Vectors of foreign and domestic policy of Russia are diametrically opposed. The first leads to a revival of the status and influence of Russia in the world, the second pulls in the liberal direction, depriving Russia's foreign policy initiatives of adequate material support.
The end of November and the beginning of December were extremely rich in very significant events. This is the destruction by the Turkish Air Force of our front-line bomber Su-24, followed by Ankara's stubborn refusal to recognize the illegality of aggression and apologize. Sanctions on the part of Russia and the publication of irrefutable materials testifying to the mass purchases by Turkish firms of oil from the IG, the maneuvers of the American and European elites connected with these facts. The Turkish invasion of Iraq, which provoked the indignation of Baghdad and its decision to turn to Russia with a request to extend the military operations of the air forces to the territory of the country. Iraq’s stated determination to strike at the aggressor’s troops - that is, the Turkish tank battalion deployed in the Mosul area. All this happens against the backdrop of the consequences of the terrorist attack in Paris and the death of the Russian liner over the Sinai, the beginning of the vigorous actions of the French deck and the British aviation against the Islamic State banned in Russia, the unsuccessful attempt by President Hollande to create a Russian-Western anti-terrorist coalition.
Military tensions in the regions adjacent to our borders are growing at a very high rate, and what is most unpleasant is drawing our country into a large-scale armed confrontation with powerful radical groups in the zone of the Near and Middle East, behind which stand the United States, the monarchies of the Persian Gulf and Turkey. And this is fraught with direct confrontation with NATO countries. Russia, accepting the challenge, decides to build up an air force in Syria and for this has proceeded to accelerate the creation of an additional airbase south of Homs, which will increase the combat strength of our aircraft in Syria to one hundred aircraft, and possibly more. These forces will be able to have a significant impact on the course of the war as a whole, and not only in individual, albeit very important areas. There is no doubt that the response to this step by the United States and its allies will follow in a relatively short time. And it may include reinforced supplies of weapons and military equipment to militants (of course, under the guise of equipping "moderate opposition"), as well as preparing for a direct invasion of Syrian forces by the NATO ground forces. Probably, the appearance of the Turkish tank battalion in Iraq is a kind of “reconnaissance in force”: how will Russia behave in such a situation.
The message of the President of our country to the Federal Assembly was attentively listened to by all political and military analysts, experts, and also a considerable part of compatriots. Such great attention is quite understandable: after all, the line of conduct of our country was determined at a very critical period. The success of its overcoming depends on the welfare of each of us. However, judging by the rather critical comments of experts and the very quick curtailment of the discussion of the message in the media, the hopes of the Russians were not fully justified.
If we summarize the various statements of experts and ordinary citizens, the main reason for such a reaction can be called the apparent discrepancy between the vectors of foreign and domestic policy. What it is, you need to understand.
To restore status - at the limit of opportunities
If we talk about the foreign policy of Russia, which was clearly formulated in the President’s Address, it is actually defined as an independent and very active, focused on protecting the interests of the country and its allies in all key areas of the world, including hot spots. The president warned our "partners" against reckless actions, stating that the answer could be not only in the economic sphere. The hint is quite obvious if we take into account the “leakage” of information on the Status-6 system and the demonstrative use of the Russian TFR Caliber and X-101 in Syria. It is unreasonable to hit such guerrillas with guerrilla formations - the price of the spent weapons incomparably higher than the cost of destroyed enemy targets, which means that the launches were not so much of military importance as political: show the West what weapons Russia has. However, in the modern world any more or less noticeable military efforts suggest their rather large-scale material support. This is worth a special mention. And the fighting for our air force gives enough cause for alarm.
First of all, the exceptionally high intensity of the use of aircraft of the aviation group attracts attention. According to media reports, in the first two months of hostilities in Syria, the intensity of aviation operations averages 1,8 – 2 of departure per vehicle per day. According to the experience of the wars of the second half of the last century and the first 15 years of the new when conducting air offensive operations, the average for four to five days the intensity of the use of aviation did not exceed the 1,4 departure per day. And in the course of air campaigns involving two or three air offensive operations during a month or one and a half, on average, 0,8 – 1,1 of tactical aviation. That is, our videoconferencing systems operate with extreme intensity.
A similar picture with the volume of fire problems solved by a single board. According to experience, at least a couple of aircraft are assigned to defeat a single small object. If this object is covered by an air defense system or has a good structural protection, is equipped with a fortification ratio, the number of strike aircraft increases to a level or more. That is, for the departure on one machine should fall 0,5 and less fire tasks. Russian aircraft in Syria for the departure solve two or more fire tasks. In this case, until the death of the Su-24M, our machines acted alone, which significantly increases the risk of losing cars from air defense fire and complicates their solution to the tasks of destroying the designated targets. Comparing the volume of fire tasks solved by our aviation group for the period of conducting military operations in Syria with the required strength of forces when used with normal voltage, it can be stated that our regimental grouping operated with the intensity of the division.
This indicates one thing: opportunities are not enough. What prevents to increase the number of groups? It can be assumed that there is no sufficient operational capacity of the airfield network. However, time to expand the same Hamim was enough. The tip lies in the limited use of long-range aviation. After several strikes of Tu-22m3 groups using free-fall bombs on areal targets, their use ceased. The likely reason is that you need to achieve highly accurate target destruction. And this is possible only with the WTO or with SVP-24, which allows to use free-fall bombs with exceptional accuracy. Russia does not have enough precision weapons, and airplanes with SVP-24 are already in Syria. Probably, precisely because over the past two months additional machines equipped with the subsystem appeared, it became possible to increase the number of our aviation group.
Another possible reason is the lack of trained pilots. In any case, this is the main obstacle to attracting our aircraft carrier to combat operations in Syria. Its capabilities are very limited in solving the tasks of defeating ground objects, but an additional increase in the combat capabilities of our group in 15 – 20 percent would be very useful.
However, the main contribution to the rout of the irregular formations is made by the ground forces. Accordingly, the main "tool" of fire destruction is field artillery. It is she who, suppressing or destroying the enemy, is able to provide a breakthrough of the deeply echeloned defense. The offensive operation of the Syrian army, which began on October 1, began at an unprecedented pace - 7 – 50 kilometers, and the main contribution to this was made by the field artillery that organized the “rampart”. However, the consumption of ammunition is huge. So, if the Grad installation makes only two volleys in a day, it will launch 70 shells. Self-propelled (towed) artillery installation has ammunition from 80 to 40 shells, which she is capable of releasing in 50 – 7 minutes. Accordingly, over the period of execution of fire support tasks (from 12 – 20 minutes and more), she can launch 40 – 1,5 ammunition, that is, 2 – 60 shells. Even during World War II (starting from the end of 100), artillery densities of at least 1942 – 100 guns per kilometer were created to break through the enemy’s defense, and in particularly important areas this figure reached 120 and more. That is, with an offensive in a band of about 300 kilometers, the number of artillery systems should be at least about a thousand and they will launch about 10 thousands of shells per day offensive. Is it a lot or a little? Here it is worth remembering the articles in the MIC of a major Russian expert in the production of ammunition, Yuri Shabalin, who, complaining about the sad state of affairs in this industry, said that we need to be able to produce at least a million shells a year. That is, for one day of conducting operations on the site of the entire 100 kilometers, more than a monthly rate of ammunition production will be required. But after all, 10 kilometers is only a small fragment of the strip of advance of an army group and even this kind of operation lasts at least five to seven days.
But besides field artillery, shells are needed for anti-tank weapons, tanksinfantry. That is, to conduct a more or less serious military conflict with a trained enemy, we will need millions of pieces of ammunition in a month or even shorter period of time. They need to be produced. And there is no capacity for this in Russia today, judging by the opinion of the said expert.
However, it is not only in the shells. Rocket weapons produced the same inadequate pace. Judging by the interval between the first and second rocket attacks, the volume of production of such weapons in Russia is almost two orders of magnitude less than in the United States. And it is also necessary to produce in essentially large volumes the actual military equipment for the VKS, SV and Navy. Our country remains dependent on basic industrial products for the defense industry, in particular, microelectronics. The termination of deliveries from abroad will stop the release of high-tech security products. The restoration of capacities for the production of the same shells is hampered by the lack of a modern machine park of its own production, in particular, multi-spindle machines, which were produced in our country in sufficient quantities in Soviet times.
It can be stated that without a large-scale restoration of the industrial potential of our country at the new technological level, with the restoration of virtually whole industries from scratch, it is impossible to support the foreign policy course outlined by the president in his Message. This requires the consolidation of society on the idea of restoring the country, involving people in management who are able to organize such a large-scale work and to ensure a clearly coordinated functioning of all spheres of life. That is what the patriots of Russia dreamed to hear in the Message of our President. However, the internal political part of the document was of a pronounced liberal nature.
It is unlikely to contribute to the destruction of real corruption decriminalization of the business sphere by transferring a number of economic crimes from criminal to administrative ones. And it is unlikely to save the law-abiding merchants from the prosecution of self-serving officials.
There is little hope that the “amnestied” capital will return to Russia in six months. After all, those of them, which do not hang serious criminal articles, have already returned. Others will not return for the reason that they are behind the crimes of 90's. But the doubt that our leadership is at least minimally thinking about social justice will be sown thoroughly. Because the return of such capital means: their owners are forgiven. This is unlikely to contribute to the consolidation of the people around the government, rather the opposite, especially if we consider that the very concept of “social justice” in the Message has not been heard once.
Real measures were not proposed to change the situation in the economy. Here, at a minimum, there must be a clear plan for coordinated activities of various sectors of our economy, oriented towards the revival of the above-mentioned key areas of production. But the re-creation of the state plan in any form was not discussed. Instead, the task was to promote the implementation of various projects, both public and private. This will certainly contribute to the development of the economy, but will not allow the industrial base to be restored in a reasonable time. Moreover, it was not said about the nationalization of strategic industries, without which it is impossible in principle to revive a sovereign economy, to lead the country out of raw material dependence. Especially alarming in this regard was the opinion about the advisability of further privatization measures.
The bewilderment was caused by the high assessment given in the Message to the reform of education and science, the negative consequences of which are constantly spoken by the public. There was no call to remove these areas from foreign control. After all, it is well known that the leading Russian scientific centers are often led by citizens of other states, sometimes pursuing a policy hostile to Russia.
No real measures have been proposed for replacing “effective managers” with real production organizers — specialists in the relevant areas of production activity. The emphasis on public-private partnership, on ASI as a key tool for the selection and promotion of promising projects and personnel leaves little hope for the revival of the industrial potential of the country. It is not by chance that in the past few months the subject of import substitution in industry has faded into the background, at least in the media.
As a result, the vectors of foreign and domestic policy are diametrically opposed. AT stories Russia, this situation has already been and ended very sadly.