Military Review

If there is a war

118
If there is a war



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.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/gpolit/2015-12-18/1_war.html
118 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. s.melioxin
    s.melioxin 19 December 2015 07: 39
    22
    Alexander III: “We must always remember that we are surrounded by enemies and envious people, that we, Russians, have no friends. Yes, we do not need them, provided we stand for each other. There is no need for allies: the best of them will betray us. Russia has only two allies: its army and navy. ”
    Probably eternal words. It was, is and it seems to me and will be. Rely only on yourself. We do not need "friends", but we will try to cope with the enemies.
    1. thinker
      thinker 19 December 2015 09: 46
      +9
      According to the covenants and in memory of the Emperor -
      Nuclear submarine cruiser "Emperor Alexander III" Project 955 "Borey" was laid down for the Russian Navy at the Severodvinsk enterprise "Sevmash" on Friday, RIA Novosti correspondent reports from the scene.


      RIA Novosti http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20151218/1344345534.html#ixzz3ukKUXvur
      1. MIKHALYCH1
        MIKHALYCH1 19 December 2015 10: 22
        +8
        This is in Iraq ... and in Syria!
        1. NIKNN
          NIKNN 19 December 2015 12: 12
          +9
          But what about ISIS? According to averaged data, about 100000 militants control how much territory, and it is problematic to defeat them in the near future. The winding spirit is good, but we must take into account the tactics and strategy of the database in different regions. No one has won the guerrilla war even against a small army (Vietnam, Korea ...) So this is a very vague article, well, only a superficial analysis of the number of ground forces. Plus set based on the amount of information shoveled by the author, I respect labor hi
          1. Altona
            Altona 19 December 2015 15: 51
            +5
            Quote: NIKNN
            But what about ISIS? According to averaged data, about 100000 militants control how much territory, and it is problematic to defeat them in the near future.

            -------------------
            ISIS needs to be deprived of funding. As for morale, hmm. ISIS people fight only for money, stubborn fanatics, as in any system, no more than 5-7%, that is, no more than 2 regiments. And the President correctly noted that ISIS is a private security company of illegal oil fields, no more.
            1. atalef
              atalef 19 December 2015 16: 00
              +6
              Quote: Altona
              As for morale, hmm. ISIS people fight only for money, stubborn fanatics, as in any system, no more than 5-7%, that is, no more than 2 regiments. And the President correctly noted that ISIS is a private security company of illegal oil fields, no more.

              If everything is so simple, why can't Assad defeat them?
              1. Altona
                Altona 19 December 2015 17: 35
                +8
                Quote: atalef
                If everything is so simple, why can't Assad defeat them?

                -----------------------
                And how can Assad block financing? How can he block logistics and recruitment through Turkey? How can it affect oil traders in Israel? ISIS is an extremely mobile and ramified structure; it is not only groups of militants at checkpoints. These are workers in illegal oil production and oil refining, truckers in convoys of oil tanks, doctors in Turkey, recruiters around the world, powerful advertising and information media in Qatar. This is arms logistics through Qatar and Saudi Arabia. This is a whole octopus. And militants and military force is just the visible part of the iceberg, which is easily replenished through recruiters.
                1. Darkmor
                  Darkmor 20 December 2015 02: 55
                  +3
                  The author of the article complicates everything greatly - but it is necessary to simplify.
                  Here is the theoretical warfare algorithm:
                  1) Our opponent is a nuclear power. Can we destroy it faster than it uses its nuclear forces?
                  yes - we are at war.
                  no, we’re not fighting.
                  2) Our adversary is not a nuclear power. If we can capture it without serious losses, establish control over the territory, then we do it without nuclear weapons.
                  If we cannot, then we destroy all military facilities with nuclear weapons, and this country ceases to be dangerous for us.

                  I find all these discussions lately about the war with Turkey and the power of the Turkish army ridiculous. A war against a nuclear power cannot be won. In the best case, you can achieve a "draw" if the nuclear power does not want to bomb you, but also cannot conquer you (as, for example, we had in Afghanistan and America in Vietnam).
                  1. mervino2007
                    mervino2007 20 December 2015 15: 30
                    +1
                    It goes to war. And it doesn’t matter that we don’t want her. No one will ask us. Provocations are not a problem, as history has shown. The Turks are ready for revenge and will pull NATO with them, in addition to its will.
                    We will watch the actions of our wise leading minnows - "no matter what happens."
              2. Gronsky
                Gronsky 19 December 2015 20: 45
                +3
                Quote: atalef
                Quote: Altona
                As for morale, hmm. ISIS people fight only for money, stubborn fanatics, as in any system, no more than 5-7%, that is, no more than 2 regiments. And the President correctly noted that ISIS is a private security company of illegal oil fields, no more.

                If everything is so simple, why can't Assad defeat them?


                Incorrect formulation of the question.
                Precisely because everything is so "simple" the Syrian army has not yet been crushed and continues to fight.
          2. nemets
            nemets 20 December 2015 15: 00
            +1
            partisans sooner or later end. Americans do not know how to fight against partisans, Germans beat them in the 45th
        2. mihai_md2003
          mihai_md2003 7 February 2016 12: 17
          0
          In the complex you have to be ready. Here the situation cannot be resolved by individual advanced models. And you also need to have enough ammunition and logistics. In Syria, it will be very difficult if volumes are needed for large-scale combat operations and there are no calibers in the amount of 50 pieces or 3 excanders to solve the situation.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. Disant
        Disant 19 December 2015 15: 09
        +4
        Quote: Russo Turisto
        yes, yes - it was the army and navy that destroyed the son of Alexander III.

        pretty boy. thank you, sit down, five
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. mervino2007
        mervino2007 20 December 2015 14: 42
        +1
        Quote: Russo Turisto
        yes, yes - it was the army and navy that destroyed the son of Alexander III.

        For Nicholas II, the betrayal of the generals, coupled with the subversive influences of Germany and England, became "a knife in the back." He and his system of defense of the state and autocracy were insufficient. Most likely, the elites of that time were also "guiding the knife."
    3. Libra
      Libra 19 December 2015 15: 15
      -5
      Russia also has a more powerful ally, both domestically and externally - this is SLAVE!
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Ros64
        Ros64 19 December 2015 18: 46
        12
        Where are these Slavs ??? Bulgarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Yugoslavs, etc. - these are "brothers" while they were being fed by hand. Now they are the same as all Westerners.
        1. Talgat
          Talgat 19 December 2015 20: 08
          +6
          I tend to support the idea that Russia has no reliable external allies. Although the tsar said that there are none other than the army and the navy - he meant specific states - England, France, etc., and a specific situation - that is, Russia had a moment of "hope" for Europeanness and the presence of European allies

          In fact, Russia now (in other times it was the role of the Golden Horde or Attila) is the core of "Eurasia" - and this is a whole separate world - civilization. And a priori, all other worlds - Europe or China were and will be potential opponents

          Can be "situational" allies - like China or Iran against the West now


          Thus, the "Slavic brotherhood" does not fit into the theory of geopolitics. that the Gumilevskys, that the same Mac Kinder - and "in science" not a Bulgarian or a Czech will be an ally of the Russian. and they are drilled with a Tuvan. or a Kazakh with a Kirghiz - which actually happened in all wars from the Second World War to the time of the same Attila - in whose army the great-grandfathers of the Russians, Kirghiz, Kazakhs and Tuva fought with Rome, etc.

          In general, indeed - external allies are unlikely - and Eurasian peoples to call allies not even quite right - they are closer than allies - as if an integral part and a single whole
          1. -Traveller-
            -Traveller- 21 December 2015 00: 10
            0
            in my youth I also liked to read Gumilyov, but with age, his ideas more and more seem far-fetched. he is a good compiler, but no more. all these passionate-civilizational nonsense are not suitable for building geopolitics.
            the chain Russia-Horde-Huns is, to say the least, controversial.
          2. Military Builder
            Military Builder 21 December 2015 05: 41
            0
            In WWI, Kazakhs were not taken into the army, in 1916 it was decided to mobilize for rear operations i.e. into engineering troops, and what did the Russian Empire get in return? Backstab! The uprising of A. Imanov.
      3. nemets
        nemets 20 December 2015 15: 06
        +1
        so where are they? but ethnic Germans in Russia fought on the side of Russia, not Germany - both in the 19th and in the 20th century, and the Russians are still trying to beat them. Someone else needs to argue
    4. Denis Obukhov
      Denis Obukhov 19 December 2015 16: 42
      +6
      And two more small candidates for some particular aspects of innate idiocy "In this case, the factor of the moral superiority of the Russian troops, which is genetically embedded in the memory of the Turks since the time of the wars between Turkey and Tsarist Russia, should be fully used."
    5. Atrix
      Atrix 20 December 2015 14: 32
      +3
      USA never knew how to fight at the limit of human strength and capabilities

      What nonsense ??? World War II with Japan, the Vietnam War. They also killed a dick cloud of people saving other soldiers. Why write this nonsense. It seems that now the golden youth will throw themselves at the embrasure.
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. kazachyok69
    kazachyok69 19 December 2015 08: 04
    +2
    it is necessary to stand for each other on condition.

    Do we stand for each other? In the country there are no millions who can’t eat normally? In the country, labor is paid how? In the country, the ruling elite of the children of billionaires has grown or not?
    In OUR country, it’s violet to everyone at all, so long as your W is warm!
    1. marlin1203
      marlin1203 19 December 2015 09: 20
      32
      I do not understand, all the armies of the world are "l about x and" perhaps, we are the only Dartanians? Somehow arrogant on the part of the author.what
      1. zadorin1974
        zadorin1974 19 December 2015 09: 41
        23
        ! the author, as an epic commissar with a saber in his hand and the slogan "all-true in foreign territory." Idiotic comparisons, like "The Spaniards have no military past, except for the civil war, so they are weaklings" When will such individuals like Mikryukov and Co. be taught to respect history? Yes, not arrogantly, but criminally negligent, in June 1941, does it seem to you colleagues?
      2. Chiropractor
        Chiropractor 19 December 2015 11: 10
        +4
        Americans are strong sergeants, Germans are captains ...
      3. the most important
        the most important 19 December 2015 14: 59
        11
        Quote: marlin1203
        I do not understand, all the armies of the world are "l about x and" perhaps, we are the only Dartanians? Somehow arrogant on the part of the author.

        The analysis is not complete. and the conclusions are generally strange ... Why fight the Turkish ground forces of the Russian ground forces? VKS and Navy attacks on particularly important facilities, the main thing is not the destruction of the army, but the destruction of its combat capabilities. And THE MOST IMPORTANT IS TO LEAD YOURSELF SO THAT NO ONE WOULD DARE TO THINK ABOUT THE THREAT OF RUSSIA! And then something revenge with tomatoes is dragging on ... If Saakashvili immediately pulled out the tomatoes at the very most, then there would not have been Bandera, the war in Syria, or downed planes!
        1. afdjhbn67
          afdjhbn67 20 December 2015 03: 11
          +4
          Quote: the most important
          The analysis is not complete. and the conclusions are generally strange

          You flattered the author about this - about analysis .. a set of letters is not an analysis ..
          1. dokusib
            dokusib 20 December 2015 05: 00
            +3
            Narcotic delirium rather than an article. I hope that normal military analysts write something fundamentally different from these fantasies in their reports.
    2. Sergey Polt
      Sergey Polt 19 December 2015 09: 31
      0
      The sent Cossack - that ...
    3. ziqzaq
      ziqzaq 19 December 2015 11: 14
      +2
      Quote: kazachyok69
      Do we stand for each other? In the country there are no millions who can’t eat normally? In the country, labor is paid how? In the country, the ruling elite of the children of billionaires has grown or not?
      In OUR country, it’s violet to everyone at all, so long as your W is warm!

      Let me ask, what country do you live in? God's chosen one?
  4. Yak-3P
    Yak-3P 19 December 2015 08: 11
    10
    The Turkish government made another controversial statement to Russia, reports Pravda.ru. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said that if Turkey and the NATO bloc unite, they will be able to occupy Russia in less than a week.

    According to YourNewsWire portal, Cavusoglu voiced his position on the air of one of the Turkish television channels. “If necessary, we with NATO and regional conservatives will be able to occupy Russia in less than 7 days,” the publication quoted him as saying.

    Other points from the head of the Turkish Foreign Ministry were also full of threats and overt aggression. Among other things, the following phrase was heard on the air: “We urge Russia, one of our largest trading partners, to sit quietly, but we warn that our patience is not unlimited.”

    Such statements look very strange against the background of the position of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who says that Turkey wants to normalize relations with Russia and does not intend to continue the conflict, the observer of Pravda.ru concludes.


    Another blitzkrieger ...
    1. Chak
      Chak 19 December 2015 09: 46
      +1
      Chushoglu raged. This pug would have been crushed for a long time, if not for the arrogant Saxons.
    2. Lelek
      Lelek 19 December 2015 11: 59
      +1
      Quote: Yak-3P
      Such statements look very strange against the background of the position of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who says that Turkey wants to normalize relations with Russia and does not intend to continue the conflict


      Nothing strange. The cunning Erdogan personally ordered the attack of our bomber. So Recep's public statements are blah blah.
      (cry.)
  5. Platonich
    Platonich 19 December 2015 08: 12
    +3
    This is a very serious army of idiots, fanatics and traitors. DANGER is more dangerous!
    1. Erg
      Erg 19 December 2015 09: 39
      +1
      The price of the issue is to replace Erdogan and his minister-jackal.
  6. X Y Z
    X Y Z 19 December 2015 08: 40
    +6
    The British Army is one of the most technologically advanced and trained armies in the world.


    Experts, of course, are more visible, but the Anglo-Saxon infantry was never famous for its fighting qualities (unlike the fleet) and victories on the ground were forged mainly by the wrong hands (Russian, Austrian, Prussian, etc.). Let me remind you that, according to historians, in Africa against the Germans, the British learned to hold the front only with a power ratio of 1 to 3 in their favor. And this is with significant restrictions on the supply of the African Corps. And on the continent they did not show anything outstanding. There are simply no other examples of confrontation with an equal adversary in the second half of the XNUMXth century and the beginning of the XNUMXst century, and colonial wars do not count.
    1. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 19 December 2015 09: 01
      17
      Yes, the expert is nowhere cooler. The author was going to fight with the whole NATO block. Moreover, the basic information provided by this expert is the strength of the army and its rating. Is it really not clear from the beginning that the ground armies of NATO and Russia will not be opposed. If things get so serious, then nuclear weapons will be used, and then we don’t care what rating the Italian army had.
      1. Sergey Polt
        Sergey Polt 19 December 2015 09: 35
        -1
        Any analysis is always needed ... And after debating ...
        1. zadorin1974
          zadorin1974 19 December 2015 09: 46
          +8
          And where did you see the analysis in this article, Sergey? Excuse me, but there is nothing apart from verbal diarrhea. So what are you talking about about the debate?
      2. kotvov
        kotvov 19 December 2015 11: 40
        +3
        The author was going to fight with the whole NATO block. ,,
        and you don’t think that this bloc was going to fight with Russia? That's why we need to calculate the situation. The author simply wrote a sketch of who is worth what.
        1. hawk
          hawk 20 December 2015 20: 01
          +1
          The correct reference point. And someone had to start ...
      3. Disant
        Disant 19 December 2015 15: 33
        +3
        It seems to me that you very naively talk about nuclear weapons.
        "if the matter goes seriously" - it is already underway, and for a long time
        nobody will bomb us with drafts and planes. will and will be Ukraine, Turkey, the Baltic states, Georgia. then the beloved word so beloved by all will go and there is nothing to pay for the light. then the creeping, the so-called hybrid war (igil-shmigil + radicalists) spreads to the regions and only then can the NATO block appear in kind under the guise of peacekeepers and other green and human rights defenders.
        after that there will be nowhere and no one to bomb. in my opinion this question has already been sucked from all sides
        normal article
      4. The comment was deleted.
    2. sa-ag
      sa-ag 19 December 2015 09: 16
      +4
      Quote: XYZ
      The experts, of course, are more visible, but the Anglo-Saxon infantry was never famous for its combat qualities (unlike the fleet) and victories on the ground were forged mainly by the wrong hands

      Montgomery would probably be surprised :-)
      1. PSih2097
        PSih2097 19 December 2015 11: 01
        +9
        Quote: sa-ag
        Quote: XYZ
        The experts, of course, are more visible, but the Anglo-Saxon infantry was never famous for its combat qualities (unlike the fleet) and victories on the ground were forged mainly by the wrong hands

        Montgomery would probably be surprised :-)

        Isn't it Rommel drove him in Africa?
        1. dokusib
          dokusib 20 December 2015 05: 22
          +1
          Why immediately drove. They ran there one after another. Take turns. But on November 4, 1942, Monty won these little balls. It was under El Alamein.
    3. Hydrograph
      Hydrograph 19 December 2015 16: 30
      +3
      Eco bent and Waterloo where the English infantry withstood the terrible art fire.
  7. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 19 December 2015 09: 03
    +3
    I think a military coup in Turkey is also possible, this is not the first time for them. As for the fact that NATO will fight with Russia - I doubt these countries have serious internal problems, it will also mean an avalanche-like transition to the "hot" phase ... and then everything will not matter.
    1. Chak
      Chak 19 December 2015 09: 51
      +1
      I agree. The burgers of an obese Europe, and even of Matrasia, are unlikely to want to lose their fat reserves. Although there is always the possibility of an avalanche-like worsening of the situation.
  8. Gray 43
    Gray 43 19 December 2015 09: 05
    16
    The author overlooked the most "invincible" army of Ukraine)))) which protects Europe from "Putin's invasion" with its belly and liver))) and the Ukrainian Air Force, but especially the Navy, where admirals can be manned by ship crews)))
  9. Valkh
    Valkh 19 December 2015 09: 20
    +1
    Spoiled Russia chock !!!! Let them bark - dogs !!!!
    1. MIKHALYCH1
      MIKHALYCH1 19 December 2015 10: 28
      0
      Quote: Valkh
      Spoiled Russia chock !!!! Let them bark - dogs !!!!

      Yes, everything is fine ... There and spread to Syria! They respect the Force! bully
  10. aszzz888
    aszzz888 19 December 2015 09: 25
    -2
    Russia has only two allies: its army and navy. ”

    Diamond words! good

    Danish soldiers in battle without scissors, of course, can not do. Photo from the NATO NATO photostrim in Flickr

    Trim your nails so you don’t interfere with your drape! laughing
  11. Neophyte
    Neophyte 19 December 2015 09: 27
    +2
    Continuing the theme of XYZ: in the Boer War, after overcoming the rivers, the Boers teased the local hippos for a long time, having reached a degree of rage, attacked the British pursuing the Boers, and the anger of these animals was very great and the damage was no less (from the memoirs of Russian journalists)! say remark about the methods of colonial warfare?
  12. olegfbi
    olegfbi 19 December 2015 09: 29
    +6
    The article is basically interesting, but purely theoretical!
    In my opinion, limited military operations against the countries of the NATO bloc are possible exclusively on the territory of third countries according to the Korean / Vietnamese scenario.
    Drawing Russia into a direct military conflict with NATO, with a 99% probability, will lead to an exchange of nuclear strikes! And this is a completely different song ...
  13. surrozh
    surrozh 19 December 2015 09: 29
    -5
    "All the same, it was necessary to give a pendal" (c) (nuclear) to Incirlik!
  14. Chak
    Chak 19 December 2015 09: 43
    +7
    I read it carefully, the article is interesting. I agree that our military-political doctrine should be based on the premise that Russia has no real allies! In the last decade, a lot has been done for the Army; it is becoming more and more efficient. But, there is one BUT! We have forgotten ALL the centuries-old experience of previous relations with other countries. In the 90s, we adopted the ostrich policy of non-interference in the affairs of other countries as a basis, reaching the point that everyone who is not too lazy to meddle in our affairs. The invaluable experience of the best times of Russian and Soviet diplomacy says that wars must be won before they start. This means that we need to create our own lobbies in different countries, play on the contradictions between our "partners", and look for their internal weaknesses. Well, and of course, carefully watch what is happening with our modern "allies". And there is an activation of creeping anti-Russian sentiments. Accordingly, if we want to see these countries loyal to us, loyalty must be based on our military presence. Now, not a single "ally" has supported Russia in its confrontation with NATO in / in Ukraine, Syria ... (hereinafter everywhere). The military intervention of the USSR in Iran, Hungary, Czechoslovakia did not come from the fact that we hate someone's "freedom" so much, but from the fact that only yesterday these countries were our enemies in World War II and could become them again. Hundreds of thousands of bayonets could turn in our direction again. Summary: Russia needs a realistic, balanced policy; an accurate understanding of the country's leadership, its role and place in Russia; not a strong, but a powerful diplomatic army; powerful actions of our special services abroad, suppression of the inclinations of the 5th column inside the country; the new industrialization of the country and the revision of economic policy for preferences to the oligarchs (this is where the 5th column truly is).
    1. Sanya56
      Sanya56 19 December 2015 15: 46
      +3
      And yet you forgot to mention one thing in order to carry out this set of measures, people in our country must support this power, otherwise all its attempts are simply futile.
  15. vladimirvn
    vladimirvn 19 December 2015 09: 53
    +4
    Military force is the main and today perhaps the only effective instrument of our foreign policy. Our positions in international institutions are gradually weakening, in financial ones they are very weak. Lost positions on the cultural and scientific "fronts". The economy is ineffective, the society is fragmented. We must do our best to maintain the image of a nation of good warriors who can go to the end, defending their interests.
  16. rudolff
    rudolff 19 December 2015 09: 54
    +8
    The Germans will lose because of the pedantry and bone thinking of their military leaders who are not able to think creatively and unconventionally. We will destroy the British with geophysical weapons. The French army is rapidly degrading, it will soon fall apart. The Americans have problems with the image of morality and having created the appropriate information background in the states and they don’t need to fight, they will run away. Turks are doomed to defeat from our army by force of habit. The remaining members of the bloc can not be taken into account due to the small number of their armed forces, low moral stability and inability to fight. The history of World War II to help us! Conclusion: we are not afraid of NATO, we will defeat NATO! Not really straining!
    N-yes ... It’s not even throwing hats! Socks or something ...
  17. vladimirvn
    vladimirvn 19 December 2015 10: 10
    +1
    I see a minus. Arguments where?
  18. Alekst
    Alekst 19 December 2015 10: 13
    +5
    Interestingly, the author is preparing for the previous war, such as fronts, tank breakthroughs, etc. from the history of the Second World War. All these disparate armies are nothing more than a screen, especially in NATO, and so they understand that initiating a direct clash will lead to you know what, and you’ve got used to fighting with your own hands and don’t really want to, they are preparing Ukraine and Turkey for this. Looking at the map, it can be assumed that other TVDs are not suitable for NATO. North and Baltic region - there are no large NATO forces or indirect allies such as Ukraine. The Far East - it seems to me problematic due to the relations between Japan and China, I would not say that China is such an ally, but for Japan it is the number one enemy. The advance of NATO through the territory of Ukraine and Belarus seems to me an even more problematic and incredible scenario.
    But to push Ukraine and Russia, Turkey and Russia, it’s quite an option for them, and without direct initial intervention of NATO itself, they can find the reason for this, for example, to declare the conflict of Ukraine and Turkey with Russia as their personal affair and not to intervene initially. In principle, a similar plan has been observed over the past few years.
    In general, here is such a fantasy in my head, probably having nothing to do with reality.
  19. Stoler
    Stoler 19 December 2015 10: 21
    0
    How aggressive you are however. I read and see scraps of "partners". laughing wassat
  20. gg.na
    gg.na 19 December 2015 10: 34
    +3
    An article in my opinion with a "smell" what Why?! Yes, simply because we are presented in the role of a pancake "winners" ... Yes, if a mess begins, then in this mess there will soon be no winners. You have to understand that even though RUSSIA is gaining momentum in the military industry, it is still not strong enough to resist everyone at once! Because if something against us will be very many and from different (most unexpected) sides. We are still weak and this, too, must be admitted! Although, of course, being the same as now we will answer angry so am that little will not seem bully no one !!! In the west, too, ordinary people rubbed for many years that like RUSSIA is weak and if we can take it with our bare hands ... But in the end what happened ?! So it turned out that today we are observing and observing not only we, but also those people who sang "songs" about the fact that RUSSIA is a weak broken country. So an article with a "smell" sad
  21. Voltsky
    Voltsky 19 December 2015 10: 39
    +2
    And no one cares why the mattress covers are quietly dumping from Turkey, the figirl of course did not empty, but the star-striped coningent slightly decreased (Avax, f-16 is still in place). There is an opinion as soon as they dump, wait for guests in Syria
  22. urahipper
    urahipper 19 December 2015 11: 00
    +3
    At the moment, Russia, despite the brave speeches of our politicians and generals while boasting about the latest weapons, will definitely lose to NATO in the event of a direct military conflict. The only way to resist the united NATO army will be the threat of using nuclear weapons. And as for the quantitative and qualitative comparison of NATO armies and RF, then it is far from in our favor. New types of weapons are present in the army in single copies (before it was necessary to end with the plundering of the military-industrial complex), and as for the morale of our army, I will give the principle according to which a simple RUSSIAN man lives: "THEY want to live like a king , wag the language in the press and on TV and raise our children overseas, and we "exist" from paycheck to paycheck and give our children to slaughter for their billions. ”And the so-called peoples inhabiting RUSSIA have even more abrupt and very far from such concepts as MOTHERLAND, FATHERLAND, PATRIOTISM. Glory to the USSR !!!
    1. Klos
      Klos 19 December 2015 22: 47
      -2
      I wonder who formulated such a principle? And what kind of so-called peoples inhabit Russia? Some kind of nonsense with the soul of nationalism
    2. hawk
      hawk 20 December 2015 20: 30
      +2
      The OPK is still sick. The state order is unprofitable. There are few real novelties in the Army. But in the aggregate - we "took the wing". So it tempts - to get involved in a fight, and then we will break through ... There are considerations that while we are psychologically stronger. But what intrigues will the adversaries weave in the near future?
  23. Bakht
    Bakht 19 December 2015 11: 02
    +8
    As the classic wrote in his time, "Military science is, in principle, a simple matter. But it is difficult to fight."

    Did the author put them all on the shelves? Especially touched by the reasoning about the German army, lack of creativity and actions according to the template. And this is about those very Germans about whom G. Zhukov once said "We fought with the MOST STRONG army in the world."

    Delirium, not analyst. What are "behavioral actions"? For 2-3 thousand years, in principle, nothing has changed. The first step is to destroy those facilities that pose a threat to large infrastructure facilities. I mean, first of all, Petersburg. The Baltic states should be cleared within the first days and a direct connection with Kaliningrad should be established. Rest assured that NATO understands this very well.

    But in general, the Russian General Staff is unlikely to publish for joy our operational plans. soldier
    1. Klos
      Klos 19 December 2015 22: 58
      +1
      I agree with you. Fantastic story. wink
  24. 31rus
    31rus 19 December 2015 11: 18
    +1
    Dear, if Turkey nevertheless decides to provoke a war with Russia, this will be the end of Turkey and NATO, it will not interfere, the supply of weapons, intelligence information, the slogans "We are for Turkey", of course, there will be pressure on Russia, it will increase significantly, but in the leadership NATO, perfectly understand that Russia, if necessary, use nuclear weapons, and this is completely different from the war with Turkey. Turkey will be supported by troops, including the countries of the region such as Qatar, the Saudis, but NATO itself is very unlikely
  25. Nikita Gromov
    Nikita Gromov 19 December 2015 11: 18
    +3
    Turkey, the USA and England are our enemies forever, simply by virtue of their nature. And their nature, friendliness cannot be changed - only by force.
  26. Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 19 December 2015 11: 37
    -2
    GLORY TO RUSSIA!!!
    1. zadorin1974
      zadorin1974 19 December 2015 12: 21
      +7
      What Robert, do you want the pluses, as much as your teeth? No wonder in the old days they said that only their fools are worse than enemies!
      1. ivanovbg
        ivanovbg 19 December 2015 12: 50
        +2
        Well, if a person wants to become a “general” on the Internet, why not? Even if he is a “patriot”, he still loves Russia, at least in words, let him write his slogans and collect the advantages, what is the matter for you? So that you do not think of anything, look at my profile, I earned my general stars, writing 22 articles for HE.
      2. Windy
        Windy 19 December 2015 19: 20
        +3
        By the way, in the photo presented by Robert, not even the flag of Russia laughing
        This is the standard of the president of the Russian Federation.
  27. ivanovbg
    ivanovbg 19 December 2015 11: 40
    +4
    Significant addition: strikes in weak, vassal US countries, it is necessary to inflict purely on military targets and objects, you should not allow great civilian casualties to these countries.
  28. 76rtbr
    76rtbr 19 December 2015 11: 59
    0
    it’s in vain that you are talking about scissors from a Danish warrior, and he cuts snowflakes between fights, nostalgic for Andersen’s tales !!!
  29. JD1979
    JD1979 19 December 2015 12: 16
    18
    Quote: ivanovbg
    Danish soldiers in battle without scissors, of course, can not do. Photo from the NATO NATO photostrim in Flickr


    Extremely dumb comment. In the photo MEDIC, the backpack is a medical styling, everything that is needed is first of all fixed so as not to waste time searching, including special scissors for cutting clothes.
    1. zadorin1974
      zadorin1974 19 December 2015 12: 34
      +4
      Greetings Dmitry! Don’t pay attention, some of the pluses are not writing this yet. Recently, some on such slogans a year before the marshals before reported.
    2. ivanovbg
      ivanovbg 19 December 2015 12: 39
      +1
      Dmitry, and where am I? I did not write this article and I did not say that.
    3. Dragon-y
      Dragon-y 19 December 2015 12: 52
      +1
      Yes, I agree. Scissors (with blunt ends) are included in the kit of the first-aid kit. It is in order to cut clothes and bandages, without fear of additionally cutting the wounded.
    4. saygon66
      saygon66 19 December 2015 19: 39
      0
      - Bandage scissors or Lister scissors ...
    5. The comment was deleted.
  30. Shark Lover
    Shark Lover 19 December 2015 12: 19
    +2
    It is not possible to fully compare and classify the Armies of different countries in peacetime. Even the Fritz made a mistake in the potential of the Red Army, starting aggression. It is a lot of components and it is probably impossible to evaluate them comprehensively. Here, not even the Army should be compared, but (not the State) nationality, or something. Example? Yes, the same Afghanistan, how many armies were there, conquered? Yes, there was no task, at least we won, but the Afghans did not have the task of defeating us. Does the Army of the DRA exist in at least one rating? I’m silent about Russia in general, the whole history of the wars, conquered, destroyed? The potential must be evaluated to understand the magnitude of the damage that direct aggression will cause. They are conquering from within, as the immigrants tried to do in the 90s, and military aggression is already from rabies and loss of mind. But the mind comes only with a good response slap in the face.
  31. Odysseus
    Odysseus 19 December 2015 12: 45
    +4
    The article is very strange. Of course, it has a lot of true thoughts, but in general ....
    Any large-scale war with NATO will be waged with the help of nuclear weapons, but the author does not consider this key factor. NATO’s direct invasion of Russia (or vice versa) is completely impossible, since neither NATO nor Russia now simply has large ground forces. if we assume the possibility of such an invasion, then everything will quickly be reduced to the use of nuclear weapons.
    Many theses, in general, make a very strange impression - for example, a war against individual NATO countries without the participation of other NATO countries, a victory over Great Britain with the help of "geophysical weapons", the idea of ​​transferring the war to the United States, the idea of ​​"tearing" Canada from the United States, the thesis about the use of the "moral factor" in the war with Turkey (despite the fact that we do not have a common border and land war is impossible), and so on.
  32. Ossetian
    Ossetian 19 December 2015 12: 51
    0
    According to the subject briefly: KG / AM
  33. linen
    linen 19 December 2015 12: 57
    -9
    Alexander III RIGHT! With enemies, in the modern world, you need to end QUICKLY, and for this you need to do the most powerful and destructive weapons .... one maximum TWO hits and the end to these freaks called NATO! RUSSIA WILL SURVIVE AND SURVIVAL !!
    !!
  34. Gor-1974
    Gor-1974 19 December 2015 13: 26
    +2
    The article, it seems to me, has begun and has not been completed. The main message of the author, Russia has no friends. If you proceed from this, you will have to fight against the whole world, in which case you need to expand the article by such strong countries as China, India, Japan, Israel and many others. Not because we have a bad relationship with them, but in order for the article to lead to a logical conclusion.
  35. nik1321
    nik1321 19 December 2015 13: 29
    +3
    "If necessary, we with NATO and our regional allies will be able to occupy Russia in less than 7 days" is an interesting statement, only now it requires clarification. With this kind of intervention, much earlier than 7 days on the site of Turkey and NATO countries, a desert may appear completely unsuitable for life due to radiation. There are no occupiers and there is no one to occupy. Maybe they just want a similar solution to the issue?
  36. serg2108
    serg2108 19 December 2015 13: 31
    -3
    minus the article, analysis is so-so, and everyone knows this, but the author forgot to summarize ... 300 warheads and a megaton capacity are enough for each member of the alliance of 10-15 pieces and stop thinking about them ... declare openly that funds are aimed at every country deterrence and as soon as they move in our direction from their capitals and countries, nothing will be left to prepare 250 bombers with cruise missiles and finish off what will remain on the United States and other allies and beat everything else at once and at once to guarantee the destruction of all the scum and immediately there will be peace .. in short, a deterrence strategy plus the constant exaggeration of this topic in Western countries .. the speech of politicians .. various analysts, etc. on television and the Internet in 10-15 years, they themselves will disperse from NATO and there will be world peace fellow
  37. NordUral
    NordUral 19 December 2015 13: 35
    +3
    Self-incrimination is good. But realism is justified much more reliable. Rearm and learn, or rather.
  38. Yak28
    Yak28 19 December 2015 13: 36
    +3
    When the USSR collapsed and Russia weakened, our "allies" in the form of the republics of the USSR began to survive the Russians and throw mud at Russia. But the Russians fought for them, built infrastructure for them, taught them to read and write, and some Asian republics in general came up with the alphabet and writing. from the Warsaw Treaty countries they went even further, joined NATO, deployed US troops hostile to Russia on their territory, if they thought they would have betrayed Russia during the war. And the "allies" of the USSR delayed for how long with the opening of the second front, they were afraid to stand on the side of the loser. And how many countries did the USSR help to fight, and Egypt, and Korea, and Vietnam and a bunch of countries, and where is their support for Russia, at least in words? So Russia has never had and never will have decent allies.
  39. kuz363
    kuz363 19 December 2015 14: 14
    +5
    Cape-making article. Minus to the author. All armies are bad, worthless. In Russia alone, everything is fine, although it has been said many times that without nuclear weapons Russia cannot defeat even NATO without US support!
  40. onix757
    onix757 19 December 2015 14: 18
    +1
    Quote: kuz363
    although it has been said many times that without nuclear weapons Russia cannot defeat even NATO without the support of the United States!

    Absolutely right. Moreover, in the case of the use of nuclear weapons there will be no winners, which means that the weapons of the loan day will remain a scarecrow and no more.
  41. Yak28
    Yak28 19 December 2015 14: 35
    -4
    Quote: kuz363
    Cape-making article. Minus to the author. All armies are bad, worthless. In Russia alone, everything is fine, although it has been said many times that without nuclear weapons Russia cannot defeat even NATO without US support!

    Nonsense, look at the list of NATO countries, you won’t look without tears. If American troops withdraw from the NATO countries, then 90% of them will not be combat ready at all. There is no one to fight with England except. Look at the Turkish army, which is the second largest in NATO after the United States, tanks are outdated, small arms too, air defense too yesterday, you can’t even write about dwarf European armies. In NATO, too, the motley public will decide to stay away, someone will cross over to the other side as one place
    1. Garris199
      Garris199 19 December 2015 15: 15
      +4
      Quote: Yak28
      tanks are outdated, small arms too,

      And we have everything new right? Is the T-72b / b3 new or AK-74? There is still little new technology in the troops. We need time, at least 3-4 years, and then we'll see.
  42. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 19 December 2015 15: 43
    +3
    To tear apart all of Europe from the Urals to the Pyrenees is Uncle Sam's old dream ...
  43. Evgeniy667b
    Evgeniy667b 19 December 2015 16: 27
    +6
    And euphoria prevails among us that with a nuclear club we are not afraid of a gray wolf. Washes it really, but any attempt to use nuclear weapons will cause a backlash from our beloved partners. And then nuclear winter and other delights. Still, this is an extreme measure, and therefore will have to fight with conventional weapons. And with them, things are not very good for us. There are samples of a fairly high level, but it is the samples that only a few units enter the Russian army, and the bulk is exported. If we consider the current tense situation as a threatened period, then export deliveries are a CRIME, and in principle it is. In Mikhalkov's film "Burnt by the Sun" there is an episode when the penalty boxers were armed with shovel cuttings and sent to the assault ... Apparently our strategists, as well as who puts the dollar above the life of a Russian soldier, are trying to achieve this ???
    1. Pushkar
      Pushkar 19 December 2015 16: 53
      -3
      Quote: Evgeniy667b
      In Mikhalkov's film "Burnt by the Sun" there is an episode when the penalty boxers were armed with shovel cuttings and sent to the assault ... Apparently our strategists, as well as who puts the dollar above the life of a Russian soldier, are trying to achieve this ???
      "Everyone imagines himself to be a strategist, seeing the battle from the side." M.Yu. Lermontov. Milyukov for a good analytical article - thanks and plus.
      1. andrew-z
        andrew-z 19 December 2015 22: 36
        +2
        How Shota Rustaveli became Lermontov in your country remains a mystery ...
        1. Pushkar
          Pushkar 20 December 2015 23: 55
          0
          You're right. True, my mistake does not affect the essence of the answer.
  44. Yak28
    Yak28 19 December 2015 16: 32
    +2
    Quote: Garris199
    Quote: Yak28
    tanks are outdated, small arms too,

    And we have everything new right? Is the T-72b / b3 new or AK-74? There is still little new technology in the troops. We need time, at least 3-4 years, and then we'll see.

    Considering that the Russian leadership was actively ruining the country's defense in the 90s, it’s not so bad. The bad thing is that society is divided into rich and poor, some like capitalism, some people like communism, some people pray from morning to night, and so on. Further, now it’s not 41 years old when everyone had one idea. And today, in the event of a big war, many will run away from the army, many who are richer will try to dump abroad, and the army gathered for a hastily and hastily will not gain much.
    1. Garris199
      Garris199 19 December 2015 22: 40
      0
      Quote: Yak28
      The bad thing is that a society divided into rich and poor,

      Well it is everywhere like that.

      Quote: Yak28
      And today, in the event of a major war, many will flee from the army, many who are richer will try to dump abroad,

      They will try, but in the event of a major war no one expects them there with open arms. And again, in a state of war and other laws. You can’t run without consequences.
  45. Pushkar
    Pushkar 19 December 2015 16: 55
    +2
    Quote: Libra
    Russia also has a more powerful ally, both domestically and externally - this is SLAVE!

    Poles? Bulgarians? Czechs? Or other Croats?
  46. 020205
    020205 19 December 2015 17: 07
    +3
    An idiotic article, with a set of prejudices and historical clichés! Designed for Ur Patriots
  47. NyeMoNik70
    NyeMoNik70 19 December 2015 17: 16
    +1
    "Weaknesses of the German army: pedantic diligence (" strictly according to the letter of the doctrine and charter "); lack of creativity, innovation, originality in the activities of the command staff at all levels; limited high command (all education of the generals of the German army is directed to the military sphere, therefore, even in related areas they understand poorly, which predetermines the emergence of many problems in the planning of military operations). "
    Perhaps this is not true. Perhaps the analysis of other armies is not entirely correct.
    It is worth familiarizing yourself with such information:
    "On an important feature of the German tactical training methodology" http://rostislavddd.livejournal.com/214353.html
    http://militera.lib.ru/science/0/pdf/middeldorf_e01.pdf
    For example: page 34
    "The battle order must be so complete that
    the body could draw from it everything necessary for independent
    actions in the interests of fulfilling a common task. At the same time,
    further development of equipment and the degree of training of troops
    will sometimes require the commander of appropriate methodological
    instructions in the order.
    Unnecessary notes in orders should be omitted, but necessary
    The clarification of individual points depends entirely on the level of
    training subordinate commanders and troops.
    In any case, the following principle should apply:
    indicate in the order that, according to the commander,
    proper training of troops is carried out by them without much
    orders.
    If the orders will constantly stipulate various small
    details, troops can get used to it and stop showing
    initiative. In the absence of orders from above, such troops will
    unable to act independently. Commander’s concern
    so that nothing is forgotten, it should be expressed only in verification
    execution, not repeating orders. "
  48. NyeMoNik70
    NyeMoNik70 19 December 2015 17: 26
    +2
    page 15:
    "The author attaches great importance to the so-called tactics
    seepage. The essence of this tactic is that on
    insufficiently covered area due to fire
    enemy troops using dark time or poor visibility,
    imperceptibly, in small groups seep into favorable initial
    areas, and sometimes in the location of the enemy.
    The views of the German army command on the defense basically coincide
    with the modern views of the armies of countries I: IATO, however
    there are some features. For example, mobile defense
    The army of Germany has much in common with the mobile defense of the US army.
    It should not be forgotten that the idea of ​​mobile and mobile defense
    not new, she was preached by such a famous German
    military theorist like Schlieffen. Both types of defense, as positional,
    so mobile, according to the author, pursue one task--
    the destruction of enemy forces or the weakening of their forces.
    A prerequisite for the successful conduct of positional
    Defense is an effective anti-tank defense organization
    and strong retention of positions by troops
    to the last person. The defense line, according to the author, should
    consist of a system of strong points and nodes of resistance.
    It is emphasized that defense activity is achieved by counterattacks
    and counterattacks.
    Some recommendations of the author in case
    when a portion of the defending forces is isolated as a result
    successful breakthrough of enemy forces. In a similar setting
    "Leadership" proposes to form a headquarters, which
    tidies up cut-off units (parts) or forms
    of which new ones not only to stop further
    advancement of enemy troops, but also to carry out counterattacks
    and counterattacks.
    Mobile defense, according to West Germans, · allows
    gain time and destroy the enemy by involving him
    into the "fire bag". "
    Not well, our ancestors made them, the stump is clear.
    Perhaps our turn. And we do not have the right to an incorrect assessment. hi
  49. Amper
    Amper 19 December 2015 18: 02
    +7
    Quote: kazachyok69
    it is necessary to stand for each other on condition.

    Do we stand for each other? In the country there are no millions who can’t eat normally? In the country, labor is paid how? In the country, the ruling elite of the children of billionaires has grown or not?
    In OUR country, it’s violet to everyone at all, so long as your W is warm!

    Totally agree, Hooray patriotic article. Nothing more from the GDP-cool series, like buffalo eggs!
    The state is strong by the unity of the People and Power. Today's Russia, as never before, is weak, by its absence, a ruined economy, production, a ruined education, and the absence of a universally understood national idea. Absorbed in theft, corruption at all levels, the dying outskirts, the people clogged with officials .. etc. etc.
    You can say as much as you like-SWEET !, bathed in shit, but it will take its toll.
    None of the people’s selflessness, if such is still preserved in its mass, will not hold such territory. For the country's defense is not the devotion of the country's defense and prime minister and other bureaucrats to the commander in chief - but completely different concepts ... Well, yes, this is for lawyers usually not available.
    The next 5-10 years, and maybe 1-3 years, will put everything in its place.
  50. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 19 December 2015 19: 00
    +1
    Regarding the source material .... I can only quote the well-known phrase of the distinguished Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation: "D ..., b ...!"

    The construction is delusional in nature (as already written above). A definite minus.