etc.) with a significant proportion of personnel.
The strengths of the German army include: qualified and educated commanders at all levels; well trained and trained personnel; high level of interaction between the types of the Armed Forces and the arms of service.
Weaknesses of the German army: pedantic sense of duty (“strictly according to the letter of the doctrine and statute”); lack of creativity, innovation, originality in the activities of commanders of all levels; the limitations of the high command (the entire education of the generals of the German army is directed to the military sphere, so even in the adjacent areas they are poorly understood, which predetermines the occurrence of many problems when planning military actions).
When planning and conducting operations against the German army, you should look for unique, creative solutions, sometimes contrary to what common sense and logic suggest. It is necessary to impose military actions on the German generals that are not “spelled out” in the plans of the German army command (combined arms operations according to a single plan and plan simultaneously in all spatial environments — on land, in the air and on the sea with the use of space assets and cyber weapons; massive strikes throughout the depth of the construction of the German army by strategic, tactical and deck aircraft, combat helicopters and shipborne missile-artillery systems; of landing operations in two directions (horizontal and vertical to the sea from the air) using robotic systems mislead the enemy, etc.). It is also advisable to apply reflexive control by distorting information, transmitting false orders and orders, introducing interference into the decision-making mechanisms of the German command.
The army of France is considered one of the strongest in Europe. In terms of strength, the French army is in 19-th place (259 050 people), and according to the rating of the strongest armies in the world takes 6-th place.
The French army is one of the few armies in the world that has modern weapons and military equipment of its own production. In addition, France has nuclear weapons.
France has been a member of NATO since its inception, but in 1966 it left the military structure of the alliance and returned to all abandoned structures only in 2009.
Geographically, France is a continental country, but militarily behaves more like an ocean power, actively developing aviation and a fleet.
The military potential of the Armed Forces of France is sufficient to wage a local war, but for a large-scale war it is not enough. The French Air Force is not capable of independent serious military operations in remote theaters due to the lack of the required number of tanker aircraft and military transport aircraft. Moreover, according to experts, a serious crisis threatens the aviation industry of a country that does not have existing modernization programs and the creation of promising combat aircraft. Therefore, in the foreseeable future, the French Armed Forces will lose the ability to conduct even very limited independent operations. This is what explains the country's return to the military structure of NATO.
Russia's behavioral strategy in an armed conflict with France should be built on the use of more advanced Russian military aviation, EW and cyber weapons.
Danish soldiers in battle without scissors, of course, can not do. Photo from the NATO NATO photostrim in Flickr
It is also necessary to make full use of the moral superiority of the Russian Armed Forces over the diverse French army, staffed on a contract basis, in addition to residents of continental France, residents of French overseas departments (Guadeloupe, Martinique, Guyana, Reunion, Mayotte) and overseas territories of France (French Polynesia, etc. islands), as well as foreigners and adventurers from around the world recruited into a foreign legion that is part of the French Ground Forces.
One should also take into account the inertia of the highest French command, its limitations in terms of the development and conduct of operational-strategic and strategic operations. An example is France on the eve of the blitzkrieg 1940 of the year. It was France, not Germany, who made the greatest investments in new military technologies between the two world wars and achieved significant success. Nevertheless, Germany won, betting on quality, a blitzkrieg, which relied not only on technological capabilities, but also on tactics, strategy and the military organization as a whole.
Therefore, the General Staff of the Armed Forces should rely as much as possible on the positive experience of planning and carrying out operational-strategic and strategic operations accumulated in the USSR and Russia and use it in modern conditions, including in the event of an armed conflict with France, thereby ensuring the qualitative superiority of the Russian Armed Forces .
The army of Great Britain, despite its small size (29-place by the number of active army - 187 970 people), is considered the strongest in Europe (5-place in the ranking of the strongest armies in the world).
According to various sources, the UK has the third or fourth largest military spending in the world. Total military spending is about 2,5% of a country's GDP.
The British Army is one of the most technologically advanced and trained armies in the world. Its air force and fleet are the largest in the EU and the second in size in NATO. Britain has nuclear weapons and new strategic submarine rocket carriers that are on duty in the world's oceans.
The military policy of the country lately provides for the participation of British troops in military operations of any kind only as part of a coalition. This is confirmed by the British military operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Mali. The last war, in which Great Britain participated alone, was the Falklands War in the 1982 year, which ended in victory.
The interventionist capabilities of the British Armed Forces are sufficient for participation in collective police-peacekeeping operations in alliance with the United States and / or European countries in the framework of NATO, the EU and the informal Anglo-Saxon alliance.
It is necessary to take into account that Great Britain is the main enemy of Russia. At all times, she fought with Russia or built intrigues for her. Even as an ally, the UK was always ready to turn its weapons against Russia.
It is enough to recall the years preceding the Second World War, when Great Britain, together with France, tried with all its might to channel Hitler's aggression against the Soviet Union, and then, being an ally of the USSR in the anti-Hitler coalition, Great Britain and the United States planned to send all the power of undefeated Germany against Russia in the 1943 ( Plan "Rankin"). Immediately after the capitulation of Hitler's Germany, a secret order was prepared by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to prepare a plan for the destruction of the USSR (the “Unthinkable” plan) by hitting a half-millionth group of Anglo-German forces in cooperation with the hundred-thousand German army formed from the remnants of Hitler's Wehrmacht. In 1946, in Fulton (USA), Churchill delivered a speech considered to be the starting point in the Cold War, and in 1947, Churchill called for Republican Senator Stiles Bridges to convince US President Harry Truman to launch a nuclear attack that “destroys the Kremlin” and transforms the USSR “ into an easy problem. "
In the future, Great Britain has always been on the side of the enemies of the USSR / Russia (the war in Afghanistan (1979 – 1989); the first (1994 – 1996) and the second (1999 – 2009) Chechen war; the armed conflict in South Ossetia (2008).
Based on the above, Russia should always be ready for a possible war with Britain and have well-thought-out behavioral strategies that take into account the strengths and weaknesses of the British Armed Forces.
Great Britain has historically been strong fleet, but never possessed strong ground forces. The reason for this is the geographical location of the country. Recently, the British army’s ability to deploy armed groups at distant approaches has declined qualitatively. Based on the weakness of the British ground forces, the behavioral strategy of Russia should include ground battles, including on the territory of Great Britain itself, using airborne assault forces.
At present, the financial capabilities of the UK have significantly reduced, the budget is being dispersed. That is, the British are trying to be strong on all fronts at the same time, which in principle is impossible.
On the other hand, security priorities and threats to the UK are completely different today. For example, cyber threats, which is very important for the kingdom. Therefore, Russia should make full use of its cyber capabilities to disable the British command and control systems in the event of armed conflict.
And the main threat to Britain is currently coming from within - internal separatism, extremism and Islamic terrorism. The British Army is forced to rebuild and prepare not only for the fight against regular armed groups, but also for the fight against international terrorist organizations.
In the event of war, it is very important to neutralize the possible assistance of Great Britain from the side of the NATO bloc and first of all the USA Therefore, a large-scale war with Britain must be swift and lightning, leaving no time for the mobilization and deployment of troops, or the use of nuclear weapons. Russia should always be ready to erase this island nation from the face of the earth not necessarily with nuclear weapons, but with geophysical weapons.
BEHAVIORAL STRATEGIES FOR US, CANADA AND TURKEY
Such countries as the USA, Canada, and Turkey occupy a special place in the NATO bloc.
The US Armed Forces rank 1 in the ranking of the strongest armies in the world and 2 in the number of active army (1 million 369 thousand 532 person). The US military budget is the largest in the world. According to the Stockholm World Research Institute, in 2014, the United States accounted for roughly 34% of total world military spending.
Currently, the US Army has a great technological superiority, it has a well-established control system, based on many elements on space assets.
But, as you know, the military power of the armed forces is composed of two components - material and spiritual. And if on the part of the weapons and military equipment of the US Army everything is in order, then the spiritual component of their troops is at the lowest level. The United States never knew how to fight to the limit of human strength and capabilities.
The fact is that, with the exception of the civil war (1861 – 1865) between the northern and southern states, no military actions were conducted in the United States. This led to the lack of ability of the American people to endure long-term poverty and deprivation caused by military actions, to put up with restrictions on their rights and freedoms, inevitable casualties during a war, etc. This affected the American army, which was accustomed to using great facilities in the conditions of a barracks life and very painfully bearing the war. This determines the desire of the American troops to wage war at a distance, with little blood and preferably with someone else’s hands.
The military actions that recently led the US in Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan showed that American troops are only capable of a contact-free war with the use of aircraft, cruise missiles, and long-range artillery. Where American troops encounter an adversary directly on the battlefield, their morale quickly fades away and they lose (Korea, Vietnam, Somalia).
In general, any serious confrontation shown by the US Army causes fear and panic in it. For example, during the war in Iraq in 2003, the simplest self-made means of interference caused hysteria in some American leaders, who, even without understanding the essence of the matter, began to accuse Russia of supplying radio-electronic interference to Iraq. The loss of a few special forces in Somalia was enough to curtail “peacekeeping” in this country.
"The habit of contactless war" on the buttons "and reliance solely on their overwhelming technological superiority are corrupting all over America," says Major General Vladimirov. - It corrupts US politicians, who do not understand that any “virtual” wars or “wars - strikes - special operations” is a matter, perhaps outwardly and television spectacular and beautiful, but ultimately not effective, since they are quickly detected the initial depravity never gives the expected result in the long term and, conversely, ultimately worsens the situation, including for the United States itself.
This corrupts the American military, as it wean them from the sense of immediate danger necessary in war; creates in them the confidence that you can fight "without straining" and without loss; makes them incapable of long-term combat work directly in the field in the theater of war.
This also corrupts the North American superethnos (reducing its ethnic tolerance, provoking civilizational contradictions in it and damaging the nation’s overall immunity to the possible and inevitable difficulties of its own existence). The emphasis on the invulnerability of one’s own security makes ethnos loose, incapable of mobilization, long-term tensions and national efforts, and ultimately unviable. ”
In a large-scale war, a professional peacetime army can last no more than two or three weeks. In the future, it must be constantly fed by the mobilization of new troops. However, the US Army, wholly recruited under the contract, is deprived of the opportunity to accumulate trained mobilization resources, without which it is difficult to manage in a serious war.
Currently, less than 1% of the American population serves in the US military. The contractual system of staffing the Armed Forces adopted in the country led to the fact that American citizens completely lost the moral motives of voluntary service to their Fatherland. The task of the country's defense is not entrusted to the whole society, not to the people as a whole, but to the mercenaries, whose main motive for the service is a financial issue.
It should be noted that the combat capability of the US Army depends largely on popular support. The reason for the defeat of the US Army in Korea (1953 – 1956), in Vietnam (1965 – 1975), in Somalia (2005) and others was that these wars were not supported by the public opinion of American citizens. At the same time, when American ideologues managed to convince the country's population of the need for military action, the United States won major victories (the Gulf War 1991 of the year, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2003 year, etc.).
In this regard, it is necessary in all available media (primarily on the Internet), as well as using agents of influence, to form a negative attitude to the hegemonic aspirations of the United States, to constantly expose the greed of the military and political leadership of the United States, their aspiration to preserve world domination, dictate to other countries, to expose the aggressive nature of the American military machine, to reveal its vices and weaknesses. And constantly keep the United States and NATO countries in fear of possible retaliation from Russia in the event of a large-scale war against it.
Behavioral strategy in the war with the United States is to impose large-scale contact battles on the American army with the involvement of a significant number of personnel. At the same time, the delays in military action are more and more negative in relation to the US Armed Forces in the first place, and the transfer of military operations to the territory of this country can lead to its rapid surrender.
The current Canadian army occupies the 60-th place in terms of numbers (62 thousand people) and 16-th place in the ranking of the strongest armies in the world. Despite the relatively “high” rating of the Canadian army and the experience of conducting military operations in Afghanistan since 2001, it is not necessary to consider it as a serious threat to the Russian Armed Forces. The Canadian army is a danger only in conjunction with the US army and the armies of other NATO countries. Therefore, Russia's behavioral strategy toward Canada in the event of an armed conflict is to isolate it from military assistance, primarily the United States, as well as other NATO countries that have “a certain military weight” (United Kingdom, France, Germany).
The active army of Turkey occupies the 9-th place in the world (514 850 people), and according to the rating of the strongest armies of the world - the 8-th place. At the same time, ground forces of Turkey are considered second in strength in the NATO bloc after the US ground forces. And what is very important - the Turkish army is recruited, which ensures its resistance to losses in the conduct of hostilities.
However, in service with the Turkish army there is little modern military equipment. In addition, before the start of the current fighting in Syria, the last time the Turkish army fought was a war with Greece (1919 – 1922). And before that, Turkey almost always suffered defeat in wars with Russia, which undoubtedly gives the psychological advantage of the Russian army over the Turkish in the event of a possible armed conflict in modern conditions.
Recent years, the development of the Turkish army interfere with internal conflicts. The disadvantages of the Turkish army include, for example, the fact that the current leadership of the country has no authority in the army - more than 70% of officers have a negative attitude towards Turkish President Erdogan and his policies. The recent repressions and purges of commanders led to the fact that the best shots from the army were simply knocked out. Their place was taken by more loyal, but less professional commanders. Despite decent discipline in the Turkish army, it should be noted the low level of mastery of modern technology and poor training of junior commanders.
The unresolved problem with the Kurds, which constitute a significant part of the population in Turkey - of the order of 30 – 35%, has an adverse effect on Turkey’s defense. Since the 20 of the last century, the Kurds have been fighting for independence and the creation of their own state of Kurdistan. This struggle takes a lot of manpower and resources from the Turkish government, including its Armed Forces, which suffer losses in clashes with militants from the Kurdistan Workers' Party and Kurdish partisans. Given Russia's friendly relations with the Kurds since the days of the USSR, the Kurds can become the “fifth column” in Turkey in the event of an armed Russian-Turkish conflict.
In the event of war with Turkey, Russia should fully use its advantage in modern weapons and military equipment. The war with Turkey should be short-lived using the entire arsenal of weapons and military equipment and delivering massive strikes against military bases and convoys of Turkish troops. At the same time, the factor of moral superiority of the Russian troops, which has been genetically remembered by the Turks since the wars of Turkey against Tsarist Russia, should be fully used.
Thus, taking into account the peculiarities of the armies of the countries of the NATO bloc will allow Russia in the event of its involvement in a military conflict successfully confront both individual aggressive members of this bloc and the bloc as a whole.