Military Review

Respond to challenges

46
Moscow’s military machine has not yet achieved “global superiority,” foreign experts say. On the other hand, “representatives of the Pentagon” are constantly aggravating the situation, speaking of the “threat” of Russia, which is increasing its military potential. The Pentagon recognizes the modernization of the Russian Armed Forces as a threat to US national security and states that it is necessary to respond to the challenges.


Respond to challenges


About turning Russia "into a powerful military power" and "a serious threat to the United States," said Dan Gur (Dan Goure) in a magazine "The National Interest".

“Fortunately,” the author writes with irony, “Russian soldiers are not yet ten-foot giants.” Yes, no one says that they are.

However, some unnamed "high-ranking Pentagon officials" often express concern about the accelerated modernization of the Russian armed forces. Many take seriously the growing threats to US national security and the security of American allies.

The military modernization of Russia and the challenge that it throws the United States has been publicly recognized by the US military at the highest level - the Department of Defense. Explaining the need for a deterrent strategy, Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Wark explained that one of the motivations was the need to respond to the challenges posed by the Russian military machine. Russia's naval and air forces are modernizing at an unprecedented pace.

The United States is losing technological advantage over China and Russia in the air and at sea, in the areas of electronic warfare, space means, communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

General Joseph Dunford once declared that Russia is the number one military threat to the United States. Recently, in March 2016, he went even further, noting that "the Russian military poses the greatest range of threats to US interests." According to him, despite the decline in population and the economic downturn, Russia has made significant investments in military capabilities, namely in systems for launching new intercontinental ballistic missiles, aircraft, nuclear submarines, Tanks and air defense systems. Demonstration of modern weapons "took place" recently in Syria.

The new chief of staff of the ground forces, General Mark Milli, made similar statements.

Obviously, General of the Air Force Philip Breedlove (now former), commander of the combined US forces in Europe, spoke on this topic. According to him, Russia continues long-term military efforts to modernize, and its actions in Ukraine and Syria demonstrate an increase in the projection of force and combat capabilities to remote areas.

No, the Russian military has not yet grown to ten feet, the author notes. But they have grown to five feet and ten inches and continue to grow!

The “leap” in growth that has occurred since the “almost unsuccessful” operation against Georgia in 2008 is “impressive”. The Russian Ministry of Defense regularly demonstrates its new capabilities, conducts large-scale military exercises, in which tens of thousands of soldiers participate. “In actions against Crimea and Ukraine, Russian forces have so far demonstrated an underestimated ability to coordinate tank, artillery and aviation parts along with highly successful electronic warfare, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles and long-range artillery ... ”- the analyst points out. The Russians have already reached the point that they do not reject the preventive use of nuclear weapons.

The National Commission for the Development of the Armed Forces of the United States concluded that the Russian military doctrine and the threatening potential of the Russian army imply the need for appropriate capabilities for the US Army as an element of the combined forces of NATO or other multinational military structures.

Statements about the "threat", constantly distributed from American officials, lead to an increase in diplomatic tensions. 12 May Russia and the United States exchanged claims on the European missile defense issue against the background of the deployment of system elements in Eastern Europe.

In the Kremlin and the Russian Foreign Ministry, notes RIA News", said that the actions of the United States and its NATO allies pose a threat to Russia's national security and could undermine strategic stability in the region.

“We have previously made it clear that the deployment of Aegis systems in Romania and Poland is in full compliance with the Treaty on Medium and Short Range Missiles (INF). The purpose of the deployment of the anti-missile system is to ensure the full protection of NATO partners in Europe from the growing missile threat, "said RIA"News»William Stephens, spokesman for the US Embassy in Moscow.

US Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Wark said that the US missile defense system in Europe will not be used against any potential missile threat from Russia.

In response, the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to NATO, Alexander Grushko, said that "declarative assurances" about the non-directional missile defense of the United States and NATO against Moscow "cannot be convinced".

He stressed that the deployment of missile defense facilities in Romania and Poland is a manifestation of NATO’s overall activity in the eastern direction, “as a result of which the military infrastructure is approaching the Russian borders.”

16 may become aware of something else on the subject of European missile defense and the likely Russian response.

Moscow and Minsk have agreed to develop joint response measures for deploying US missile defense elements in Europe. This was stated by the Belarusian Foreign Minister Vladimir Makei after talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

"We agreed that together we will develop appropriate and appropriate response measures", - quotes him Interfax.

According to Makei, Minsk and Moscow share concerns about the US missile defense system in Europe.

Thus, the "threatening potential of the Russian army," which is described by American analysts, is in fact the threatening potential of the American army, and acting in tandem with the "allies," that is, NATO states. All this leads to the response of the “five-foot” Russian military.

Observed and commented on Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
46 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 27 May 2016 06: 39
    +17
    “Fortunately,” the author writes with irony, “Russian soldiers are not ten-foot giants so far”
    So what? our any "chonkin" is much more expensive than your "Siegfrieds" ... remember: there is also one soldier in the field, if he is tailored in Russian.
    1. siberalt
      siberalt 27 May 2016 07: 18
      +9
      Did this American analyst read about the Russian troops outside Ukraine to Ukraine on the Internet, or did psaki tell him about it? laughing
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 27 May 2016 10: 37
        +2
        Quote: siberalt
        Did this American analyst read about the Russian troops outside Ukraine to Ukraine on the Internet, or did psaki tell him about it? laughing

        Yes, they tell each other's fairy tales there and they themselves believe in them. "Iron" proofs on any topic will always be found on Facebook and YouTube! wassat
      2. mihasik
        mihasik 27 May 2016 10: 43
        -8
        Quote: siberalt
        Did this American analyst read about the Russian troops outside Ukraine to Ukraine on the Internet, or did psaki tell him about it? laughing

        No.
        Putin, when he changed Savchenko to Yevgeny Erofeev and Alexander Alexandrov, thereby indirectly admitting the accusations of the dill about the GRU specialists. It follows from all this: Our troops are there, and all the hysteria of the West over the invasion of Russian troops into Ukraine, was confirmed by Putin himself. This means: - "Russia is a party to the conflict. Withdraw troops and fulfill the Minsk agreements!" Further on the list: "Moscow is the aggressor! The West and Ukraine are holy lambs who warned and told the" truth "about evil Russia."
        Now I understand what this pardon is?
        1. Siberian 1975
          Siberian 1975 27 May 2016 23: 02
          +2
          If our troops were there, then the loss of dill would be terrible, the LDNR army would be in Lviv. And the fact that there are our instructors, etc., so what's wrong with that? In Georgia, the Americans participated in the offensive on Yu.O. and in Ukraine they are, so what? This is a fact, another thing is how it is presented by the media.
    2. Mitek
      Mitek 27 May 2016 07: 37
      +6
      Quote: Andrew Y.
      “Fortunately,” the author writes with irony, “Russian soldiers are not ten-foot giants so far”
      So what? our any "chonkin" is much more expensive than your "Siegfrieds" ... remember: there is also one soldier in the field, if he is tailored in Russian.
    3. Ivan Ivanych
      Ivan Ivanych 27 May 2016 16: 02
      0
      Cherkney is not a good example
  2. Bureaucrat
    Bureaucrat 27 May 2016 06: 42
    +2
    The article is interesting, informative, but I still do not understand the main idea, what about? A new weapon is being supplied, what else is up to do then?
    1. MARGADON
      MARGADON 27 May 2016 08: 07
      +6
      An article about Americans shrinking into thongs laughing
    2. vorobey
      vorobey 27 May 2016 08: 16
      +9
      Quote: Bureaucrat
      The article is interesting, informative, but I still do not understand the main idea, what about? A new weapon is being supplied, what else is up to do then?


      Knowing the author, he simply jokes over the statements of the Americans ... (a five-foot army, but we are already scared and worried) ... Oleg simply simply explains the whole nonsense of far-fetched pretexts about the threat of Russia and, accordingly, the expansion of the Alliance as a countermeasure .. and accordingly - the mustache is gone - give money to Congress. you saw the Pentagon’s budget for 16
      1. Orionvit
        Orionvit 28 May 2016 22: 31
        0
        Countries such as the United States simply cannot exist without enemies, or at least without its image. The image of the enemy distracts attention from internal problems (which are not a fig), and on occasion, anything can be pushed onto the enemy. This says only one thing, that not everything is good "in the Danish kingdom", sorry in the outpost of democracy. And they are still trying to teach us how to live.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Stas157
      Stas157 27 May 2016 08: 34
      +6
      Quote: Bureaucrat
      what else to do then?

      The United States has defense spending, so 10 times more than ours, they probably still want to increase it! One, ten! Ah, nothing more! Russians cannot be defeated.
      1. Allitet
        Allitet 27 May 2016 12: 46
        +3
        "All this damn army will go to feed the worms!" - Mark Antony.
    5. dorz
      dorz 27 May 2016 09: 24
      +3
      Quote: Bureaucrat
      The article is interesting, informative, but I still do not understand the main idea, what about? A new weapon is being supplied, what else is up to do then?

      After all, it is necessary to justify the military budget of $ 700 billion. For such money, you can protect yourself from aliens.
  3. Tatar 174
    Tatar 174 27 May 2016 06: 42
    +9
    The military machine of Moscow has not yet reached "global superiority", foreign experts say.

    She will not achieve "global superiority" because there is no need. And this pretext will always exist as long as there is an arms business in the world, which needs to have a justification for its development. We do not need to be particularly zealous for the "mass riveting" of weapons, but it is necessary to have mainly nuclear deterrent and means of their rapid delivery to any point of the planet or into orbit, and a moderately sufficient number of other forces to respond to local threats. It is also necessary, from time to time, to demonstrate to everyone the capabilities of our weapons, so that no one is tempted to test us for strength. The USSR was drowning in the arms race, now it's NATO's turn.
  4. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 27 May 2016 06: 46
    +7
    We are peaceful people, but our armored train
    Standing on the siding!
    These are the realities now and there is no need to shag grandma!
  5. Alexander 3
    Alexander 3 27 May 2016 06: 48
    +12
    In Russia, it has become prestigious to serve in the Soviet Union. They began to select those who deserve the title of defender of the homeland, and the pederasts do not serve in our army.
    1. Yak28
      Yak28 27 May 2016 07: 18
      -8
      I believe that the lack of human resources in the event of a major war is the weakest point of our army, unlike NATO or just the USA, we will not be able to make up for human losses as long as they are. Plus, I vaguely believe in a bunch of volunteers, especially from wealthy families , or families of non-Russian nationality. No. So in case of war, the soldiers will catch the police at the entrances and shove them from under the stick. There are now, of course, the soldiers and professionals of the current government who will go to fight with joy, but for a global war this is a drop in the bucket
      1. alex-cn
        alex-cn 27 May 2016 07: 34
        +5
        Do you think it will be different for "them"? Most likely even worse, and significantly. In fact, according to what I know and hear from friends, most people will go to fight, although no one wants to go to war.
        1. Skubudu
          Skubudu 27 May 2016 09: 45
          -1
          For US citizenship, many will rush to fight ... they have a mobilization reserve much more significant than ours.
          But in any case, they are not realistic to defeat us on our continent, just as we cannot defeat them on their continent.
      2. Ross
        Ross 27 May 2016 08: 24
        +11
        If you served in our army, then you should know what a mobilization plan, mobilization, mobilization reserve is. I received a summons from the military registration and enlistment office, if you are still on military registration in the reserve, be kind, in order, evaded - a deserter, with all the ensuing consequences in wartime. Actually, war is a matter of life or death for us, for them it is a matter of conquering. The motivation is different. In a global war, there is no question of protecting power; the question is of protecting our homeland. And the question of our internal power, we will somehow solve.
        1. ars_pro
          ars_pro 28 May 2016 01: 10
          0
          By the way, it’s almost even verbatim, the reservists in Ukraine say, and the motivation is different, well, probably you should understand that you should not explicitly compare the incomparable)
      3. Alexey-74
        Alexey-74 27 May 2016 08: 30
        +7
        In vain do you think that in the USA and the European Union they are eager to fight .... in Europe it will be known to you that you don’t consider the global war at all as it used to be ... the states, with all the desire, will not transfer their human potential across the ocean ... and in the classic version of the battle of civilizations as in World War 1, World War 2 will no longer be ... Russia, on the contrary, has not lost the bellicose feeling that has always distinguished us from other nations. And miserable little people, cowards and traitors have always had enough of all in abundance .... hi
      4. far
        far 27 May 2016 10: 20
        +11
        And you tell the militia in the Donbass about this - maybe the police also caught them at the porches? And that in the first Chechnya about 20 sons of generals died, although they had everything - they could not have gone the army, and even from the hot spot they would have been easily dismissed. It just all depends on the person and his upbringing - if you did not prepare your children for the defense of the homeland, then only you are to blame.
      5. Ivan Ivanych
        Ivan Ivanych 27 May 2016 16: 09
        +1
        The goal of military reform is to create an effective army in all respects capable of fighting not by numbers but by skill. A stick to shove it does not apply to military affairs)
  6. Dionis2019
    Dionis2019 27 May 2016 06: 49
    +3
    Oh, this cruel "Russian occupant", ah-ya-yay ....)))
  7. Nix1986
    Nix1986 27 May 2016 06: 58
    +6
    If there were no Russians, then there would be Chinese, Indians, etc. The Pentagon always needs a more terrible enemy, and if it is not there, then it needs to be invented, giant budgets need to be justified somehow.
    1. Kirill750
      Kirill750 27 May 2016 08: 36
      +2
      justify and master accurately Although they can master
  8. gla172
    gla172 27 May 2016 07: 13
    +3
    "" "" "Fortunately," the author writes with irony, "Russian soldiers are not yet ten-foot giants." And nobody says that they are like that. "" ""

    That's why our soldier has Conscience, Honor and Motherland (which "some" do not have) ...
  9. Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 27 May 2016 07: 31
    +1
    Explaining the need for a deterrent strategy, Under Secretary of Defense Robert Work explained that one of the incentives was the need to respond to the challenges associated with the Russian military machine. Russian naval and air forces modernize at an unprecedented pace
    Again wrong vector is asking! am
    With its jabbering about the "Russian threat" and about "multi-foot giants", the United States is mobilizing the economies and armies of the NATO countries for war with Russia. ...
    And to call American generals brainless dumbasses (We are not going to attack, and their costs of the war are a waste and the way will be enriched!) This is not even funny.
    Explain in which case the enemy declares himself weak and compliments the enemy?
    1. cap
      cap 27 May 2016 07: 54
      +2
      Quote: Thunderbolt
      With its jabbering about the "Russian threat" and about "multi-foot giants", the United States is mobilizing the economies and armies of the NATO countries for war with Russia. ...


      In order not to repeat good
  10. Peacemaker
    Peacemaker 27 May 2016 08: 12
    +1
    No, the Russian military has not yet grown to ten feet, the author of the article notes. But they have already grown to five feet and ten inches and continue to grow! *** Strrashna ?! Seventy-five meters is already average height. No way to stop ... So not honest, we don’t play like that ... Judging by these statements, a kind of Goliath is obtained. And the meaning: Give more money!
  11. BOB044
    BOB044 27 May 2016 08: 18
    +2
    “Fortunately,” the author writes with irony, “Russian soldiers are not yet ten-foot giants.” Yes, no one says that they are.
    It’s while you are not both the USA in the hands of the Russians ... smiling. Russia in its history, if necessary and not like the USA, has turned its neck.
  12. Evdokim
    Evdokim 27 May 2016 08: 18
    +1
    The generals are certainly not stupid, they know the real situation in the NATO troops, they have something to compare with, and here they are. Again, the same position, the road to big politics after retirement. Do not forget about the warm places in the arms companies, various bonuses and other legal forms of bribes. And everything will fall into place, just business and nothing else.
  13. realist
    realist 27 May 2016 08: 26
    0
    afraid, it’s already good. it remains only to prepare for a worthy meeting of the adversary.
  14. Dmitry Potapov
    Dmitry Potapov 27 May 2016 08: 26
    +2
    Sheep you! The main potential of Russia is its people! But you don’t understand this, you’re used to translating everything into pounds and dollars!
  15. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 27 May 2016 08: 30
    +2
    The USA relied on an "internal explosion" in Russia with its subsequent "disintegration" into several states. In order to carry out this "internal explosion", it is necessary to "shake" the situation in Russia, to arouse the discontent of the population. How to cause public discontent? Very simply, by impoverishing the population. To cause this "impoverishment", it is necessary, on the one hand, to reduce the incomes of both the Russian state and its citizens, and on the other, to increase the expenditures of this very state and its citizens. This is being successfully done by the United States and our other so-called Western "partners", as well as by the "fifth column" of liberals within the Russian state. It is in order to increase spending of the budget of Russia that a campaign of "hysteria" is being promoted in the West and military-economic and political steps are being taken to provoke Russia into an "arms race", to increased defense spending at the expense of social programs and programs of the country's economic development.
  16. Kirill750
    Kirill750 27 May 2016 08: 34
    +1
    and verbal diarrhea pours and pours into the ears of Western peoples, and those like suckers believe everything because they have tolerance and a great love for the lying media of their countries. And let the flag in their hands put a drum on their neck and a pipe in the rear nozzle. You western suckers soon not only vegetables and fruits can not be dumped on the squares of their capitals but also there will be no manure; not the militarians will leave all the money and you will have to pay all this HAPPY !!!
  17. runway
    runway 27 May 2016 08: 35
    +1
    These "horror stories" are intended for a secular audience.
    The military has already calculated everything. The balance of power is not in our favor, and the gap is increasing every year. The only limiting factor for NATO countries is our ability to retaliate. That is why the White House administration is so interested in Russia continuing to reduce its nuclear potential. Then, when creating a multi-level missile defense system, the probability of damage from our nuclear strikes will approach zero.
    There is only one way out - to increase the ECONOMIC power of Russia and the well-being of HIS people. The high mobilization potential of the country is another limiting factor for geeks who dream of starting a new war.
  18. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 27 May 2016 08: 56
    +1
    Quote: Nix1986
    If there were no Russians, then there would be Chinese, Indians, etc. The Pentagon always needs a more terrible enemy, and if it is not there, then it needs to be invented, giant budgets need to be justified somehow.

    I agree, because the States are governed not by the President, but by the military lobby!
  19. NEXUS
    NEXUS 27 May 2016 09: 00
    +1
    The goal of deploying an anti-ballistic missile system is to provide full protection for NATO partners in Europe from the growing missile threat, "

    Dreaming is certainly not harmful. NATO generals are modestly silent that Iskander-M and YaRS missiles have any missile defense. And on the approach of the Sarmat and BZHRK BARGUZIN ICBMs.
  20. Nasty
    Nasty 27 May 2016 09: 33
    0
    "National security" - what is this term? You only hear from the amerikosov-aggressors. What kind of nationality is this - an American-sluggish? How it was bought. I would like to enclose the pd-camp with barbed wire and let them dig in there, while here on the continent we will figure it out among ourselves.
  21. Victor-M
    Victor-M 27 May 2016 10: 03
    0
    The United States is losing technological advantage over China and Russia in the air and at sea, in the areas of electronic warfare, space means, communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

    Having emigrated to the USA, the Soviet scientific potential with the developments stolen in the USSR has exhausted its resource, the "American" technological power is melting before our eyes, the spring has dried up. laughing
  22. Torins
    Torins 27 May 2016 10: 29
    +1
    Quote: Yak28
    I believe that the lack of human resources in the event of a major war is the weakest point of our army, unlike NATO or just the USA, we will not be able to make up for human losses as long as they are. Plus, I vaguely believe in a bunch of volunteers, especially from wealthy families , or families of non-Russian nationality. No. So in case of war, the soldiers will catch the police at the entrances and shove them from under the stick. There are now, of course, the soldiers and professionals of the current government who will go to fight with joy, but for a global war this is a drop in the bucket

    Personally, in August 2008, he saw the queues at the military registration and enlistment offices in St. Petersburg. The people wanted to volunteer to avenge the Georgians for Ossetia. But they didn’t take anyone there as volunteers.
  23. Sasha_Sar
    Sasha_Sar 27 May 2016 11: 13
    +1
    Guys are not arguing about that. An article about NATO hysteria about the "Russian threat". There are two reasons for this hysteria:
    First onethat Russia understood that it will be reckoned with when it has a combat-ready army ready to kick off anyone at any moment and wherever necessary. (Syria has clearly shown this). Now you cannot pat the president of Russia condescendingly on the shoulder, and there is no “carrot” in the form of promises (visa-free regime, NATO expansion to the east). The second reason the fact that the guys had a legal opportunity to warm their hands on military orders, and the generals (general, in Russia, in NATO) to show their importance and not be cut. Who served, he knows that the general is not a rank, it is more than a rank. This is a way of life and the resulting conclusions. And there is a great confidence that in Russia there are real defenders of the fatherland, and not "defenders of shaving foam."
  24. Dr. Bermental
    Dr. Bermental 27 May 2016 13: 31
    0
    such a Technique - it's time for the guys to give out ties !!! )
  25. Kenneth
    Kenneth 27 May 2016 20: 52
    0
    How everyone fluttered. It’s just that at least they’ll bury NATO. And the problem is that their generals had our army in mind and they do not care how tall we are. They need funding and they will receive it. Like ours though.
  26. jhon117russ
    jhon117russ 29 May 2016 10: 24
    -2
    didn’t achieve “global superiority”, foreign experts say. In the sense of the T-14, it’s better than the abroma. The crew of the abrams is 4 people; the t-14 3 and all tanks of other countries have a crew of 4 people. The crew of the T-14 namely gunner are not in the tower and in comfortable chairs next to the driver. Instead of blunt levers of the steering wheel. And you can bring so many pluses of our tank and foreign as compared to our suckers on tracks. And they also say that our tank has not reached global superiority.
  27. Torins
    Torins 30 May 2016 00: 38
    0
    Quote: jhon117russ
    didn’t achieve “global superiority”, foreign experts say. In the sense of the T-14, it’s better than the abroma. The crew of the abrams is 4 people; the t-14 3 and all tanks of other countries have a crew of 4 people. The crew of the T-14 namely gunner are not in the tower and in comfortable chairs next to the driver. Instead of blunt levers of the steering wheel. And you can bring so many pluses of our tank and foreign as compared to our suckers on tracks. And they also say that our tank has not reached global superiority.

    Do not underestimate the enemy, especially for those parameters that we have "Not blunt levers, but a steering wheel." The effectiveness of technology is not calculated by the wheel. hi