Military Review

Configuration helplessness

150
All the Balkans are not worth the life of a Russian soldier! (Alexander III)


The new aggravation in Karabakh, as well as the recent border conflicts in Central Asia, raise extremely important questions for Russia about the future participation of our country in the framework of the CSTO alliance in general and in foreign conflicts in particular. It is no secret that following the very first war in Karabakh, the claim of both Armenians and Azerbaijanis towards Russia was absolutely the same and expressed with the words “You did not let us win!” It is obvious that our participation in peripheral conflicts is becoming increasingly ungrateful, unpromising and more importantly, questionable from a national security point of view.



The fundamental questions are even wider. And the price of these questions is a lot of money from the pockets of poor Russian taxpayers, the lives of our military personnel and the interests of the Russian Federation itself. This is where the inconsistencies begin. Everyone knows that the Collective Security Treaty (the forerunner of the CSTO) was signed on 12 on May 1992 of the year, that is, almost immediately after the collapse of the USSR. Initially, it included Armenia, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. All these countries plus Belarus and minus Uzbekistan constitute the core of the alliance today. In each of the CSTO countries, Russian military facilities are functioning.

From the very beginning, the creation of the CSTO would have three main objectives - one official and objective, and two unofficial, public announcement of which would reveal the viciousness of the alliance and the categorical discrepancy of such a structure to the national interests of the Russian Federation.

The objective reason was the formation of a certain surrogate of the security system in the former Soviet republics, while the Russian Federation is building a new, already internal perimeter on its borders. Considering that the last perimeter of security, which had been forming for decades, literally collapsed, the creation of its temporary counterpart was quite a reasonable task. True, the new perimeter turned out to be very leaky, which sharply reduced its value, but this is already particular.

The second, already unofficial, reason for the creation of the CSTO was the mutual power support of the oligarchic and frankly feudal regimes that came to power in all (except, perhaps, Belarus) the above-mentioned republics of the former Union. Such actions had nothing to do with supporting Russian national interests or the Russian world. On the contrary, Russia allowed the regimes to be strengthened, which exterminated and expelled the Russian population, corroded everything Russian, which they still do with enthusiasm. Of the most recent and harmless examples - the renaming of the city of Chkalovsk in Tajikistan last year.

The third reason can be called "weight on the legs." Russia sample 1992, the country was completely controlled by external forces. Only later did Yeltsin form a kind of local autonomy, which was inherited by Putin. And then, in the 1992 year, and much later, American politicians frankly stated that they would not allow integration processes in the post-Soviet space. Since the formation of the CSTO in Washington allowed, therefore, this structure is in the interests of the United States. It is understandable, a weakened Russia took on the maintenance of new, often Russophobic, regimes, without demanding anything in return. That is, with their own hands, with wise prompts from across the ocean, weights were hanging on their feet.

Since then much water has flowed. The main objective reason for the formation of such a strange alliance as the CSTO, has lost its relevance to the beginning and middle of the zero, when Russia is crooked, askew, but created an internal security perimeter. So there is no more practical sense in this anachronism. There are only costs.

For example, Russia can send ships to the same Syria. In Armenia - no. To our garrison in this Transcaucasian republic we will have, in the event of a radical aggravation of the situation, to break through the corridor through Azerbaijan or Georgia, or to bow to all of Iran. At the same time, no one so clearly and could not answer what critical interests in Armenia the Russian Federation has, that we need to go to such difficulties and risks. Frankly, such interests are not visible at all, especially if we recall the role that Armenian nationalism played during the collapse of the USSR. Russia is no longer the protector of the Christian nations, it does not carry the messianic idea. On this particular segment stories it has quite trivial and prosaic tasks - to survive, save resources, start modernization.

However, Armenia is only a special case here. Here, for example, how to be Russia, if Kyrgyzstan or Tajikistan (CSTO members) send their military units to the territory of Uzbekistan (not a CSTO member) with whom they have territorial disputes. As recent events have shown, this is quite possible. The question arises how to behave in Russia if Uzbekistan logically responds to the invasion with a military force, and the "allies" turn to Russia for military assistance? At the same time, they will hypocritically claim that the insidious enemy attacked them on their own land, without specifying that the collision took place on the territory that the subject only considers its own because of some personal considerations. Here is an excerpt from the CSTO Treaty describing such situations:

Article 4. If one of the participating States is subjected to aggression (an armed attack threatening security, stability, territorial integrity and sovereignty), it will be considered by the participating States as aggression (armed attack threatening security, stability, territorial integrity and sovereignty) to all states parties to this Agreement. In the event of an aggression (an armed attack threatening security, stability, territorial integrity and sovereignty) to any of the participating States, all other participating States will, at the request of that participating State, immediately provide it with the necessary assistance, including military, as well as support from their disposal of funds in the exercise of the right to collective defense in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter.

As we see, the situation, to put it mildly, is very non-specific, which makes it possible to interpret it in one direction or another. It is not specified what to consider as aggression, and in what geographical framework. For the sake of interest, it is worthwhile to compare the main treaty of the CSTO with the corresponding NATO treaty, where everything is much more specific and unequivocal. Here is an excerpt from the NATO base document:

Article 6. For the purposes of Article 5, it is considered that an armed attack on one or more Contracting Parties includes an armed attack:

- to the territory of any of the Contracting Parties in Europe or North America, the Algerian departments of France, the territory of Turkey or the islands located in the North Atlantic zone north of the Tropic of Cancer and under the jurisdiction of any of the Contracting Parties;

- to the armed forces, ships or aircraft of any of the Contracting Parties, if these armed forces, ships or aircraft were located in these territories, or above them, or in another region of Europe, or above it, if they or in it at the time this Treaty entered into force, the occupying forces were stationed in one of the Contracting Parties, either in the Mediterranean, or above it, or in the North Atlantic zone north of the Tropic of Cancer, or above it.


The Anglo-Saxons are famous for competent drawing up of legal obligations. In our case, very unpleasant incidents can occur, some of which can even involve China. Recall from the Central Asian republics to the Middle Kingdom for these 25 years moved a lot of pieces of territory. Who knows if these deals have proper legal registration?

In fact, it is obvious that the creation of the CSTO in 1992 in the year of 1992 was an erroneous step, as was the inclusion in the alliance of the republics of Central Asia with their endless territorial disputes, and even without common borders with Russia. The mistake was the adoption of Armenia with its active (!) Military conflict with Azerbaijan, and also not having common borders with the Russian Federation. Previously, these enclaves, by inertia, were perceived by Moscow as part of a single space, to which there will always be direct access. History has shown that this is not at all the case. Therefore, a global rethinking of the entire configuration should occur.

It should be understood that any practical use of the CSTO, in contrast to 1992, has become zero, because the internal security perimeter has already been approximately established. From the alliance for Moscow, there are only “weights on their feet”, in the form of support for the Russophobic regimes, and a beautiful picture on TV for a few electorate who understands: they say, Russia is leading the integration processes in the post-Soviet space. The fact that in the objective reality the processes are directly opposed to any kind of integration is known to us only very few. “The outpost of Russia to [substitute the necessary]” - sounds, of course, proudly, but the practical value of such an “outpost” in fact turns out to be even not zero, but a negative figure.

As with Alexander the Third, Russia has no allies except its own army and fleet. Those countries that loudly call themselves “Russia's allies” are in fact parasites and parasites who want to solve their problems at the expense of Russian money and the blood of Russian soldiers. Although the CSTO treaty provides for mutual assistance, there can be no doubt that small, but proud countries will not lift a finger to help Russia in any circumstances that are critical for us. Today, it is becoming clear that the CSTO in its current form makes sense to curtail, in whole or in part, retaining only bilateral agreements on key unique objects for Russia - the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan or the Okno space observation complex in Tajikistan. This, perhaps, will be our main strategic interest.

In the extreme case, a military alliance can be revived a little later in an optimal form, like the alliance of Russia with Belarus and Kazakhstan. In its present form, we can fully maintain such a configuration without overstretching our rather scarce resources. The outbreak of violence in Karabakh is just another bell, confirming the fact that the forces of the Russian Federation, which it can throw on the scales, are not infinite.
Author:
150 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. vladeinord
    vladeinord April 4 2016 06: 11
    +22
    Common sense is present in this article.
    1. cap
      cap April 4 2016 07: 01
      +9
      Quote: vladeinord
      Common sense is present in this article.


      Article minus. The proclaimed isolation of Russia under its own "blanket", motivated by the following argument: "As under Alexander III, Russia has no allies except its own army and navy. Those countries that loudly call themselves" allies of Russia "are in fact parasites and parasites who want to solve their problems at the expense of Russian money and the blood of Russian soldiers. "

      I can’t even find the words for the author. I think the discussion will continue. hi
      1. Basarev
        Basarev April 4 2016 07: 43
        +41
        But what, isn't it? Take even Belarus: how the budget doesn’t fit in - screams are immediately heard: Russia, help, a brotherly country and all that ... When the time comes to pay fairly and proportionately for the good done - something completely different is heard: we are independent, you are not a decree to us, you cannot us so ... And sometimes even outright blackmail: pay us or leave west. Attention, the question is: does Russia need such allies, vile and ungrateful?
        1. dmi.pris
          dmi.pris April 4 2016 08: 02
          +7
          The Belarusian leadership belongs to us, just as our leadership of thieves and bribe-takers refers to Belarusians. They can clearly see who rules the ball in Russia, and, accordingly, doesn’t let these bunts to themselves.
          Quote: Basarev
          But what, isn't it? Take even Belarus: how the budget doesn’t fit in - screams are immediately heard: Russia, help, a brotherly country and all that ... When the time comes to pay fairly and proportionately for the good done - something completely different is heard: we are independent, you are not a decree to us, you cannot us so ... And sometimes even outright blackmail: pay us or leave west. Attention, the question is: does Russia need such allies, vile and ungrateful?
        2. Aleksander
          Aleksander April 4 2016 08: 12
          +19
          Quote: Basarev
          Take even Belarus

          Do you want NATO tanks, reinforced (theoretically, theoretically) by Belarusian, on 600 KM CLOSER to Moscow? Fight on its to the earth, ruining it ,? Then you are with the author. Yes, and guess how MUCH the construction of counteraction to this threat will cost near Smolensk. I think a lot more than the estimated savings.
          This is one aspect, and there are others - markets, labor, etc., etc ...
          1. Nicola Bari
            Nicola Bari April 4 2016 08: 47
            +23
            So the question is, while Russia is investing in Belarusian borders, its border near Smolensk remains without proper development, and will there be any sense in such allies, or these 600 km. will not play any role, that’s the question. Given the many signs from the territory of the neighbor, this is not a far-fetched issue, but a logical one.
            1. dmi.pris
              dmi.pris April 4 2016 12: 34
              +7
              There has been nothing near Smolensk for ten years already ... They have withdrawn a transport aviation regiment from the "Severny", an air regiment in the Pochinkovsky district, etc. .. Actually, there it is necessary to start everything from scratch, there the rocket men were once there.
              Quote: Nicola Bari
              So the question is, while Russia is investing in Belarusian borders, its border near Smolensk remains without proper development, and will there be any sense in such allies, or these 600 km. will not play any role, that’s the question. Given the many signs from the territory of the neighbor, this is not a far-fetched issue, but a logical one.
              1. Talgat
                Talgat April 4 2016 22: 18
                +3
                In 90 years I already heard all this

                Allegedly, the USSR was spending money on allies, and the people were starving. Well, yes, sometimes it was possible and was spending too much - but in general, the USSR was therefore on a par with the USA and the West. t to united half the world against the west

                And at the same time - the standard of living was approaching European (contrary to the climate and distance from ports, by the way)

                So - like liberal patriots - convinced us to isolate ourselves - not to spend on unions and on external influence (and not to spend on defense there - supposedly we will live richer - if we spend less on weapons) generally deceived us all then

                The collapse of the alliance system - the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, then the disarmament of the USSR - and then a logical step towards the collapse of the USSR itself - and again - I heard all the same incantations: "Cast off the yoke of Central Asia!"

                The author directly continues that. that the destroyers of the USSR did not finish

                They dropped it - so what? Poverty and death of everything - Nicherta did not get richer - 90 is just a disaster - then they rose a little after 2000 at a high oil price - Russia and KZ. But before the USSR as before the moon. And politically militarily 10 times weaker. And under the US we still lie

                Again, the liberals are deceiving you - behind the beautiful slogans of 2 allies, they are calling for a surrender of their geopolitical position, moreover, in their closest circle. As a result, the enemy will seize influence in these territories and will come close to the borders

                The author condescendingly admits an alliance only with Kazakhstan and Belarus - and will limit himself to this. But if Kyrgyzstan and Tajiks are "surrendered", then what will happen on the southern border of Kazakhstan? Will southern Kazakhstan be stable then? Etc
            2. marl
              marl April 5 2016 00: 31
              0
              Quote: Nicola Bari
              while Russia is investing in Belarusian borders, its border near Smolensk remains without proper development, and will there be any sense in such allies

              You don’t have to go far for an example, they invested in Ukrainian borders for 20 years, as a result we have what we have - an aggressive Russophobic semi-state with alternatively gifted power and practically open (from our side) borders. It is time to move on to a new form of relations with the Allies, suggesting, like O. Bender, to provide a mass of small services for each calorie eaten.
          2. KaPToC
            KaPToC April 4 2016 13: 46
            +3
            Why juggle the facts? The border has already been moved 600 km closer to Moscow. The only way to change this is through direct accession of Belarus to Russia.
          3. Your friend
            Your friend April 4 2016 13: 50
            +6
            Quote: Aleksander
            Quote: Basarev
            Take even Belarus

            Do you want NATO tanks, reinforced (theoretically, theoretically) by Belarusian, on 600 KM CLOSER to Moscow? Fight on its to the earth, ruining it ,? Then you are with the author. Yes, and guess how MUCH the construction of counteraction to this threat will cost near Smolensk. I think a lot more than the estimated savings.
            This is one aspect, and there are others - markets, labor, etc., etc ...

            Yeah ??? Those. Belarusians will fight NATO tanks in Belarus, defending the Russian Federation ??? What the stupidest naivety. Ask the local people, and these are the most pro-Russian Belarusians, whether they are ready to die for the Russian Federation, holding back the "NATO tanks". Kindergarten.(((
            1. alicante11
              alicante11 April 4 2016 15: 25
              +3
              Yeah ??? Those. Belarusians will fight NATO tanks in Belarus, defending the Russian Federation ??? What the stupidest naivety. Ask the local people, and these are the most pro-Russian Belarusians, whether they are ready to die for the Russian Federation, holding back the "NATO tanks". Kindergarten.(((


              And what, the Belarusians will simply surrender to NATO tanks? I hope that you have the "stupidest naivety".
              1. Your friend
                Your friend April 4 2016 15: 55
                +2
                Quote: alicante11
                Yeah ??? Those. Belarusians will fight NATO tanks in Belarus, defending the Russian Federation ??? What the stupidest naivety. Ask the local people, and these are the most pro-Russian Belarusians, whether they are ready to die for the Russian Federation, holding back the "NATO tanks". Kindergarten.(((


                And what, the Belarusians will simply surrender to NATO tanks? I hope that you have the "stupidest naivety".

                Do the Belarusians really throw themselves under the abrams with a click "For Putin, for Russia" ??? Hope further.)))
            2. Aleksander
              Aleksander April 4 2016 15: 39
              +5
              Quote: Your friend
              Yeah ??? Those. Belarusians will fight NATO tanks in Belarus, defending the Russian Federation ??? What the stupidest naivety. Ask the local people, and these are the most pro-Russian Belarusians, whether they are ready to die for the Russian Federation, holding back the "NATO tanks". Kindergarten.(((



              Yeah? belay They will miss NATO tanks, of course, laying under occupation. Nursery ... lol
              1. Your friend
                Your friend April 4 2016 15: 54
                +5
                Quote: Aleksander
                Quote: Your friend
                Yeah ??? Those. Belarusians will fight NATO tanks in Belarus, defending the Russian Federation ??? What the stupidest naivety. Ask the local people, and these are the most pro-Russian Belarusians, whether they are ready to die for the Russian Federation, holding back the "NATO tanks". Kindergarten.(((



                Yeah? belay They will miss NATO tanks, of course, laying under occupation. Nursery ... lol

                Brothers Ukrainians have not taught you anything. I’m saying kindergarten.)))
                Only to put it mildly, an unintelligent person can think that citizens of another, independent country will die with bones in the name of a foreign state. (((
                1. nerd.su
                  nerd.su April 4 2016 21: 27
                  0
                  Quote: Your friend
                  Only to put it mildly, an unintelligent person can think that citizens of another, independent country will die with bones in the name of a foreign state. (((

                  Firstly, all the same, a union state. Secondly, what can they do?
                  1. marl
                    marl April 5 2016 00: 59
                    +2
                    Quote: bot.su
                    and what can they do?

                    They won’t do anything. They will see how it ends and what dividends one can get from this.
                    What are they, damn it, allies? They even didn’t react to Crimea, they hid.
                    1. nerd.su
                      nerd.su April 5 2016 10: 45
                      +1
                      Quote: marna
                      They won’t do anything. They will see how it ends and what dividends one can get from this.

                      That is, when the NATO tanks will trample through Belarus to us (through Estonia with Latvia and even Ukraine, the bandwidth of these countries is not enough) will Belarusians count on dividends? Who will reckon with them if Russia loses? And if he wins, then where are they poor to hide?

                      Quote: marna
                      What are they, damn it, allies? They even didn’t react to Crimea, they hid.

                      Why didn’t they react? Reacted. Old Man supported the territorial integrity of Ukraine, he simply did not pedal much. But here you can understand him, he is the president of a small country bordering one of the largest imperialist predators in the world. I would also react in his place. He would have condemned, but on the sidelines he said that we are allies, give me money.
                      1. marl
                        marl April 5 2016 14: 28
                        +1
                        Quote: bot.su
                        That is, when the NATO tanks will trample through Belarus to us (through Estonia with Latvia and even Ukraine, the bandwidth of these countries is not enough) will Belarusians count on dividends? Who will reckon with them if Russia loses? And if he wins, then where are they poor to hide?

                        To you below answered Oles. God forbid, if he and I are wrong.
                        More EU flags from the looters will get. You did not pay attention to what kind of dregs are brewing on the sly in Belarus with the incomprehensible connivance of the dad?
                        Quote: bot.su
                        I would also react in his place. He would have condemned, but on the sidelines he said that we are allies, give me money.

                        But this is already double standards and hypocrisy. On such allies You can’t count.
                      2. nerd.su
                        nerd.su April 5 2016 17: 07
                        0
                        Quote: marna
                        To you below answered Oles. God forbid, if he and I are wrong.

                        Well, I see, we are talking about different things. I'm talking about hypothetical tanks, and Oles about Maidan.
                        Quote: marna
                        You did not pay attention to what kind of dregs are brewing on the sly in Belarus with the incomprehensible connivance of the dad?

                        Did not pay, can you enlighten?

                        Quote: marna
                        But this is already double standards and hypocrisy. One cannot count on such allies.

                        All politics is continuous double standards and hypocrisy. Or do you think we, or rather our oligarchs, do not want to seize the most valuable Belarusian assets? So everything is fine, when necessary, the Belarusians will make the right choice.
                      3. marl
                        marl April 5 2016 22: 06
                        0
                        Quote: bot.su
                        I'm talking about hypothetical tanks

                        I can’t even hypothetically imagine that they will fall under hypothetical tanks going to Russia. They will not fit in, they will wait, how the situation will be resolved. All of their current slurred policies towards the Russian Federation makes us suggest just such an outcome.
                        Quote: bot.su
                        Did not pay, can you enlighten?

                        Are you seriously? Read at least here on VO, not one article was about how their nationalists intensified.
                        Quote: bot.su
                        All politics is continuous double standards and hypocrisy.

                        Yes, but not to the same extent. All the same, they are the closest allies.
                        Quote: bot.su
                        Do you think we, or rather our oligarchs, do not want to seize the most valuable Belarusian assets?

                        Do not take over, but invest. Given that they have been living on Russian loans for decades, why not. No matter how cynical it sounds, but whoever dines with the young lady dances her.
                        Quote: bot.su
                        So everything is fine, when necessary, the Belarusians will make the right choice.

                        God grant that they are not mistaken.
                      4. nerd.su
                        nerd.su April 6 2016 14: 16
                        0
                        Quote: marna
                        I can’t even hypothetically imagine that they will fall under hypothetical tanks going to Russia. They will not fit in, they will wait, how the situation will be resolved.

                        It will not work to wait, if hypothetical tanks go, then it will be necessary to determine quickly.
                        By the way, Lukashenko’s policy is quite concrete. Just to understand this, you must be able to think in non-domestic categories. Not everyone is given.
                        Once again, all politics is hypocrisy and double standards. The closest allies, distant enemies and so on are the lyrics before the interests of the state. Which can be tactical and strategic.

                        Quote: marna
                        Do not take over, but invest.

                        Gather it in your hands, no matter how cynical it sounds. Hence the seemingly vague policy of the Old Man - he understands that without Russia, Belarus in its current form will not survive, we need loans, discounts on gas and so on. But buying our liquid assets, too, for Lukashenko, and for Belarus, is the way to an end. Here Lukashenko maneuvers between these lights.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. COJIDAT
      COJIDAT April 4 2016 16: 47
      -2
      It is interesting to imagine how NATO's "tank armada" overcome the zone of destruction of Russian TNW ...
  2. Zeeke
    Zeeke April 5 2016 11: 11
    +1
    I agree. Pay or make riots in Russia. Let's hope that our government stabilizes the situation somehow. If it’s not too late ....
  • Aleksander
    Aleksander April 4 2016 07: 57
    +14
    Quote: cap
    Article minus


    unconditional minus. The author does not want to see that in the CSTO countries Russia does not support the ruling regimes, but defends its national interests.
    For example, the defeat of Armenia means a multiple increase in the threat to the southern borders of Russia, the strengthening of Turkey and the need to spend colossal funds from "our rather meager resources" (C). yes
    Modes are supported to the extent that he satisfies these very interests.
    HOW it turns out is another question — when is better, when is worse and inconsistent. But the principle is true.
    1. varov14
      varov14 April 4 2016 09: 50
      +9
      Rather, the financial individual representatives of Russians and not only Russians.
    2. IS-80
      IS-80 April 4 2016 10: 51
      +5
      Quote: Aleksander
      that in the CSTO countries Russia does not support the ruling regimes

      Quote: Aleksander
      Modes are supported to the extent

      What is that supposed to mean?
      Quote: Aleksander
      But the principle is true.

      Yep, these "national interests" of big wallets have already led to an extremely difficult situation in Ukraine. What else can we expect from such "protection of national interests"?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Aleksander
        Aleksander April 4 2016 21: 47
        +1
        Quote: IS-80
        What is that supposed to mean?

        Simple to understand: in a complex sentence "that in the CSTO countries Russia does not support the ruling regimes, but protects their national interests " second simple sentence clarifies first simple. . Those. the goal is not the support of strangers, but the protection of their own. Once support with protection coincides, when not. Invariable-PROTECT yourself.
    3. Your friend
      Your friend April 4 2016 13: 53
      +1
      Quote: Aleksander
      Quote: cap
      Article minus


      unconditional minus. The author does not want to see that in the CSTO countries Russia does not support the ruling regimes, but defends its national interests.
      For example, the defeat of Armenia means a multiple increase in the threat to the southern borders of Russia, the strengthening of Turkey and the need to spend colossal funds from "our rather meager resources" (C). yes
      Modes are supported to the extent that he satisfies these very interests.
      HOW it turns out is another question — when is better, when is worse and inconsistent. But the principle is true.

      Article +. Forward with the song, restrain Turkey in Armenia. When you sign up for contract service at the base in Gyumri, be sure to tell how exactly you personally are holding back Turkey.
      1. Aleksander
        Aleksander April 4 2016 15: 42
        +5
        Quote: Your friend
        Forward with the song, restrain Turkey in Armenia. When you sign up for contract service at the base in Gyumri, be sure to tell how exactly you personally are holding back Turkey.


        Bury yourself in the trench right at your apartment and defend yourself .. yes
        1. Your friend
          Your friend April 4 2016 15: 56
          -3
          Quote: Aleksander
          Quote: Your friend
          Forward with the song, restrain Turkey in Armenia. When you sign up for contract service at the base in Gyumri, be sure to tell how exactly you personally are holding back Turkey.


          Bury yourself in the trench right at your apartment and defend yourself .. yes

          Why are you writing nonsense?
          Have you already left for Gyumri to restrain Turkey? Or are they only able to chat with their tongues?)))
          1. samuil60
            samuil60 April 4 2016 22: 46
            +1
            Have you gone? Of course, gentlemen, liberals sleep and see: what else to pass? Humpback withdrew troops from Europe - for a smile. Cuba and Vietnam - The Bear passed. What, we need to remove the base in the center of the Caucasus !? It doesn't matter what is there through Georgia or Azerbaijan: if necessary, we will get there and fly. And what, the heroic Turks do not care about our base? Is it? Thank God you are not the Supreme. And not "my friend".
    4. COJIDAT
      COJIDAT April 4 2016 16: 51
      +3
      Quote: Aleksander
      unconditional minus. The author does not want to see that in the CSTO countries Russia does not support the ruling regimes, but defends its national interests.

      I can argue with you, because the power of Russophobia in the so-called. The "friendly republics" of the Caucasus and Asia never died down, and the 90s clearly showed the "brotherly love" of these peoples!
      1. nerd.su
        nerd.su April 4 2016 21: 33
        0
        Quote: COJIDAT
        and the 90s clearly showed the "brotherly love" of these peoples!

        And now, cry and close in your own apartment?
  • larand
    larand April 4 2016 08: 32
    +16
    Quote: cap
    I can’t even find the words for the author. I think the discussion will continue. hi

    The Russian Federation must live within its means, proceeding only from its own interests. Not to forgive the insults inflicted by anyone and finally forget about the "fraternal peoples, the Slavic world", gratuitous help and other kind-hearted crap. This will not be isolation, but healthy pragmatism. Better to be afraid to shit on us than to falsely respect.
  • ava09
    ava09 April 4 2016 09: 31
    +8
    Quote: cap
    Those countries that loudly call themselves "allies of Russia" are in fact parasites and parasites who want to solve their problems at the expense of Russian money and the blood of Russian soldiers. "

    Unfortunately, this is a DATA, not a fabrication ... Russia needs a security perimeter, but "rose-colored glasses", so often treacherous, do not!
  • dmi.pris
    dmi.pris April 4 2016 12: 40
    +2
    There are plenty of such suggestors now. Yes, you can only deal with your own problems. Only where we leave, others will arrive. And so the space where we at least somehow influence is reduced like shagreen skin ..
    Quote: cap
    Quote: vladeinord
    Common sense is present in this article.


    Article minus. The proclaimed isolation of Russia under its own "blanket", motivated by the following argument: "As under Alexander III, Russia has no allies except its own army and navy. Those countries that loudly call themselves" allies of Russia "are in fact parasites and parasites who want to solve their problems at the expense of Russian money and the blood of Russian soldiers. "

    I can’t even find the words for the author. I think the discussion will continue. hi
  • dorz
    dorz April 4 2016 13: 30
    +5
    Quote: cap
    Quote: vladeinord
    Common sense is present in this article.


    Article minus. The proclaimed isolation of Russia under its own "blanket", motivated by the following argument: "As under Alexander III, Russia has no allies except its own army and navy. Those countries that loudly call themselves" allies of Russia "are in fact parasites and parasites who want to solve their problems at the expense of Russian money and the blood of Russian soldiers. "

    I can’t even find the words for the author. I think the discussion will continue. hi

    I agree, so you can agree why Russia sells gas to Belarus at $ 69 per thousand cubic meters. and Kazakhstan weapons at domestic Russian prices. By the way, the Americans annually allocate more than $ 5 billion to Israel, including for military needs. Security is always expensive.
  • Butchcassidy
    Butchcassidy April 4 2016 16: 29
    +4
    I agree. A person who does not understand what the interests of Russia in Armenia is, is a dubious specialist in the national security of Russia.
    1. Your friend
      Your friend April 4 2016 16: 34
      +2
      Quote: ButchCassidy
      I agree. A person who does not understand what the interests of Russia in Armenia is, is a dubious specialist in the national security of Russia.

      We are all here at VO oooooooooogrom specialists in geopolitics, economics, weapons and sexual perversions. I am ashamed not to know this.
  • dmi.pris
    dmi.pris April 4 2016 07: 59
    +12
    It’s a good idea to send everyone to a hairdryer, withdraw contingent (here mattresses will immediately appear on our former bases) .. Politically it is necessary to put pressure on vypendrezhniks, and at least nationalism is dangerous (where does the Armenian nationalists?).
    Quote: vladeinord
    Common sense is present in this article.
  • dmi.pris
    dmi.pris April 4 2016 12: 37
    +1
    A sound idea is your way to spit on everyone and close in your own sink? Think what you say.
  • 72jora72
    72jora72 April 4 2016 06: 25
    +14
    At the same time, no one could so clearly and answer what critical interests the Russian Federation has in Armenia, that we need to take such difficulties and risks.
    That is, we urgently need to withdraw our military base from Armenia, break all agreements and run to kiss Aliyev (well, Erdogan to the heap, because behind the current aggravation in Karabakh his goat ears are visible) in the gums ??
    1. Tigran2
      Tigran2 April 4 2016 08: 14
      +5
      So Erdogan already kisses him.
    2. varov14
      varov14 April 4 2016 09: 56
      +10
      Engage in your country and your army, and, if necessary, use weapons without unnecessary snot like the United States does. There will be more benefits, you won’t heat everyone, especially when you don’t want to.
  • Uncle Murzik
    Uncle Murzik April 4 2016 06: 25
    +7
    as we know the United States is a pragmatic country, why does it need "weights on its feet" around the world? there is a concept like geopolitics, the author of the article calls on Russia to close its borders!
    1. kuz363
      kuz363 April 4 2016 07: 27
      -1
      If the US budget is 16 times larger than Russia in 2016, then who is easier to carry these weights? The country's capabilities are primarily determined by the economy
      1. Safar
        Safar April 4 2016 07: 55
        .
        The country's capabilities are primarily determined by the economy

        Lies, only in the spirit of each individual citizen. Russia is strong.
      2. CONTROL
        CONTROL April 4 2016 13: 25
        +2
        Quote: kuz363
        If the US budget is 16 times larger than Russia in 2016, then who is easier to carry these weights? The country's capabilities are primarily determined by the economy

        Did the USA do a lot with its over budget in Vietnam? In Afghanistan? ... Yes - anywhere!
        Only destroy and know how!
    2. varov14
      varov14 April 4 2016 10: 11
      +14
      So the author calls for this, turn on your head - it’s good for the country and nothing more. Americans will not hit the finger with all the contracts without their own benefit. Here they have precisely national interests at the forefront and nothing more. They consider money there, they know who to dump the dough for, and who to knock on the pumpkin. Let’s build the Russian world inside the country, it will turn out well others will reach us, but for now there are no true friends, who is impressed by the oligarchy besides us, the rest of the world that collapsed from oak? Our business is at odds with propaganda, but there is no purpose as it is, we wander in the darkness and pretend to be hangers-on.
    3. KaPToC
      KaPToC April 4 2016 13: 50
      +5
      Namely, the United States is a pragmatic country, in the countries it occupies, the United States controls the economy and the government directly, they earn, not spend, like we do.
      1. Kuts
        Kuts April 4 2016 21: 02
        0
        Oh guys. You are right and wrong at the same time.
        Only we cannot support and support the country. But we are able to support (skillfully) the government. Remember what the Americans are doing - they support acceptable regimes, not countries, but regimes. While we maintain good relations, we are friends (poorly or well, few of us know and understand), we’ll leave — they will take our place, and they will inculcate a negative attitude towards us in the local population. As it happens (happened) in the Baltic states, Georgia, Moldova, South-West Russia (Ukraine).
        We will always have time to drop everything and run away. And to restore and strengthen our influence will be difficult, they will oppose us.
  • pts-m
    pts-m April 4 2016 06: 28
    +8
    The author is right. Russia is a self-sufficient country, and "paper friendship" brings only losses and discontent of "paper friends".
    1. inkass_98
      inkass_98 April 4 2016 06: 57
      +5
      Yeah, and now try everything that Kabardin painted to apply to NATO. I assure you, get a lot of pleasure from the coincidences.
      1. cap
        cap April 4 2016 07: 15
        +1
        Quote: inkass_98
        I assure you, get a lot of pleasure from the coincidences.


        "Fog" is good, but what about the details. Enjoyment of what?
        Clarify the pleasure of getting hot.
        1. CONTROL
          CONTROL April 4 2016 13: 29
          +1
          Quote: cap
          Quote: inkass_98
          I assure you, get a lot of pleasure from the coincidences.


          "Fog" is good, but what about the details. Enjoyment of what?
          Clarify the pleasure of getting hot.

          This, apparently, is about the collapse of NATO: Europe is making claims to the United States that "the game goes with one goal" - "goals" are scored by the European allies, and "points", prizes and winners' cups are received by overseas "partners" .. ...
          ... Such a team game ...
          1. Kuts
            Kuts April 4 2016 21: 17
            0
            Quote: cap
            Quote: inkass_98
            I assure you, get a lot of pleasure from the coincidences.


            "Fog" is good, but what about the details. Enjoyment of what?
            Clarify the pleasure of getting hot.


            "Weights on your feet" - statements of the Baltic, Polish and Bulgarian leadership in the spirit of "supply us with additional bases, transport equipment and fighters to us and support (financially) these additional contingents. Otherwise, we will ... when I see these evil Russians who are just waiting ... (what they are waiting for I do not understand) to capture us. "
  • Good cat
    Good cat April 4 2016 06: 34
    +4
    Therefore, they gave the go-ahead to minke whales on the CSTO, because apart from hemorrhoids, this is no use. Only pathos alone. It sounds loud, but nothing good.
  • apro
    apro April 4 2016 06: 35
    +5
    Respect to the author, I’ve laid out everything perfectly on the shelves, today the main thing for us is Russia and not strange strange tricks, that the Armenians really wanted the independence of the Isaacs and let them dissolve it. Only Russia's interests in this booth should bother us and then everything else and then for a lot of money.
    1. 72jora72
      72jora72 April 4 2016 06: 44
      +7
      the Armenians that the Isaers really wanted independence and independence so let them themselves and disentangle that they brewed.
      In the year 14, I heard exactly the same words about Crimea and Donbass .......
      1. apro
        apro April 4 2016 06: 49
        +8
        Dear, if you speak about my words, then you are wrong how much I am on this forum and my opinion does not change Russia Belarus Ukraine without a trident is a single whole divided by defeat in the Cold War and their reunification is inevitable. With regard to the Transcaucasian fighters, they chose their own path, the flag in hands and a drum on the neck.
        1. Vitwin
          Vitwin April 4 2016 08: 40
          +8
          Quote: apro
          , a flag in their hands and a drum on their neck.

          It is reasonable, the only thing that Russia needs is to operate freely in the indicated territories, and all the rest is snot and money wasted.
    2. CONTROL
      CONTROL April 4 2016 13: 34
      +2
      Quote: apro
      Respect to the author, I’ve laid out everything perfectly on the shelves, today the main thing for us is Russia and not strange strange tricks, that the Armenians really wanted the independence of the Isaacs and let them dissolve it. Only Russia's interests in this booth should bother us and then everything else and then for a lot of money.

      As they once came "under the wing" of Russia - and will return! No America or Europe will give them either freedom or independence!
      And to "feed" the neighbors with freebies - anyone knows what can come of it ... Especially - in countries with a Caucasian mentality!
    3. Odysseus
      Odysseus April 4 2016 14: 17
      +1
      Quote: apro
      Respect to the author, everything is perfectly laid out on the shelves

      If you formulate the author’s thought in 2 words, he says, Russia is dead. If you join him, then you are either an enemy of the people, or simply fooled.
      The essence of his proposals, Russia should leave from everywhere, eliminate the last military alliance in which it plays a major role and close within its borders.
      The consequences of such a policy are bloody chaos in all post-Soviet republics and its subsequent transfer to the territory of Russia. Moreover, if you look at the borders of Russia, you can easily see that they are completely unprotected, especially from Kazakhstan. Moreover, politically, all post-Soviet republics will go under control of the United States or China (which of course are not going to leave anywhere).
      Quote: apro
      that the Armenians that the Isers really wanted independence and independence so let them themselves and disentangle that brewed

      Are you 18 years old? Forgot how the Soviet Union was destroyed? The collapse came from Moscow from the leadership of the CPSU Central Committee, who betrayed socialism. Before perestroika, there was no "Karabakh problem". Both Armenians and Azerbaijanis lived in the same villages.
      Quote: apro
      Only Russia's interests in this booth should bother us, and then everything else and then for a lot of money.

      Not one country in the world is leaving nowhere, on the contrary, any country in the world is struggling to gain new zones of influence, establish its bases, and find markets. This is Russia's interest.
      1. apro
        apro April 4 2016 15: 13
        +5
        Quote: Odyssey
        eliminate the last military alliance in which it plays a major role

        The only union in which the USSR of the USSR played the leading role is the Warsaw Pact, the CSTO is more a fiction than a capable formation, which is also torn by contradictions. Chaos, say? All post-Soviet states are so independent from Moscow, and by and large, Russia cannot influence sane politicians to power
        Quote: Odyssey
        Are you 18 years old? Forgot how ruined
        and the Soviet Union? The collapse came from Moscow from the leadership of the CPSU Central Committee, which had betrayed socialism. Before perestroika there was no "Karabakh problem".
        In the same villages both Armenians and Azerbaijanis lived.

        I am old enough, and I remember those times, and there were nationalism and fraternity, if there were no soil then there was no modern bodyaga in Karabakh.
        Quote: Odyssey
        Not one country in the world is leaving nowhere, on the contrary, any country in the world is struggling to gain new zones of influence, establish its bases, and find markets. This is Russia's interest.

        In order to capture and hold true financial independence and economic power is needed in Russia today, this is a problem, today Russia is a great energy power and the main interest is how to roll its resources to the west, and what should we sell in the post-Soviet world besides energy resources?
        1. Odysseus
          Odysseus April 4 2016 19: 06
          0
          Quote: apro
          The only union in which the USSR of Russia played the leading role is the Warsaw Pact, the CSTO is more a fiction than a competent formation, in addition torn by contradictions

          The Warsaw Pact was torn apart by contradictions in the same way, then Romania will buck up, then Poland. This is normal for any unification of countries. The leading role of Russia in the CSTO has never been denied; in fact, this alliance was created around Russia. But suppose that you are right, the union is weak. And which of these? Do you propose to lose this too? The only logical conclusion is to make it stronger, stronger.
          Quote: apro
          all post-soviet states are therefore conducting an independent policy from Moscow, and Russia by and large cannot in any way influence, much less bring sane politicians to power

          It can influence, but in general, everything is true, and this is a sign of our weakness. What is the conclusion? To conduct politics more actively and bring their people to power. The author of the article suggests the exact opposite - to leave everywhere and do nothing.
          In one word, "Katz offers to surrender." And you agree with him.
          Quote: apro
          I am old enough, and I remember those times, and there were nationalism and fraternity, if there were no soil then there was no modern bodyaga in Karabakh.

          Interethnic contradictions have existed at all times and will always be. But what does this have to do with the simple fact that no Azerbaijanis wanted any "independence", just like Belarusians, Tajiks, and so on. The collapse of the USSR was the work of the Central Committee of the CPSU headed by Gorbachev and was carried out from the center. In 1984, even in a nightmare, it could not have dreamed that in 5 years Soviet people living peacefully in the same village, one family, would start massacring each other.
          Quote: apro
          In order to capture and hold, real financial independence and economic power are needed in Russia today,

          Again the same thing — you again propose treating dandruff with guillotine. Yes, that's right, Russia is weak now — and it has become weak as a result of the policy of surrendering socialism and incorporating it into the Western world on any conditions.
          So what ? What is the conclusion? The conclusion is simple - one must become strong. And for this you need to fight for the interests of Russia anywhere in the world, and even more so in the post-Soviet space, on which its security largely depends.
          You make the exact opposite conclusion: Oh, we have become weaker than during the Soviet Union, well, then let's surrender to the mercy of the winner, lie down and hope that the pans will spare us and leave us alone.
  • Uncle Murzik
    Uncle Murzik April 4 2016 06: 45
    +3
    it turns out the author must pass the Donbass, Transnistria, Abkhazia, Ossetia, Syria
    , Kym, this is "weights on the legs" of Russia! Then the Kuriles Yapam because they are not economically profitable, then what?
    1. gaura
      gaura April 4 2016 14: 10
      +1
      Yes, in general, we will leave only Moscow and the oil-bearing areas, the rest nafig.
  • Wolka
    Wolka April 4 2016 06: 56
    +1
    Alexander III would be right; Russia has only two allies, this is the army and navy, but when politics begins to determine economics more and more, it’s bust, draw conclusions, gentlemen, it’s not for nothing that Karabakh flared up ...
  • raid14
    raid14 April 4 2016 06: 57
    +12
    I do not agree with the statement that the CSTO was created in vain, as long as there is a minimal military presence of Russia in the republics of the SA, there is no USA there. If we withdraw our troops from Central Asia and do not support the regimes there, we will simply be strangled by the "Anaconda Loop" or a wave of terrorism will overwhelm us. There is a high price to pay for the safety of the immediate border, but it is worth it. Is the author either a provocateur, or does not see beyond his nose, did the US actions on our borders, such as in Ukraine, teach us nothing?
    1. Uncle Murzik
      Uncle Murzik April 4 2016 07: 01
      +8
      100% right, such nonsense that the author of the article bears every day is liberals with TV, word for word!
    2. cap
      cap April 4 2016 07: 07
      +11
      Quote: raid14
      The author is either a provocateur or doesn’t see beyond his nose, has the example of Ukraine taught us anything?


      Provocateur undisguised. He tied the emperor's words to his rotten sermon.
      Listen to Russia has one priority, Moscow and the Moscow region, where there is a cottage am .
  • gg.na
    gg.na April 4 2016 06: 58
    +2
    What can I say. They downloaded the pancake situevina which has calmed down. It was a weak and thin place in those parts! And where it is thin and torn! So they were able to use this weakness, you know who.
  • standing
    standing April 4 2016 07: 01
    +12
    In Armenia, our radar, which is a link in missile defense and covers the entire south and southwest. This is a strategic object (like Crimea), and here it’s not up to politicians. There will be a need, and will extinguish both Azeris and their bro-Turks.
  • Dmitry Potapov
    Dmitry Potapov April 4 2016 07: 03
    +5
    I fully agree with the author about our only allies (or rather, with Alexander 100)
  • RussianRoulette
    RussianRoulette April 4 2016 07: 05
    +10
    Do not try to please someone, because in the end either the saucer will be the wrong size, or the border of the wrong color. This principle is to this day the main component in the rhetoric of the "allies" of the Russian Federation. She to them with all her heart, and they to her with a goat's face. There are no worse enemies than smart-ass friends.
    1. cap
      cap April 4 2016 07: 11
      0
      Quote: RussianRoulette
      She is with them with all her soul, and they are with her a goat face. There are no worse enemies than cunning friends.


      If you are talking about EU and US sanctions, then you are absolutely right.
  • oldav
    oldav April 4 2016 07: 07
    0
    Azerbaijanis are fans of the Turks. Music, films, culture. Everywhere a cult of Turkey. Even when they shot down ours, they supported the Turks. Why is it, because faith is different?
    1. Vasyav
      Vasyav April 4 2016 08: 53
      +3
      what other faith?
      1. Wheel
        Wheel April 4 2016 09: 32
        +5
        Quote: Vasyav
        what other faith?

        Turks are Sunnis, and Azerbaijanis are Shiites.
  • rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 April 4 2016 07: 29
    +6
    I do not agree with the conclusions in the article. Although this
    Those countries that loudly call themselves “Russia's allies” are in fact parasites and parasites who want to solve their problems at the expense of Russian money and the blood of Russian soldiers. Although the CSTO treaty provides for mutual assistance, there is no doubt that small, but proud countries will not lift a finger to help Russia in any circumstances critical for us.

    deserves attention and not far from the truth.
  • grandson of the hero
    grandson of the hero April 4 2016 07: 30
    -3
    And why is the author so distant? Or memory and sanity refused him.
    And the simplest thing is, take a globe (but not Ukraine), but rather open a modern atlas on the Internet. Scroll through the economic news, evaluate the policy of the neighbors and the interests of the "partners" ...
    That's right, let the army and navy finish building Serdyukov’s cottage ...
    No. I do not understand such a statement of the question.
  • Uncle Murzik
    Uncle Murzik April 4 2016 07: 36
    +5
    the author of the article quotes the words of Alexander the Third, forgetting that in 1865 Tashkent was captured and Turkestan governor-general formed, the Khiva Khanate and the Emirate of Bukhara recognized vassal dependence!
  • geek2101
    geek2101 April 4 2016 07: 42
    +5
    We have already seen such as the author of the article, "geopoliticians" in the 90s - we still disentangle them.
    Isolationism and isolation are what our sworn overseas friends longed for from us.
  • MARSHAL BAGRAMYAN
    MARSHAL BAGRAMYAN April 4 2016 07: 59
    0
    because of people like the author, Russia may not have any allies, he’ll be in Karabakh. he will be Armenia and he will be Armenia. and you will have a great Turan from Turkey to Altai
    1. Vitwin
      Vitwin April 4 2016 08: 04
      +10
      Quote: MARSHAL BAGRAMYAN
      because of people like the author, Russia may not have any allies, he’ll be in Karabakh. he will be Armenia and he will be Armenia. and you will have a great Turan from Turkey to Altai

      Apocaleptic - I cry crying
      And you close your kebab in Russia to the Karabakh front,
      I’m personally familiar with Vagifoi and Karen and I don’t see a fundamental difference between them - both goons lol
      So the problems of the Indians - the sheriff do not care.
      1. MARSHAL BAGRAMYAN
        MARSHAL BAGRAMYAN April 4 2016 08: 19
        0
        they themselves cannot see the difference, and they don’t see it when they cut the gavavur and our guys in Karabakh will be shot like rams and I will help
        1. Vitwin
          Vitwin April 4 2016 08: 29
          +8
          Quote: MARSHAL BAGRAMYAN
          it will be necessary and I will help

          It’s necessary, it’s already the third day - he’s to wrinkle the sofa, go fight!
      2. xtur
        xtur April 4 2016 13: 34
        -1
        > close your barbecue in Russia and to the Karabakh front

        let's you will not teach the Armenians what to do, but they will not tell you where to go.

        barbecue in Moscow, even if it exists, will only allow you to support one family - 4-5 people. Is it really bad that another person can support his family?

        As a rule, in every Armenian family there are people who have been freed from the army, and there are people who serve in the army - but this is an internal national issue, they will not discuss with anyone from outside the people.

        Well, the fact that a person will seek the salvation of his family in the Moscow barbecue is a direct fault of the course towards building a market economy in Moscow, in Armenia + the national liberation war for Karabakh in 1991-1994. The price of liberation of Karabakh was in the destruction of the existing industry, which without light and gas could not survive for 3 years of the war

        Oddnym word, when there’s nothing to say, it’s better to be silent and listen to what those in the subject will say.
  • nivander
    nivander April 4 2016 08: 03
    0
    controversially, but like camera I.K. honestly earned
  • Chisayna
    Chisayna April 4 2016 08: 09
    +2
    I was in Turan, passing through. So the village itself.
    1. Vitwin
      Vitwin April 4 2016 08: 21
      0
      Quote: Chisain
      I was in Turan

      It was necessary to turn into the Great Turan)) There is not far - 10 km, but also so-so)))
    2. Vitwin
      Vitwin April 4 2016 08: 21
      0
      Quote: Chisain
      I was in Turan

      It was necessary to turn into the Great Turan)) There is not far - 10 km, but also so-so)))
      1. Chisayna
        Chisayna April 4 2016 12: 54
        0
        Like Turan, in the homeland of Shoigu is located. Such a small town. You would have taught geography.
  • Uncle Murzik
    Uncle Murzik April 4 2016 08: 13
    +1
    according to the liberals from TV, the presence of the army, navy, and aviation are also "weights on the legs" of Russia!
  • Old26
    Old26 April 4 2016 08: 32
    +6
    Quote: Uncle Murzik
    it turns out the author must pass the Donbass, Transnistria, Abkhazia, Ossetia, Syria
    , Kym, this is "weights on the legs" of Russia! Then the Kuriles Yapam because they are not economically profitable, then what?

    No, it doesn’t work. In principle, the author raised the right question. Do we need a CSTO and, if necessary, in what form. For according to the constituent documents there is a lot of controversial and not beneficial for Russia

    Quote: standing
    In Armenia, our radar, which is a link in missile defense and covers the entire south and southwest. This is a strategic object (like Crimea), and here it’s not up to politicians.

    And from this moment in more detail. What kind of missile defense station in Armenia and when it was installed there ...
    1. Uncle Murzik
      Uncle Murzik April 4 2016 08: 54
      -1
      Yerevan and Moscow agreed on the establishment of a Russian radar station in the mountains of Armenia in order to counter the American radar located at the NATO base in Incirlik in Turkey. You don’t succeed, but for the majority it’s clear! By the way, take an interest in the author of the article and everything will be replaced
  • Vasyav
    Vasyav April 4 2016 08: 51
    +1
    And if we disperse this treaty, those left without the patronage of the country will not want someone else's blanket? I think NATO will gladly take on the maintenance of such warm and close neighbors ...
    1. CONTROL
      CONTROL April 4 2016 13: 42
      +3
      Quote: Vasyav
      And if we disperse this treaty, those left without the patronage of the country will not want someone else's blanket? I think NATO will gladly take on the maintenance of such warm and close neighbors ...

      ... and give money ... and treat the cookies!
      When it comes to everyone: the West DOES NOT GIVE MONEY! He GIVES LOANS! That is - writes to the eternal slaves of the recipient of these loans! ...
      (by and large: credit is selling yourself!)
  • Nicola Bari
    Nicola Bari April 4 2016 08: 54
    +8
    Russia needs an alliance, "hiding in itself" has not helped anyone yet, another thing is that the author is right in another - how useful is the CSTO now for Russia? After all, it turns out that when the allies need something, so immediately: Russia must help us, and when Russia needs something, it starts: leave your imperial manners! Here, or remove the cross ...
    I hope that in this they will bring in some sort of order in which the dividends will be proportional to the contribution to the common cause.
  • Flinky
    Flinky April 4 2016 08: 55
    +3
    CSTO needs reform - a fact. The rest is ordinary kabardism.
  • Irbenwolf
    Irbenwolf April 4 2016 08: 58
    +1
    But then Russia claims world roles if the author proposes to break up the only military and, as a result, economic (EurAsEC) union?

    Rather, it is necessary to force economic emigrants to promote the interests of Russia on the territory of their native states, the benefit of this "good" in Russia is immeasurable. The money earned by migrant workers should not flow away from Russia, without benefit for Russia - let them turn the flywheel of political interests.
  • Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri April 4 2016 09: 06
    +4
    Hardly written - and true. The "plus" article, definitely.
  • Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 April 4 2016 09: 20
    +1
    Russia is no longer the protector of Christian peoples, does not carry the messianic idea

    The author echoes Western propaganda and does not understand the essence of what is happening.
    Moscow serves as the Third Rome. And Russia will exist only as long as it adheres to this policy ...
  • Kanatbek
    Kanatbek April 4 2016 09: 32
    .
    Hahaha ..! LAUGHED COMMENTS AND ARTICLES!
    And what expenses does Russia bear in Central Asia and the Caucasus?
    What are the numbers? !!!
    Please go away!
    A holy place is never empty!
    1. Irbenwolf
      Irbenwolf April 4 2016 09: 54
      +7
      What? Who else is ready to offer a "boob"?
      1. Kanatbek
        Kanatbek April 4 2016 13: 33
        -4
        And what, Russia gives Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan or Armenia or Azerbaijan a boobs?
        Where did you get such stupidity into your Bosko?
        Give the numbers
        1. Your friend
          Your friend April 4 2016 14: 26
          +7
          Quote: Kanatbek
          And what, Russia gives Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan or Armenia or Azerbaijan a boobs?
          Where did you get such stupidity into your Bosko?
          Give the numbers

          Kumys has drunk, are you our mocking? For Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation is the main trading partner. If we remove the export of Kazakhstan to the Russian Federation, then with Kazakhstan it will be the same as with Ukraine. If we remove the export from the Russian Federation to Kazakhstan, then there will be nothing, because the share of Kazakhstan in the total export of the Russian Federation is not large.
        2. Irbenwolf
          Irbenwolf April 4 2016 14: 28
          +1
          Trading
          http://www.ved.gov.ru/exportcountries/kz/kz_ru_relations/kz_ru_trade/
          Economy
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Экономика_Казахстана#.D0.AD.D0.

          BA.D1.81.D0.BF.D0.B
          E.D1.80.D1.82
          Emigration
          https://tengrinews.kz/kazakhstan_news/kazahstane-tret-naseleniya-gotova-emigriro

          vat-rossiyu-199633 /

          Import Export

          http://kazdata.kz/04/all-import-eksport-kazakhstan-2015.html
    2. xtur
      xtur April 4 2016 13: 42
      -4
      > What are the numbers? !!!
      > A holy place is never empty!

      By the way, everything speaks correctly, in vain minus him. Armenia is the only country in the world that has no debts to the Russian Federation at all - unlike any Cuba and Ukraine, we paid off our debts, and now we don’t have them

      In the economy of Armenia, the Russian Federation is not in the first place now. So I don’t know what the author of the article meant when talking about weights.
      In the context of the absence of Armenia’s debts to the Russian Federation and small investments in Armenia, weight can only be the author’s weak competence in the topic in which he got into
    3. KaPToC
      KaPToC April 4 2016 14: 02
      +4
      Sales markets, our close friend, sales markets, this is the most important resource. Does the example of Ukraine teach you anything? Do you want to personally rake through the rake?
  • Kanatbek
    Kanatbek April 4 2016 09: 36
    .
    Who feeds a lady in a restaurant, he dances her!
    But Russia does not invest anything in the development of allies put in quotation marks by commentators, and still wants to dance them!
    Go rashka, relax and do not threaten the status of a regional power!
    yo-oh, crap ...
    1. Victor-M
      Victor-M April 4 2016 09: 50
      +15
      Quote: Kanatbek
      Who feeds a lady in a restaurant, he dances her!
      But Russia does not invest anything in the development of allies put in quotation marks by commentators, and still wants to dance them!
      Go rashka, relax and do not threaten the status of a regional power!
      yo-oh, crap ...

      There would be someone to dance, and then you look you pick up something superfluous, "sovereign" you are ours. laughing
      Russia will stand up for itself, but you will be bent in any case, without a feeder in a "restaurant", and at best you will be fed waffles, only in a public push, and then bent over there. laughing
      1. Kanatbek
        Kanatbek April 4 2016 11: 19
        .
        There would be someone to dance, and then you look you pick up something superfluous, "sovereign" you are ours. laughing
        Russia will stand up for itself, but you will be bent in any case, without a feeder in a "restaurant", and at best you will be fed waffles, only in a public push, and then bent over there. laughing[/ Quote]
        There live Latvia, Moldova and a bunch of other countries! And they don’t have Resources!
        And we will manage without you with our resources! Do not worry!
      2. Kanatbek
        Kanatbek April 4 2016 11: 30
        -8
        There live Latvia, Moldova and a bunch of other countries! And they don’t have Resources!
        And we will manage without you with our resources! Do not worry!
        1. geek2101
          geek2101 April 4 2016 12: 44
          +6
          It is immediately clear that you were neither in Latvia, nor in Moldova, nor "in a bunch of other countries" ... Even today's sovereign Poland, in conditions when it actually closed the Russian market for itself, is becoming a depressive region by leaps and bounds.
        2. Uncle Murzik
          Uncle Murzik April 4 2016 13: 10
          +3
          you don’t even have the mind to see how Moldova lives, 114th place in terms of living standards, and 30% of the population working in Russia
    2. Uncle Murzik
      Uncle Murzik April 4 2016 10: 07
      +8
      Ukrainians also thought like you, they still dance! gee gee gee
  • Qyomur
    Qyomur April 4 2016 09: 58
    +4
    Quote: Vitwin
    It’s necessary, it’s already the third day - he’s to wrinkle the sofa, go fight!


    Dear Vitwin, I will inform you that at the moment most of the volunteers are deployed. Shortages in people are not observed. You can find confirmation in open sources and reports.

    As for your sarcasm about apocalypticism - any fantasy can become reality if you treat it with sarcasm. After all, in order to hide everything that is really important or is about to come true, it is easiest to ridicule. To tune people into disbelief and sarcasm means getting the opportunity to prepare with impunity. Yesterday everyone laughed at the idea of ​​the Great Turan, while in Syria the Turks support terrorism and shoot down the combat aircraft of their "partner" (Russia). How did it happen? Yes, everyone just laughed at ambitions and did not notice the growth of appetites.

    So no need to laugh at ambitious plans. After all, it may come to someone’s head (whether it is bad or not - that’s another matter) to begin to realize them.
    1. Vitwin
      Vitwin April 4 2016 10: 23
      +3
      Quote: Qyomur
      Dear Vitwin

      Well, okay, you have incentives and reasons on both sides, and to be honest with Russians, it’s exactly parallel and perpendicular to what’s happening there.
      You are an independent state and enjoy health.
      And the crazy ideas of the great Turan, pan-Turkism, pan-Mongolism are the destiny of a few narrow-minded marginals and are not viable by definition.
      1. Tigran2
        Tigran2 April 4 2016 10: 28
        +2
        “Okay, on both sides you have incentives and reasons, and to be honest with Russians, it’s exactly parallel and perpendicular to what’s happening there.”
        It would be “parallel and perpendicular”, would not read or comment.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Vitwin
          Vitwin April 4 2016 10: 52
          +1
          Quote: Tigran2
          It would be “parallel and perpendicular”, would not read or comment.

          The question implies an answer, not a dumb minus to the non-detrimental information. Petrosyan?
      2. Qyomur
        Qyomur April 4 2016 10: 38
        +7
        For some reason, I’m sure that you are taking excessive responsibility, declaring indifference on behalf of the Russians. Judging by the articles and comments of VO, people are definitely not parallel, and even less perpendicular. Not everyone is as shortsighted as you. Very many people understand the seriousness of the situation and what threatens to aggravate the situation.

        Regarding the destiny of the marginal outcasts - in the 90s all the countries of the former USSR were convinced that good in the world was associated with the USA, that it was the USA that could give people true values. What do we have today ?!

        Believe me, dear, the slightest weakening of positions in geopolitics will make today's science fiction a reality of the foreseeable future. And the shortsightedness and ridicule of other people's ambitions, as I said, will simply contribute to the realization of the most fantastic plans.
  • varov14
    varov14 April 4 2016 10: 36
    +3
    Now the CSTO is an ordinary PR of ours. You can do nothing, Borders to the side, migration flows are a free slave force for our slave owners and a constraining factor for the Russian population, plus an infusion of dough into the bottomless pocket of local slave owners. Avot indeed the Russian world in the person of the Ukrainian people, not far off and the Belarusian stupidly dragged through, and maybe specially lowered into the toilet in the expectation of the subsequent collapse of us, Russia.
  • Neko75
    Neko75 April 4 2016 10: 43
    +5
    Everything is written correctly! "do not do good - you will not get evil." As it was in the first Karabakh conflict. You can't be good for everyone and you don't need to go where there are no national interests.
  • Kanatbek
    Kanatbek April 4 2016 11: 21
    .
    Quote: Uncle Murzik
    Kanatbek

    Ukrainians wanted to get rid of annoying corruption governments and live in civilized Europe!
    But Raska interferes with might and main!
    1. Uncle Murzik
      Uncle Murzik April 4 2016 13: 12
      +5
      Well, as always, something always disturbs a bad dancer! gee gee gee
  • le-s-ha
    le-s-ha April 4 2016 11: 23
    +4
    The CSTO allows Russia to legally intervene in a conflict on the territory of countries included in the treaty if the interests of the Russian Federation are affected. It is difficult to imagine a situation when someone attacks the Russian Federation and it may require help from states whose total military-economic potential cannot be compared with the capabilities of the Russian Federation. I’m already silent about nuclear weapons as a means of deterring any direct military aggression, and Russia is not bad at all and with one threat
  • cdznjckfd
    cdznjckfd April 4 2016 12: 07
    +1
    If a country wants respect and recognition, it is necessary to fulfill its obligations in accordance with the concluded agreements, and then you can think about reforms.
  • Tigran2
    Tigran2 April 4 2016 12: 26
    -1
    Quote: Vitwin
    Quote: Tigran2
    It would be “parallel and perpendicular”, would not read or comment.

    The question implies an answer, not a dumb minus to the non-detrimental information. Petrosyan?

    The fact is stated! Not parallel and not perpendicular. Obviously something went wrong as I wanted, and I even know what.
  • vvp2412
    vvp2412 April 4 2016 12: 58
    +2
    I don’t think that Putin is dumber than a paravoz, and he doesn’t realize that all these “allies” are freeloaders.
    In my opinion, the meaning of this "union" is to keep a possible threat on the borders of these countries, to prevent them from reaching our borders.
    I am sure that they won’t get involved in conflicts like the NKR, unless a precedent is created, as in South Ossetia, when our peacekeepers were pushed .....
  • Kenneth
    Kenneth April 4 2016 13: 06
    +2
    Alliance - implies a community of interests - political, economic, military. What are our common interests with Armenia or Azerbaijan?
    1. Kanatbek
      Kanatbek April 4 2016 13: 25
      .
      Quote: Kenneth
      Alliance - implies a community of interests - political, economic, military. What are our common interests with Armenia or Azerbaijan?

      Well, Russia’s interest here is to vent Armenia and Azerbaijan as much as possible so that they don’t build an oil pipeline and a gas pipeline bypassing Russia!
      Do not you understand?
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC April 4 2016 14: 19
        +4
        Build an oil pipeline through your brains.
        1. Your friend
          Your friend April 4 2016 14: 28
          +4
          Quote: KaPToC
          Build an oil pipeline through your brains.

          It is useless, there is only a kumyseprovod.
    2. Docent1984
      Docent1984 April 4 2016 14: 00
      +1
      Customs Union wink
  • South Kazakh
    South Kazakh April 4 2016 13: 29
    +8
    In my opinion, the author of the article wanted to say the following:
    Russians (more than 100 nationalities) - destroy everything somehow and without exception! Ato 140 million rounds of ammunition for all of you may not be enough, and catching you all in Siberia is a troublesome business ....
    There is CSTO; no CSTO of Russia will still need to intervene in warfare around the perimeter of borders. This is a question of its survival as a single state and Russian as a nation.
    and for those who live with the motto * Russian ж я й себе себе * * * * * * I will say, some time after leaving you will receive either ISIS in your home or the Xinjian-Kazakh Autonomous Region of the PRC. On the other hand, the Nazis and the third Turkish Sultanate of Azerbaijan.

    article minus!
    I advise you not to listen to fools or paid liberals.
  • Docent1984
    Docent1984 April 4 2016 13: 59
    +1
    The question is how to behave in Russia if Uzbekistan logically responds with military force to the invasion, and the "allies" turn to Russia for military assistance? At the same time, they will hypocritically claim that the insidious enemy attacked them on their own land, without specifying that the clash occurred on the territory, which the subject only considers to be his own for some reason.


    That is, the referendum on the declaration of independence, held in accordance with the norms, is absolutely "clean" from a legal point of view - is it "from some own considerations"? Gorgeous logic) The sent Cossack wrote this article. And frankly lying under the "yusa" Uzbekistan bowed out, and unobtrusively stuck a horror story about Iran (
    either go to bow to the same Iran
    ), and about the Customs Union, on the territory of which, for a minute, technical regulations are in place, developed mainly in Russia, I somehow completely forgot (
    At the same time, no one could so clearly and answer what critical interests the Russian Federation has in Armenia, that we need to take such difficulties and risks.
    ) And it seems that a comrade is taking care of Mother Russia, and the liberal stubble is climbing, whatever one may say) This is a top-level troll that works qualitatively.
  • alicante11
    alicante11 April 4 2016 14: 14
    0
    Kabardin’s main mistake is that he does not consider the former Soviet republics to be connected with Russia. Whereas in relations between us only one thing has changed. If before they were part of Russia, now they have become a zone of exclusive interests of Russia. a kind of foreground on which it is convenient to meet the enemy. And only in this role are they interesting to us.
  • dchegrinec
    dchegrinec April 4 2016 14: 26
    -1
    Any alliances or agreements are created so that there is a common theme or idea. When there is a topic, there is a dialogue. And dialogue is a way and an opportunity for persuasion. When there is nothing and everyone on its own, this creates a threat of fragmentation, and then misunderstanding and hatred. Everyone to himself is a dead-end direction. Therefore, it is better to be friends with neighbors, even by the ears, than to be silent. Although, of course, this is not a panacea. In the case of Azerbaijan, somewhere we missed something, since they are in the arms of others. Well, we get "hello".
  • Odysseus
    Odysseus April 4 2016 14: 29
    0
    A standard article by the enemy of Russia: the point is simple, to hand over everyone, leave from everywhere, dissolve all unions, break treaties.
    The consequences of this "wisdom" are obvious - the US and China will come to the vacated space (which, of course, do not leave anywhere, but on the contrary seek to expand their zone of influence). That territory that falls under the influence of the United States will become a zone of chaos (as has already happened with Ukraine) and / or Islamists will fill Central Asia, Transcaucasia will turn into a boiling cauldron, American bases will be set up along all Russia's borders.
    Further, the arson itself is Russia itself and its collapse (and Russia is actually the same multinational Soviet Union with national republics only smaller). Actually, I think that the collapse of Russia is the main goal of the author, guided by which he writes similar articles.
    1. Your friend
      Your friend April 4 2016 16: 03
      -2
      Quote: Odyssey
      A standard article by the enemy of Russia: the point is simple, to hand over everyone, leave from everywhere, dissolve all unions, break treaties.
      The consequences of this "wisdom" are obvious - the US and China will come to the vacated space (which, of course, do not leave anywhere, but on the contrary seek to expand their zone of influence). That territory that falls under the influence of the United States will become a zone of chaos (as has already happened with Ukraine) and / or Islamists will fill Central Asia, Transcaucasia will turn into a boiling cauldron, American bases will be set up along all Russia's borders.
      Further, the arson itself is Russia itself and its collapse (and Russia is actually the same multinational Soviet Union with national republics only smaller). Actually, I think that the collapse of Russia is the main goal of the author, guided by which he writes similar articles.

      Blah blah blah. Small-town political analysts deliver.
      NATO bases and so are around Russia.
      In the 90s, the Russian Federation had no influence on anyone, no one fell apart.
      Islamists are full everywhere, including in Russia.
      If the United States wanted the collapse of the Russian Federation, then no one would have bothered them in the 90s.
      If you are such a patriot, a guardian of the greatness of Russia, then a machine gun in the teeth and forward to Syria, Donbass, NKR, Tajikistan. There are plenty of places where you can prove to "expand the zone of influence".)))
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus April 4 2016 17: 55
        0
        Quote: Your friend
        Blah blah blah. Small-town political analysts deliver.

        Powerfully, intellect and culture are immediately felt))) Before us is certainly a great political "expert".
        Quote: Your friend
        NATO bases and so are around Russia

        So they are approaching the borders of Russia because of the policy of surrendering everything and leaving everywhere. If you follow this logic, they will soon appear in Belarus and Kazakhstan. And notice something, NATO is in no hurry to fall apart, not in a hurry to leave nowhere. As this is not done by more than one sane country (or union of countries) in the world.
        Quote: Your friend
        In the 90s, the Russian Federation had no influence on anyone, no one fell apart.

        You are wrong, Russia's influence on the post-Soviet space is constantly weakening, in 92 no one said that the Baltics would join NATO, and it was impossible to imagine a "Maidan victory" in Ukraine. In short, the United States, taking advantage of the weakening of Russia, is gradually pushing it out of its last zone influence (plus the PRC is doing the same in Central Asia, and Turkey in Azerbaijan). And then, what does it mean that no one fell apart? Who was supposed to fall apart in the 90s?
        Quote: Your friend
        Islamists are full everywhere, including in Russia

        Indeed, there are many, and it is becoming more and more due to the insane socio-economic policy of the Russian authorities. But these are still flowers. If, following the author’s logic, we leave Central Asia, it will turn into an analogue of Syria-Afghanistan. How are you going to keep the border with Kazakhstan? And this is only a problem in one of the areas.
        Quote: Your friend
        If the United States wanted the collapse of the Russian Federation, then no one would have prevented them in the 90s

        Do not know the history of the collapse of the USSR. The post-Soviet nomenclature was not going to ruin the Russian Federation and there was no decree for the United States. Although the United States really didn’t insist on that in the early 90s, they needed to digest Eastern Europe, and the collapse of the country, stuffed with nuclear weapons and military equipment, threatened unthinkable adventures. But separatism They actively supported Chechnya. Now they are just finishing to deal with the post-Soviet space (and you want to help them actively), and then Russia itself. They will start from the Caucasus. And such authors of articles will start writing, stop feeding the Caucasus, why do we need these chocks ,etc.
        1. Your friend
          Your friend April 4 2016 20: 20
          0
          I say - top analytics.)))
          Quote: Odyssey
          The post-Soviet nomenclature was not going to ruin the Russian Federation and there was no decree for any USA. Although the USA really did not insist on this in the early 90s.

          Quote: Odyssey
          But they already actively supported the separatism of Chechnya.

          Top level 99 analytics.)))
          1. Odysseus
            Odysseus April 4 2016 21: 19
            +1
            Quote: Your friend
            Top level 99 analytics.)))

            Take it above the 999th. Judging by the comments, you’re a very young and naive young man (if you offended, sorry, but this is the impression), you don’t remember those times. I’ll briefly explain.
            The USSR formally collapsed in 1991, but in fact in 1989 (with the abolition of Article 6). 1989 to 1991 was a time of fierce struggle between two groups of the Soviet nomenklatura - Gorbachev and Yeltsin. From 1985 to 1989, the USA actively supported "perestroika", sided with Yeltsin. The difference between them was that Gorbachev was for a "renewed USSR" with himself at the head , and Yeltsin for complete dismantling, with him at the head of the RSFSR. An American, of course, Yeltsin was profitable, they supported him. Then the question of the collapse of the Russian Federation did not stand at all.
            From 1991 to 1993, there was a time of struggle between "radical reformers", that is, Yeltsin's grouping with the Supreme Soviet (Soviet power). The Americans then also supported Yeltsin and did not make any inclinations towards the collapse of the Russian Federation.
            But after the coup of 1993 (the shooting of the Supreme Soviet), Yeltsin concentrated all power in himself, and “communism” was done away with. And the United States proceeded to the next stage - gradual work on the disintegration of the Russian Federation, but work in velvet gloves, while the main attention it was still focused on Eastern Europe (Yugoslavia, etc.).
            So they have already supported the "Chechen freedom fighters", both in the propaganda plan and through their people in the Russian Federation.
            PS The Chechen war began in 1994, in 1993 Dudayev was a great "democrat" and supported Yeltsin.
      2. Odysseus
        Odysseus April 4 2016 17: 57
        +1
        Quote: Your friend
        If you are such a patriot, a guardian of the greatness of Russia, then a machine gun in the teeth and forward to Syria, Donbass, NKR, Tajikistan. There are plenty of places where you can prove to "expand the zone of influence".)))

        Actually, this is called a transition to personalities and means the complete absence of any arguments. But in this case, too, you missed, I just did it, now they won’t take it by age, and the family won’t let it go. But, the saddest thing is, if people like you win, you’ll have to fight on your land and at any age. I only doubt that you will defend Russia.
        Surely write, ahahahaha, let those who need it, the Caucasus or Siberia themselves go there)))
        PS In general, you can bring invaluable benefits to the Motherland, you need to be sent to the United States and nominated to the position of a leading political analyst. And there you will start writing articles and comments in the style, why do we need all these military bases and zones of influence? Disband NATO, withdraw all the military, you need to think about your people. Canada is not a "brother", but a foreign state, the Russians want to build military bases in Canada, let them put it. If you succeed, I will personally apply for the title of Hero of Russia.
        1. Your friend
          Your friend April 4 2016 20: 34
          -1
          Quote: Odyssey
          Actually, this is called a transition to personalities and means the complete absence of any arguments. But in this case, too, you missed, I just did it, now they won’t take it by age, and the family won’t let it go. But, the saddest thing is, if people like you win, you’ll have to fight on your land and at any age. I only doubt that you will defend Russia.
          Surely write, ahahahaha, let those who need it, the Caucasus or Siberia themselves go there)))
          PS In general, you can bring invaluable benefits to the Motherland, you need to be sent to the United States and nominated to the position of a leading political analyst. And there you will start writing articles and comments in the style, why do we need all these military bases and zones of influence? Disband NATO, withdraw all the military, you need to think about your people. Canada is not a "brother", but a foreign state, the Russians want to build military bases in Canada, let them put it. If you succeed, I will personally apply for the title of Hero of Russia.

          Hahahahaha ... I’m saying a top analyst. What fairy tales are telling.)))
          It would be nice if people like me won:
          - then they will not give loans of billions of dollars to Russophobic regimes (as the Yanukovych regime of 3 billion dollars, which initiated the association of Ukraine and the EU);
          - then the Russian Federation would not be friends with such shny "fraternal" regimes as the regimes in Turkey, Bulgaria, Iran - and then it would not receive juicy spits from them;
          - then the fraternal peoples would not use Russia and would not supply lobsters and crabs grown in the oceans of the "fraternal" western country;
          - then in your "zones of influence" of Russia, there would be no meetings of "Armenia-NATO" councils, joint NATO-Kazakhstan exercises;
          - then, etc. etc.
          And your zone of influence is a mirage in the brains of frozen patriots, all of these bases are an anchor that local princes grasp at when their power begins to stagger.
          1. Odysseus
            Odysseus April 4 2016 21: 35
            0
            Quote: Your friend
            - then they will not give loans of billions of dollars to Russophobic regimes (as the Yanukovych regime of 3 billion dollars, which initiated the association of Ukraine and the EU);
            - then the Russian Federation would not be friends with such shny "fraternal" regimes as the regimes in Turkey, Bulgaria, Iran - and then it would not receive juicy spits from them;
            - then the fraternal peoples would not use Russia and would not supply lobsters and crabs grown in the oceans of the "fraternal" western country;
            - then in your "zones of influence" of Russia, there would be no meetings of "Armenia-NATO" councils, joint NATO-Kazakhstan exercises;

            Stop, dear, your friend, and where did I say something about "brotherly countries" or that loans to the Russophobic Yanukovych are good?
            Everything is strictly opposite. There are no "brotherly peoples". Loans to Yanukovych are bad.
            It was possible to speak about fraternal peoples only under socialism (and even then with great pressure). Now capitalism, what kind of "fraternal regimes"?
            The policy of the Russian Federation in the post-Soviet space is very bad because we do not put our people there, we do not fight for the information space, but we give money to incomprehensibly whom and we receive spits in our address.
            Hence, what is the conclusion, we must fight harder and smarter, put our people in, not allow what happened in Ukraine.
            But the author of the article makes the opposite conclusion - we must not interfere in anything, and leave everywhere, breaking all the agreements. Will this improve the situation?
            And with the fact that you need to think about your interests, I completely agree.
            PS As for Bulgaria, Turkey, etc., I don’t live to be fat. We are weak even in the post-Soviet space, so we need to build relations with them only for reasons of economic profit.
  • cyber
    cyber April 4 2016 16: 16
    +1
    In support of the version that the CSTO is Russia, protecting the remaining members of this union: Belarus urgently approved its new military doctrine (most likely such a speed due to events in the NKAR) in which it is written in black and white that the Republic of Belarus cannot be used abroad . Thank you RB for honesty and honesty! And then here in the comments spears broke whether Belarus is ready to intercede for Russia laughing
    1. Your friend
      Your friend April 4 2016 16: 24
      0
      Quote: cyber
      In support of the version that the CSTO is Russia, protecting the remaining members of this union: Belarus urgently approved its new military doctrine (most likely such a speed due to events in the NKAR) in which it is written in black and white that the Republic of Belarus cannot be used abroad . Thank you RB for honesty and honesty! And then here in the comments spears broke whether Belarus is ready to intercede for Russia laughing

      Why, you, local lovers of fraternal peoples, all Belarusians, as soon as they see the NATO Abrams, must immediately dig trenches and dig up grandfather’s maxims in order to become an impenetrable barrier to American militarism. But the Belarusians themselves are embarrassed to ask about this.)))
      1. Uncle Murzik
        Uncle Murzik April 5 2016 14: 24
        0
        there are no reasons other than liberal nonsense! Today (and for 2015 too) the Pentagon has a total of 625 bases in the United States, the total number of military installations is 3,7 thousand. There are 860 bases abroad, most of all in Germany (305), Japan (158) and South Korea!
  • Calter
    Calter April 4 2016 18: 46
    +1
    On the topic of discussion in comments.
    We need a competent lending policy. At least the satellite countries. It is not a sin to learn from the United States, too: they don’t forgive anyone for their pretty eyes. The little fish that just swallowed a tasty credit "bait" is being consistently broken: if there is loyalty, there will be restructuring, and whoever starts to twitch will receive a default. And this is not meanness and abuse, this is a NORMAL worldwide practice. Before the First World War, even when all countries were preparing for war in full swing, France injected ASTRONOMIC sums for those times into Russia ... Precisely so that it did not turn into the German "rear" (and the probability of this was very high, because Russian tsars were in close relationship with the Kaiser, while in France there were almost no blue bloods left). Debt cancellation - only for real political dividends. And if the country is credited for 100-150% of GDP, then "partners", before flirting with it, will know that this debt will have to be paid out of their own pockets. It is important to have competent legal registration of ALL such transactions.
    Everything is trivial in Karabakh too: it is necessary to firmly condemn the aggression of Azerbaijan (because only a fool does not understand that Armenia could not start this war), remind the world of the CSTO and defiantly concentrate its forces on the border with Azerbaijan (in case of attacks on Russian bases and breakthrough in the territory of Armenia, so as not to chew the snot for 3 days, as in 2008). I assure you, de-escalation will follow immediately.
    The dissolution of the CSTO (or its "reduction"), by the way, is a good lever of influence on Armenia. Without the help of Russia, Armenia will be devoured by the Azeri together with Turkey, and this fact will cool the head of any "advocates of nezalezhnost" in it. Having built such a consistent policy, you see, we could revive the integration processes. And then in Ukraine the account is $ 230 billion for $ 5 billion, and the races for 2 years are already, and the end is not yet in sight.
  • Dal arya
    Dal arya April 4 2016 19: 22
    +1
    We must either create an analogue of NATO, with the subordination of all the armies of the participating countries to a single command, or move away from everywhere. These 25-year-old flirting with the Limitrophs are of no use.
    Directly ask everyone - If NATO attacks Russia, you are with us or not. Yes, well. No, let it go to China or the EU.
  • avia12005
    avia12005 April 4 2016 19: 42
    +1
    Everything is very stupid and at the same time simple: Russia, where there are Russians. Not by the nation, but by the spirit. As in 41. In this case, the CSTO, Putin and the Kremlin are only an external wrapper. Will there be war? So what? How many were there? Are we afraid7 The main thing is that the families were intact, and then we'll see.
  • Buffet
    Buffet April 4 2016 21: 41
    0
    I would definitely like to see how our "wise" government acted tougher in the international arena. And of course, you don't want to disentangle more than 100 years of conflict, but you need to. You just need to put everyone at the negotiating table and issue ultimatums. And create a DMZ with a peacekeeping contingent. And everything will suit everyone.