Military Review

NATO believed that in the event of war, it would cede a large part of Europe to Russia (The National Interest, USA)

74
NATO believed that in the event of war, it would cede a large part of Europe to Russia (The National Interest, USA)



The lessons of the Cold War on the threat of escalation and nuclear danger

Recently, the RAND Research Center conducted a war game on the Russian offensive in the Baltic States. This immediately sparked talk of a “new cold war.” The game clearly showed that NATO would be extremely difficult to prevent the Russian troops from occupying the Baltic states if the alliance begins to act by the usual forces that it has.

Such war games have great value, for they demonstrate tactical and operational reality, and this helps to think more strategically. But in this case, the headlines provoked by this game more clouded the main points in the Russia-NATO relationship than revealed. If we talk about this briefly, the NATO deterrence force never aimed at defeating the Soviet / Russian army on its borders, and did not make such promises. No, NATO backed up its political commitments with the threat of widening the conflict if it arose to the extent of a war that the Soviets did not want to wage. Today, as in 1949, NATO adheres to the concept of deterrence based on the threat of escalation.

Initial years

Here it must be stated very clearly and honestly: from the moment of the creation of NATO until the 1970s, Western military strategists believed that the Warsaw Pact could easily win a non-nuclear war in Europe. The plans of the leading NATO countries for waging war using conventional means often boiled down to getting to the English Channel faster tanks Red Army. NATO intended to widely use tactical nuclear weapon to slow down the pace of the Soviet offensive, which could not but provoke a response from the Soviet side (the Soviets were also preparing for such a development of events).

NATO believed that it would lose in a non-nuclear conflict, but this did not in any way contradict the notion that the alliance could play a valuable role in containing the war. First, NATO was definitely able to make life difficult for the Soviet Union. The overwhelmingly superior British-German-American combined forces could have done him much more damage than West Germany if she fought alone. Moreover, provoking the expansion of the scale of the war, NATO could harm the Soviets in other regions of the world. NATO's vast superiority at sea and in aviation long range could very much harm Soviet interests outside Eurasia, even if the Soviets won on the central front.

The most important thing is that France, Britain and the United States, in response to a successful Soviet offensive using conventional means, could launch strategic nuclear strikes against the USSR, and this made Moscow think about it. Even if the American president refused to defend Berlin, the Soviets would have to think about the nuclear deterrent forces of the rest of NATO.

Active Defense / Airborne Battle

The hope that NATO will be able to crush the Warsaw Pact in the war, appeared only after the Arab-Israeli October war. In this conflict, precision guided munitions in ordinary equipment inflicted such powerful losses on the attackers (on the Golan Heights and on Sinai) that the American military strategists had faith in their ability to stop the Soviet offensive. By organizing defenses in such a way as to direct the advancing Soviet tanks into large fire bags, NATO troops could slow down and thwart the advance of the Soviets, as well as prevent the defeat of their positions in Germany. Such defense would give the alliance time to transfer additional forces and assets from the US to Europe, to attack the rear facilities and communications centers of the Warsaw Pact in Eastern Europe, as well as to counteract Soviet interests in other parts of the world.

After 1982, the concept of air-ground battle returned maneuver to the battlefield, as the American military leaders became confident that they would be able to defeat the Red Army during swift and maneuverable military operations. The interaction of the ground forces and the Air Force was supposed to carry out an offensive to the entire depth of Soviet positions, and in this case the formidable Red Army and its Eastern European allies would become a chaotic mess. At the same time, the U.S. Navy had to prepare to launch air strikes on the Soviet periphery and to land amphibious assaults, as well as to destroy the precious bastions of the nuclear submarine fleet and strategic aviation. All these actions did not depend on the protection of any NATO territories, and military strategists recognized that the Soviets at the beginning of the war under any scenario could seize some areas.

In this context news that Russia may triumph in a local non-nuclear conflict against a small NATO country on its border looks less alarming than it might seem at first glance. Apart from a brief period of Russia's weakness in the 1990s, it has always had the capacity to threaten NATO with its usual forces. It should be said that the alliance did not even plan to defend the Baltic countries until they became members, on the assumption that the belief in NATO, in its power and in its ability to strike back at Soviet interests in the rest of Europe, are sufficient deterrent and deterrence.

The RAND war game showed that Russia could seize the Baltic states and even hold it for a while. But already at the initial stage of the conflict, Moscow will start paying its bills, since NATO troops will go on the offensive against Kaliningrad, Transdniestria and other Russian possessions. The Russian fleet will be subjected to powerful strikes by NATO submarines and aircraft. Long-range strikes will disable a significant part of the Russian Air Force and air defense systems. In short, Russia can seize the Baltic states, but it will have to pay a much higher price for such a seizure, because of which the occupation will lose all meaning. That is how NATO carried out containment in the 1949 year, and it will also implement it today.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/why-nato-expected-lose-most-europe-russia-15267
74 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 24 February 2016 09: 55 New
    28
    NATO believed that in the event of war, it would cede a large part of Europe to Russia (The National Interest, USA)
    a repetition of the past, Zhukov offered to go all the way to the sea, everything would have turned out differently ...
    1. cniza
      cniza 24 February 2016 09: 56 New
      12
      Not only to the Atlantic, but also to Turkey to pick up the straits.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 24 February 2016 09: 59 New
        0
        Why take the straits, you can make them international.
        1. Temples
          Temples 24 February 2016 10: 00 New
          37
          That is how NATO carried out deterrence in 1949

          Another opus about hostile Russia.
          After all, the Russians organized two wars in Europe in the 20th century.
          But NATO is defending.
          The article is similar to the dog's barking bark at the moon.

          Why take the straits, you can make them international.

          Vadim237,
          then the sea would be Russian.
          Whatever NATO ships would roam in it.
          That the dream would be stronger with us.
          1. Pravdarm
            Pravdarm 24 February 2016 10: 00 New
            10
            Yes, it was necessary to smash Napoleon, stick our flags everywhere! And in the 1st world, and in the 2nd! Although then these wars would not have happened!
            Until we finally "stick", at the most "I can not", and so will these.
            1. WKS
              WKS 24 February 2016 11: 19 New
              +1
              The article says nothing about "the train has left". An ordinary military and non-nuclear conflict between the nuclear parties is now impossible. Any large-scale clash will lead to the use of nuclear weapons, whether it is tactical or strategic, it will then be decided by the wild and surviving descendants. It is this circumstance that has kept the world without a world war for more than 70 years. Another question is whether the US will "intercede" for a NATO member? Most likely no. But the same question. Does Russia need this member? Probably not either. But in the case of Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, if they are admitted to NATO, the answer is yes.
              1. brisk
                brisk 24 February 2016 12: 05 New
                +1
                Quote: wks
                The usual military and non-nuclear conflict between the nuclear parties is now impossible.


                Take it easy. Available. My godmother and I also regularly beat each other's faces. The loser fouls, wipes the mug and the sides, spits and retreats. Then he lets him go until the next quarter. Then it is forgotten, we begin to miss and we repeat on a new one. But fists, for the axes do not grab. For with an ax victory will be deceiving.
            2. Joy
              Joy 24 February 2016 13: 11 New
              0
              Quote: Pravdarm
              And in the 1st world

              Did the Russian Empire win the First World War? After the defeat at Tannenberg, the Russian Empire lost quite a bit of land, and then capitulated.
              Quote: Pravdarm
              and in the 2nd

              Let's not deny the Allied aviation bombardment with the 5-ton Tollboy bombs, which brought the German industry to a deplorable state and prevented Werner von Braun from becoming a serious threat. The victory was general.
          2. REDBLUE
            REDBLUE 24 February 2016 10: 38 New
            +8
            Long-range strikes will disable a significant part of the Russian Air Force and air defense systems.

            And we have nothing to hit in the distance! ! I think we will also shy away with long-range missiles and NATO will have their last brains out of order except for the Air Force and Air Defense, if they are present
            1. soldat74
              soldat74 24 February 2016 14: 42 New
              0
              Quote: REDBLUE
              Long-range strikes will disable a significant part of the Russian Air Force and air defense systems.

              And we have nothing to hit in the distance! ! I think we will also shy away with long-range missiles and NATO will have their last brains out of order except for the Air Force and Air Defense, if they are present

              Well, duck, in fact, they still believe in the west that we have rusty trash. And our soldiers and not soldiers, but archers with beeps.
          3. Alexey-74
            Alexey-74 24 February 2016 16: 12 New
            0
            That’s right .... we don’t need the Turkish coast, if it could be Russian ....
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Kostyar
          Kostyar 24 February 2016 11: 26 New
          +1
          What do they seriously think that if we suddenly get together to capture the Baltic states, then we will do it as during the Great Patriotic War ...?! Stupid idiots, what else can I say ...?!
          Moreover, the Baltic States will soon be populated by blacks from Africa, and they themselves will be asked under the wing of Russia, we will wait, and we will see !!!
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Nevsky_ZU
        Nevsky_ZU 24 February 2016 10: 06 New
        16
        Long-range strikes will disable a significant part of the Russian Air Force and air defense system

        Kaliningrad ??

        How are they going to withdraw C-300 or even C-400 by then? Airplanes outside 400 km of target visibility? I doubt it. Axes? Perhaps, unless there are TORs and armors there. NATO ground forces? And our aircraft will be silent? Will be suppressed? What could be the blows of the NATO fleet? But what about our Coastal complexes? Will they be suppressed too? But what about our air defense? Circle closed? recourse

        PS Plus Iskander in the sleeve with EW complexes.
        1. sgazeev
          sgazeev 24 February 2016 10: 15 New
          12
          Quote: Nevsky_ZU
          Long-range strikes will disable a significant part of the Russian Air Force and air defense system

          Kaliningrad ??

          How are they going to withdraw C-300 or even C-400 by then? Airplanes outside 400 km of target visibility? I doubt it. Axes? Perhaps, unless there are TORs and armors there. NATO ground forces? And our aircraft will be silent? Will be suppressed? What could be the blows of the NATO fleet? But what about our Coastal complexes? Will they be suppressed too? But what about our air defense? Circle closed? recourse

          PS Plus Iskander in the sleeve with EW complexes.

          An article of crap on the wattle fence in the spirit of a walking cigar from Fulton. wassat
          1. Zeppelin ml.
            Zeppelin ml. 24 February 2016 10: 24 New
            +3
            Quote: sgazeev
            An article of crap on the wattle fence in the spirit of a walking cigar from Fulton.

            but there shkolota (analogues of these MIKHANa and Baikonur) writes with boiling water from such articles.
            1. dali
              dali 24 February 2016 11: 55 New
              +5
              Quote: Zeppelin ml.
              but the shkolota there (analogues of the local MIKHAN and Baikonur) writes boiling water from such articles.

              From the fact that you are a bubble, even if it’s metallic laughing , does not give you the right to insult the formans with their point of view! stop
            2. The comment was deleted.
          2. Just me
            Just me 24 February 2016 10: 43 New
            +1
            Yeah right
        2. oblako
          oblako 24 February 2016 10: 51 New
          +9
          The RAND war game showed that Russia could seize the Baltic states and even hold it for a while. But already at the initial stage of the conflict, Moscow will start paying its bills, since NATO troops will go on the offensive against Kaliningrad, Transdniestria and other Russian possessions. The Russian fleet will be subjected to powerful strikes by NATO submarines and aircraft. Long-range strikes will disable a significant part of the Russian Air Force and air defense systems. In short, Russia can seize the Baltic states, but it will have to pay a much higher price for such a seizure, because of which the occupation will lose all meaning. That is how NATO carried out containment in the 1949 year, and it will also implement it today.
          Robert Farley is a couch mega expert.

          Yeah ... this is not for you ... Everyone will have to pay for the war, but the Baltic will be the main payer in the described case, did anyone ask her? She is agree? So it is with the whole of Europe ... There are also questions to the Zakomel regional committee, taking into account the capabilities of modern weapons, and are they ready to pay the bills? And it will not be a cinema Pearl Harbor at all ... no one will shoot a movie ...
        3. Just me
          Just me 24 February 2016 10: 56 New
          +1
          Well, yes, it will be difficult to repel massive attacks even given the presence of the Shell of the Torus of air defense aviation and so on, losses will be inevitable But ... But what will fly in response to all who DECLARED is somehow not covered in the article And they don’t have any Armor and S-400 No Answer on such a massive attack on its territory? In general, the article is not even sucked from a finger, but from another finger-like part of the body, there is only a nail on this part of the body
        4. Same lech
          Same lech 24 February 2016 11: 03 New
          +2
          How are they going to withdraw


          smile
          The author of the article is a dreamer ...
          the scenario he invented is good for a low-initiative opponent ...
          I believe that in the event of a NATO attack on RUSSIA, the Baltic states will turn out to be only one of the theaters of military operations.
          Roughly the scale and scenario of the battles will be similar to 1944 ..
          for RUSSIA this time will not wait for a stealth strike in the style of 1941 ...
          the army is not the same, people have become smarter and yes, and in the KREMLIN GLORY TO GOD there are no fools.
      5. Now we are free
        Now we are free 24 February 2016 10: 08 New
        16
        How are you ....... with your wet dreams of the occupation of Europe by Russia gentlemen "Probable partners".
        The picture resembles a joke:
        A man is walking down the street suddenly from the balcony of the third floor there are heartbreaking cries -Help, save! Rape !!! -A man dumbfounded looks at a woman on the balcony and asks
        -Who is being raped?
        -How whom? Me! -A woman lonely standing on the balcony answers him
        -Who?..
        -How who, you!
        -What about me? I'm here downstairs and you are on the balcony!
        -It’s not a question, I’ll go down to you now!
        -And if I run away? -Women taking out a gun and pointing it at a man
        - I'll run away ...
      6. The comment was deleted.
      7. PKK
        PKK 24 February 2016 11: 00 New
        0
        The author has a lot of mistakes. Air Defense and Special Defense Forces, they hope to bring out even at the stage of unrest in Russia created by spies, drg and the 5th column in the Country.
      8. DMB_95
        DMB_95 24 February 2016 11: 12 New
        +2
        On the Turkish border, our full-blooded divisions stood even in the autumn of 1941. It is a pity that it did not work out to put them into business in 1945. Politics (her mother) ...
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. vovanpain
      vovanpain 24 February 2016 10: 01 New
      12
      Quote: Andrey Yurievich
      repetition of the passed

      That's exactly - repetition. Churchill's plan to strike the Soviet Army in Europe in 1945. Operation "Unthinkable."
    5. Scout
      Scout 24 February 2016 10: 08 New
      +1
      I think nothing would have changed in the end. We don’t need foreign territories, to go further was to declare war on England and the USA. I think it’s right that we didn’t go according to Zhukov’s plan. It’s necessary to face the truth by 1945 almost 40 million were lost, there were a lot has been destroyed and I think we didn’t really need the rest of Europe. As history showed at a difficult moment, they simply turned their backs on weakened Russia.
      1. Sid.74
        24 February 2016 10: 35 New
        +6
        They even manage to lose their own games.laughing

        And it’s quite obvious that it’s not for the teachers of diplomats and shopkeepers to predict the course of military actions. But you understand, pay ... high price..blah, blah, blah ... tomahawki..toyat NATO ... blah, blah, blah.Vot about NATO troops in more detail, the Germans will go to conquer Latvia, al French?
        What if we hold a referendum .... and they themselves will join us ... bully

        The Americans, honestly say, are ready to die for the sake of Latvia, just so that one radioactive ash remains from the USA? wink

        And what is most charming, the teacher began quite reasonably,
        that in this case the media headlines provoked by this game more clouded the main points in the Russia-NATO relationship than they revealed.
        But then the teacher realized that he obviously got excited and started a dull disc about the price that Russia would pay ... you can immediately see the teacher of the shopkeepers.fellow
        Sometimes it seems to me that modern Americans ... these are such North American svidomye maydanutye who are just lucky to live on another continent.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 24 February 2016 10: 58 New
          -1
          Quote: Sid.74
          They even manage to lose their own games

          And quite often. And draw conclusions from this.

          By the way, these "war games" are not much different from our KSHU. Is that the fact that they can lose.
          1. Sid.74
            24 February 2016 11: 17 New
            0
            Quote: Spade
            Is that the fact that they can and lose.

            In-th-th ... us amerikosy even in games can not be lost ... especially in the command and staff.

            But the most interesting thing is that they never explained to us why we should attack the Baltic States right now ..
            I don’t think that NATO’s expenditures on the Baltic States are so high that they are so intrusive to impose a forceful seizure on us.

            Although some kind of spiritually and propaganda sense in this.
            They themselves imposed such a scenario, they themselves repulsed an imaginary attack, preempted a virtual enemy scenario and patted themselves on the head for the faithful service of NATO. There is no loss ... The Baltic can sleep peacefully. It is very convenient, and only propaganda costs in the media. smile
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 24 February 2016 11: 29 New
              +1
              Quote: Sid.74
              In-th-th ... us amerikosy even in games can not be lost ... especially in the command and staff.

              Such, if one may say, "games" with a predetermined winner do not make much sense.

              Quote: Sid.74
              But the most interesting thing is that they have not been explained to us why actually attack the Baltic states now?

              You never know ... Now it’s not necessary, later it will be needed. For example, to protect the Russians in these limitrophs. Or to release the Kaliningrad exclave.

              Quote: Sid.74
              Although some kind of spiritually and propaganda sense in this.

              Exactly. The author reassures the American inhabitants. Amid hysteria from officials and other politicians, a rather difficult task
          2. Nyrobsky
            Nyrobsky 24 February 2016 12: 17 New
            +1
            Quote: Spade
            By the way, these "war games" are not much different from our KSHU. Is that the fact that they can lose.

            The trick is that they play by the rules of the scam, naively believing that the opponent was dense. But the fact is that Russians are terrified of improvisation and unpredictability in making non-standard decisions that ruin the entire algorithm of their actions.
            As Otto von Bissmark used to say, "You have to play fair with the Russians, or not play at all."
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 24 February 2016 13: 41 New
              +1
              Quote: Nyrobsky
              The trick is that they play by the rules of the scam

              Yes?
              But what about the war game "Millennium Challenge 2002", when the retired USMC Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper was "plagued" by the retired US Marine Corps Lieutenant General, "commanding" for Iran, fucked in a perverted form the fathers-commanders of the American Navy?

              Incidentally, it was this war game that significantly shook the positions of the American "hawks", following Israel, demanded an immediate military strike on Iran.
          3. starper
            starper 24 February 2016 15: 17 New
            0
            I apologize, by mistake I put you a minus, the tablet is small, and my fingers are like sausages.
        2. Poppy
          Poppy 25 February 2016 10: 17 New
          0
          Sometimes it seems to me that modern Americans ... these are such North American svidomye maydanutye who are just lucky to live on another continent.

          in terms of mental development - yes, but, unlike Ukrainians, they love to work for the most part
      2. Just me
        Just me 24 February 2016 11: 03 New
        0
        Russia has only two allies: the Russian fleet and the Russian army. As history has shown and is showing
        1. Poppy
          Poppy 25 February 2016 10: 17 New
          0
          VKS still have
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. evge-malyshev
        evge-malyshev 24 February 2016 11: 15 New
        -1
        Quote: Scout
        by 1945 almost 40 million


        What kind of 40 million are you talking about?
    6. Mihalich17
      Mihalich17 24 February 2016 10: 40 New
      -1
      ... And it would have come, our Georgy Konstantinovich!
    7. Alexey-74
      Alexey-74 24 February 2016 16: 11 New
      0
      It is a pity only after decades they begin to realize this .....
  2. Armored optimist
    Armored optimist 24 February 2016 09: 57 New
    10
    Yes, to us that Baltic?
    1. cniza
      cniza 24 February 2016 09: 59 New
      +8
      Quote: armored optimist
      Yes, to us that Baltic?



      This is their manic excuse ... for NATO expansion - the truth is also not clear why.
      1. barclay
        barclay 24 February 2016 10: 31 New
        +2
        Yes, everything is clear. The North Atlantic Alliance is expanding primarily the United States in order to, if necessary, announce a large number of allies in their coalition in order to achieve their own selfish goals. This is a way of international pressure on anyone. This was the case in all recent military conflicts with the participation of the United States (Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, etc.). Before embarking on bombing and invasion anywhere, they declare that they are supported by the "tueva hooch" of countries (these are primarily countries NATO and NATO candidates). And they need as many such unconditional allies as possible. And with such "support", the states began to believe that the UN was not a decree for them either.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 24 February 2016 10: 01 New
      +3
      In 30 - 40 years, there will be no population left at all, why grab someone - time itself will do everything.
  3. Dam
    Dam 24 February 2016 09: 57 New
    +6
    In the event of war, NATO will cede all of Europe and settle overseas. The question is whether war is needed or will they die?
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. Kolyan 2
    Kolyan 2 24 February 2016 09: 58 New
    +2
    In short, Russia can capture the Baltic states, however, it will have to pay a much higher price for such a capture, because of which the occupation will lose all meaning. That is how NATO carried out deterrence in 1949, and it will do so today too.
    And we need it?
    Author Robert Farley often publishes articles in The National Interest. He is the author of The Battleship Book. Farley teaches at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky. His areas of expertise include military doctrine, national security, and maritime affairs.

    Smart what fool
  6. Flinky
    Flinky 24 February 2016 10: 02 New
    +2
    Halva, halva, halva ...
  7. mag nit
    mag nit 24 February 2016 10: 03 New
    0
    This is not for you to play in tanks.
    1. Zeppelin ml.
      Zeppelin ml. 24 February 2016 10: 20 New
      +4
      Quote: mag nit
      This is not for you to play in tanks.

      The war game RAND revealed that
      just in them ...
  8. askort154
    askort154 24 February 2016 10: 05 New
    +1
    Modern lovers of virtual wars with Russia, better study history.
  9. Zeppelin ml.
    Zeppelin ml. 24 February 2016 10: 12 New
    +4
    the last paragraph delivered. "The war game showed ..." laughing
  10. biserino
    biserino 24 February 2016 10: 13 New
    +5
    I and most Bulgarians also want to join the Russian Federation.
    1. Zeppelin ml.
      Zeppelin ml. 24 February 2016 10: 18 New
      0
      Quote: biserino
      I and most Bulgarians also want to join the Russian Federation.

      in what sense?
      1. Cheshire
        Cheshire 24 February 2016 11: 48 New
        0
        In the sense of leaning forward, it’s still profitable, and then again, we don’t care about our backs. While Russia was weak, they were eager for Europe, their mother and the whole industry were destroyed. Now it dawned that the EU fills - take us, innocent me. De - bs!
    2. minus
      minus 24 February 2016 11: 01 New
      +2
      So you have democracy, damn it !!! Confuse the referendum under the motto * We want to go to Russia! * drinks
  11. Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 24 February 2016 10: 21 New
    +4
    Go to the swamp, NATO !!!
  12. Berved
    Berved 24 February 2016 10: 21 New
    +7
    All of their strategies are interesting, but only one thing is not taken into account, that if the United States and / or Britain become enemies, then the Russian Federation will strike not only at the expeditionary forces, but, oddly enough, on the territory of these states. Otherwise, one gets the impression that Russia, with the obstinacy of a sheep, will fight only with their sent troops, and they will build up their military advantage from their "unattainable" rear. Or is it a feature of thinking like a "racehorse", but what about us?
  13. starschina
    starschina 24 February 2016 10: 27 New
    0
    Did she just think of this? or in your mind and counted on it?
  14. biserino
    biserino 24 February 2016 10: 30 New
    +2
    Quote: Zeppelin ml.
    Quote: biserino
    I and most Bulgarians also want to join the Russian Federation.

    in what sense?
    In the sense that due to the theft of Ukrainians, Russian gas comes to us at prices more expensive than in Germany, gasoline and diesel fuel at a price of more than € 1 from the treacherous by our governments to pay hundreds of millions annually to maintain Anglo-Saxon NATO, etc.
    1. Zeppelin ml.
      Zeppelin ml. 24 February 2016 10: 36 New
      +1
      Quote: biserino
      gasoline and diesel for more than € 1

      sorry, gasoline below one euro has never been seen anywhere in Europe. Well, well, in Estonia, I remember when oil prices collapsed, it was at 0.99.
      Quote: biserino
      of the treacherous by our governments pay

      Well, and how is the price of gas associated with this?
      Quote: biserino
      Russian gas comes to us at prices more expensive

      the hoaxes have nothing to do with it. They do not affect the spot market with their rats.
  15. Altona
    Altona 24 February 2016 10: 32 New
    +3
    Napoleon also came to Russia with twice superior forces, the result is known. Just like Hitler. Both came with the combined European forces, consider that also NATO of that time. Bottom line, we were in Paris and in Berlin.
  16. TOR2
    TOR2 24 February 2016 10: 35 New
    +3
    Long-range strikes will disable a significant part of the Russian Air Force and air defense systems.

    And they did not try on a similar option with respect to themselves?
    1. HAM
      HAM 24 February 2016 11: 05 New
      +4
      And then we sho !? belay
  17. afrikanez
    afrikanez 24 February 2016 10: 37 New
    +3
    The paradox is that Russia is not going to attack anyone and the states are increasing their contingent to deter Russia. Question: what are you holding back the good gentlemen? stop The veiled build-up of the Armed Forces has not yet led to anything good, it is time to remember and understand this, our "partners". negative
  18. valentina-makanalina
    valentina-makanalina 24 February 2016 10: 45 New
    +3
    Stupid "game" scenario. First, we do not need the Baltics, we have enough of our own problems. And secondly, if they poke their attention to Kaliningrad and Transnistria, then it will be a mess for the whole of Europe and NATO as a whole. NATO members should not forget that the Russians always go to the end.
    So it’s better not to touch us.
  19. vetor
    vetor 24 February 2016 10: 49 New
    +1
    What a nightmare is so interesting so valuable in Courland this? That Russia without looking back will put a bunch of its people and NATO for its occupation.
  20. HAM
    HAM 24 February 2016 10: 53 New
    +1
    As practice shows, all the "unity" of Europe is only in Brussels, and with friends like the Baltic states and no enemies.Hypothetically, you can argue as much as you like, but they themselves understand that if you smell fried for real, then all the "members" will think about your own skin, and not about the precious life of the "partner" ....
  21. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 24 February 2016 10: 54 New
    0
    Yes, it’s normal to reassure themselves.
  22. Lopatov
    Lopatov 24 February 2016 10: 55 New
    +3
    Pretty adequate.
    The only- not very realistic assumption is that Russia will confine itself exclusively to the war zone and will not strike at NATO military infrastructure in Europe in response to similar actions by the bloc. This does not happen.
    Moreover, with increasing pressure on command and control points, air defense, and airfields in the depths of Russia, it is by no means a fact that tactical nuclear weapons will not be used at similar sites in Europe. Are NATO countries ready for such a development of the situation? Unless the Americans are plane-parallel.

    Well, a few delusional theses about the possibility of unpunished destruction of elements of Russian nuclear deterrence by non-nuclear munitions. XIAN of Russia is one of the cornerstones of our sovereignty, no one will wait for their defeat to make sure that the warheads of the weapons were conventional.
    This will be unambiguously interpreted as the beginning of a global nuclear conflict with all the ensuing consequences in the form of a retaliatory strike by all available means for all purposes both in Europe and in the USA.
  23. X Y Z
    X Y Z 24 February 2016 10: 56 New
    +2
    After 1982, the concept of air-ground battle returned maneuver to the battlefield, as the American military commanders became confident that they would be able to defeat the Red Army during swift and maneuverable military operations.


    Don't even try to read this crap in the form of some kind of analysis or prediction. In my opinion, this is just a sedative for a peaceful man in the state who finances US military programs in the form of taxes. American generals can have any confidence, even such that the Anglo-Saxon infantry roars "For our Dalia!" rush to the attack to recapture the Baltics. But what does this have to do with reality? They can assume anything, but when the Russian missiles start reaching their exclusive territory, the conversation will change and not only the Russians will pay the price. Sitting behind monitor screens with chips and cola, simultaneously destroying the hated Russians, will not work and do not dream.
  24. Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 24 February 2016 10: 58 New
    0
    In the article, as I understand it, the Baltic states is a large part of Europe? Did the authors even see a map of Europe? wassat
    NATO believed that in the event of war, it would cede a large part of Europe to Russia (The National Interest, USA)

    The war game RAND has shown that Russia can capture the Baltic states and even hold it for some time
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 24 February 2016 11: 11 New
      0
      You are not reading carefully. They counted. Earlier. During the existence of the Department of Internal Affairs. Moreover, they did not just count, for example, in Belgium they built special mines for installing land mines, including nuclear ones, on roads, bridges and other infrastructure. Scandalous enough for that time information about the creation by the Americans of a network of secret warehouses and "sleeping" agents for conducting partisan warfare in Western Europe and Scandinavia surfaced. That was unambiguously perceived as a fact indicating that the US strategy provided for the possible capture of the internal affairs forces of all of Europe except for Great Britain.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 24 February 2016 11: 57 New
        0
        According to the article, at first it was believed that the USSR would easily break and there was no chance, then there were hopes for a maneuver war, but the article itself without a historical digression about the current time. And now the situation is radically different
        On January 1, 1990 in Europe
        In total, NATO - 24 tanks, 344 armored combat vehicles, 33 artillery systems of caliber 723 mm or more, 20 combat aircraft, 706 attack helicopters.
        Total ATS - 33 tanks, 200 infantry fighting vehicles, 43 artillery systems of caliber 378 mm or more, 26 combat aircraft, 593 attack helicopters.
        On January 1, 2011 in Europe
        All in all, NATO (22 CFE member countries) - 18 tanks, 424 armored combat vehicles, 22 artillery systems of 788 mm caliber and more, 13 combat aircraft, 264 attack helicopters.
        In total, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (Armenia, Belarus, Russia) has 5 tanks, 239 armored combat vehicles, 10 artillery systems of 100 mm caliber or more, 6 combat aircraft, 138 attack helicopters.
        Check out the difference.
    2. Zeppelin ml.
      Zeppelin ml. 24 February 2016 11: 17 New
      +1
      Quote: BlackMokona
      In the article, as I understand it, the Baltic states is a large part of Europe?

      And then! You look at the proportions ...
  25. pts-m
    pts-m 24 February 2016 11: 11 New
    0
    It’s harmful for Pendosov’s heroes to watch their cartoons about all kinds of wars, they’re taking the tower clean. They’re all written to psychiatrists in turn. Not realizing that for a sore head with an obsession to defeat Russia, there is only one cure - it’s guillat.
  26. Ros 56
    Ros 56 24 February 2016 11: 18 New
    +1
    I don’t know what NATO believed there, but in Russia, any one in school knows that during the day the tribals will be ours. Moreover, the forest brothers do not have to run through the forests, as in 40-50, with the current technology. So take it for granted and do not waste your nerves.
    Well, to the English Channel and to the Atlantic, in my opinion, a maximum of 3-5 months, taking into account the fact that inadvertently some chicken is not crushed on the road. And do not read any Western bullshit, there is no justification there. Let them remember the Second World War. Who and for what time. And how much the Barbarossa plan was designed for. That's all.
    1. Zeppelin ml.
      Zeppelin ml. 24 February 2016 12: 03 New
      -1
      Quote: Ros 56
      Well, to the English Channel and to the Atlantic in my opinion a maximum of 3-5 months

      parade march? You would screw URYakalku slightly.
      Quote: Ros 56
      And do not read all the Western crap, there is no justification.

      of course, but in your
      Quote: Ros 56
      3-5 months maximum
      , of course, more than enough justifications.
      Quote: Ros 56
      That's all.

      really - business something.
      1. Ros 56
        Ros 56 24 February 2016 17: 08 New
        +1
        Quote: Zeppelin ml.
        really - business something.


        And zeppelins, they are all slow, only burn fast.
        1. Zeppelin ml.
          Zeppelin ml. 24 February 2016 21: 49 New
          0
          Quote: Ros 56
          And zeppelins, they are all slow, only burn fast.

          definitely, definitely. We ship on board cretins who are going to conquer Europe and others in 3 months MIKHANs and burn. Quickly and without a trace. Remediation. Maybe the rest will grow wiser.
          1. Ros 56
            Ros 56 25 February 2016 08: 48 New
            0
            Quote: Zeppelin ml.
            going in 3 months to conquer Europe and other MIKHAN and burn.

            Here is a clown. Firstly, do not distort, no one is going to conquer these idiots. And secondly, this is one of the alleged scenarios in response to NATO aggression. Thirdly, in addition to mongrel tribals and ungrateful little dogs, there are people in Europe with brains, unlike some. They will not lift a finger against Russia. The Germans are already writing on the memorial tanks, -Russian, set us free again. Well, and the last one, if you think that this war will be like the previous one, you are very mistaken, and don't hell make yourself a strategist, communicate with people smarter.
  27. NACC
    NACC 24 February 2016 11: 30 New
    0
    Bullshit. Who needs this Baltic ?!
    1. Ros 56
      Ros 56 24 February 2016 11: 38 New
      0
      Quote: kaik
      Who needs this Baltic ?!


      Well, do not tell me, dear, very good places to relax, believe me.
      And in Jurmala it’s good, though I’ve been there since the Soviet years. But what struck me the most was that in Riga, a stream and some small pond flowed not very far from the Central Market. And there swam white and black swans, such beauty. The people fed them.
  28. Igor V
    Igor V 24 February 2016 11: 34 New
    0
    Fortunately, things are going well for them if, by swelling a sky-high pile of money, they plan to give away their territories. I liked the goal - to reach the English Channel. For the sake of such a goal, it’s worth maintaining a military bloc! Interestingly, are the exercises to achieve the strait conducted?
  29. ava09
    ava09 24 February 2016 11: 37 New
    +1
    Quote: Andrew Y.
    NATO believed that in the event of war, it would cede a large part of Europe to Russia (The National Interest, USA)
    a repetition of the past, Zhukov offered to go all the way to the sea, everything would have turned out differently ...

    If Stalin had decided to go to the Atlantic, the USSR would have received a third world war. Moreover, "the entire democratic world" would have fought against him. Half of the country was in ruins, and the Americans had an atomic bomb and there were no moral restrictions on its use. So, you should not consider yourself smarter than Stalin, he was much better than others in assessing the military and economic risks and opportunities of the USSR. Nothing prevented us from profiting the achievements of that time, which would prevent Gorbachert from selling not only Eastern, but all of Europe, in the unlikely case of its conquest (huge sacrifices are inevitable)? Of course, then gouging all capitalism was a tempting idea, especially to hang personally those who made all the mess of the World War, but no one canceled sober calculation, especially when planning the fate of a multimillion country.
  30. polite people
    polite people 24 February 2016 11: 38 New
    0
    What nonsense. It will be necessary, they will crawl themselves.
  31. CONTROL
    CONTROL 24 February 2016 11: 50 New
    +1
    ... Mm-da-ah ...
    I remembered out of place an episode from "Seventeen Moments ...", where "a responsible employee of the German Foreign Ministry" in a friendly manner, over a bottle of cognac and eating salami, talks with a Mecklenburg general;
    so Gritsenko says there: "The Americans will be ruined by their wealth! They think that they can do anything, they can buy everything ... These and-d-o.t.y think that the war can be won by bombing alone! ..."
    ... like he said that? The German is still a general ... commander of a corps ...
    1. Zeppelin ml.
      Zeppelin ml. 24 February 2016 12: 04 New
      0
      Quote: CONTROL
      "Americans will be ruined by their wealth! Oh

      like, it was about technology ...
  32. gvozdan
    gvozdan 24 February 2016 11: 59 New
    0
    As usual, American propagandists believe in the absolute effectiveness of their fleet, air force and the Kyrgyz Republic

    "But already at the initial stage of the conflict, Moscow will begin to pay its bills, as NATO troops will launch an offensive against Kaliningrad, Transnistria and other Russian possessions. The Russian fleet will be subjected to powerful attacks by NATO submarines and aircraft. Long-range strikes will disable a significant part of the Russian air force and air defense systems. "

    And as usual, for some reason they think that the Russian army will sit and watch (and most importantly will not answer) how NATO attacks Kaliningrad Transnistria, destroys the Air Force and Air Defense of the Russian Federation. Times have changed, we also have something to hit from afar. The Russian Federation also has submarines and aviation.

    As for the NWF, according to NATO, for some reason only Russia is afraid of a retaliatory strike by the NWF. But NATO is not afraid of a retaliatory strike by the strategic nuclear forces on them ??? So war in Europe by non-nuclear means is quite possible. First of all, the US will contact the Russian Federation themselves and agree that we are fighting without the Strategic Rocket Forces within Europe, and if anyone wants to get the same bun in return. So the buildup of forces of NATO and the Russian Federation is not accidental. War is also politics.
    1. evge-malyshev
      evge-malyshev 24 February 2016 12: 10 New
      0
      Quote: gvozdan
      As usual, American propagandists believe in the absolute effectiveness of their fleet, air force and the Kyrgyz Republic


      But they just cannot believe that they can turn to nuclear ashes from the actions of the "ineffective" Russian Strategic Missile Forces, Aerospace Forces and FLEET.
  33. The comment was deleted.
  34. SG11
    SG11 24 February 2016 12: 17 New
    0
    Leave Uncle Farley alone. he didn’t have enough to pay ..
  35. Isangrim
    Isangrim 24 February 2016 12: 26 New
    0
    Started, war games, strategies ... nothing like? Despite the collapse of the USSR and the devastation of the 90s, they are lining us up like a bear in a den, coming up with ways to weaken or crush it, it doesn’t matter how: economically or politically ... Isn’t it time for us to stock up on cartridges? Just in case ... Again, after reading This article I have a question: why capture the Baltic states and hold it? isn’t it easier to deliver a massive blow to the enemy in Europe and so? Iskander to cover half of Europe? And then, to polish everything that has not turned into TU-160 glass ??? and then you can safely go to the Baltic states, they will not throw grenades under our tanks but flowers ... It was already in History, we know.
  36. james
    james 24 February 2016 12: 31 New
    0
    They so often, rightly and wrongly, talk about Russia's occupation of the Baltic States and other countries that they began to resemble an unsatisfied woman who sticks to everyone with the words: "Well, take me, take me! I'm all yours."
  37. Stariknv
    Stariknv 24 February 2016 12: 39 New
    0
    NATO dreams that Russia will attack the Baltic states, and why Russia somewhere and on someone to attack. Russia has a military doctrine built on the defense of its borders. To get money, NATO invents an enemy for itself, and as always it is Russia.
  38. red_october
    red_october 24 February 2016 13: 14 New
    0
    But already at the initial stage of the conflict, Moscow will begin to pay the bills, as NATO troops will go on the offensive on Kaliningrad, Transnistria and other Russian possessions.

    They represent Russia as they would like. And they are trying to fight it, that is, with their ideas about us. Including through the holding of such military games.
    1. Zeppelin ml.
      Zeppelin ml. 24 February 2016 13: 48 New
      +1
      Quote: red_october
      They represent Russia as they would like.

      well it is clear. So do we them. A photo for what? Rusty Ukrainian Vtorchermet ran into antediluvian German. What is the salt?
  39. sergeyzzz
    sergeyzzz 24 February 2016 13: 24 New
    +1
    I wonder why Russia will need a scorched radioactive desert what
  40. Alexandr2637
    Alexandr2637 24 February 2016 13: 41 New
    0
    Another vyser Robert Farley ....
  41. Cobra77
    Cobra77 24 February 2016 13: 47 New
    -2
    Quote: The same Lech
    How are they going to withdraw


    smile
    The author of the article is a dreamer ...
    the scenario he invented is good for a low-initiative opponent ...
    I believe that in the event of a NATO attack on RUSSIA, the Baltic states will turn out to be only one of the theaters of military operations.
    Roughly the scale and scenario of the battles will be similar to 1944 ..
    for RUSSIA this time will not wait for a stealth strike in the style of 1941 ...
    the army is not the same, people have become smarter and yes, and in the KREMLIN GLORY TO GOD there are no fools.


    Have people become smarter? Gee :) Not once. Especially in the Kremlin. It is enough to carefully look at domestic and foreign policy over the past 5 years. And if in the outside there are still elements of common sense, then in the inside, excuse the complete ahtung and mess.

    Before the Second World War, we were preparing, seriously preparing. Both militarily and politically. And now, if something serious happened, we are not ready for the word at all. Without nuclear weapons we will not last long against NATO. No illusions needed. We are now a tenth of the power of the Union in every sense.
  42. Cobra77
    Cobra77 24 February 2016 19: 52 New
    0
    Quote: cobra77

    Have people become smarter? Gee :) Not once. Especially in the Kremlin. It is enough to carefully look at domestic and foreign policy over the past 5 years. And if in the outside there are still elements of common sense, then in the inside, excuse the complete ahtung and mess.

    Before the Second World War, we were preparing, seriously preparing. Both militarily and politically. And now, if something serious happened, we are not ready for the word at all. Without nuclear weapons we will not last long against NATO. No illusions needed. We are now a tenth of the power of the Union in every sense.


    Gentlemen minusers, argue where I'm wrong? Or is it just an ostrich policy?
  43. Calter
    Calter 24 February 2016 22: 45 New
    +1
    The NATO members with their Baltic states are already sick of it! Why the hell should we occupy it? Are there key elements of NATO’s military infrastructure? Or maybe giant mobilization resources? Heavy industry centers? Naval bases (the largest on the Baltic coast)?
    If this is the first stage of the occupation of Europe, another question arises: what, are there no other directions? Or do they seriously think that Ukrainians will keep the front in the event of a large-scale invasion? Or Belarus will not miss the troops? By the way, an invasion through Ukraine would be much more appropriate: tanks move faster in the steppes than in forests or swamps.
    In the course, NATO generals assume the occupation of the Baltic states as an end in themselves of a future war, which will be waged according to plan:
    1. For a couple of days (maximum) to occupy the Baltic states.
    2. A couple of months to rake from the WTO and NATO tactical nuclear weapons.
    3. Surrender to the mercy of the winners.
    What kind of nonsense? They call it headquarters exercises ?! Apparently this is just a way to once again flatter the genitals of the Balts, so as not to reduce the intensity of military hysteria ...
  44. KaraBumer
    KaraBumer 1 March 2016 13: 42 New
    0
    I like how the Americans will help the allies in Europe in case of war: "Such a defense would give the alliance time to transfer additional forces and assets from the United States to Europe, to strike at the rear facilities and communications centers of the Warsaw Pact in Eastern Europe, as well as to counter Soviet interests in other parts of the world. "