Military Review

About the likely NATO war with Russia

49
About the likely NATO war with RussiaRecently, the Western media has dramatically increased the number of materials in which it is written about the growth of the military threat from Russia, in connection with which NATO, and the United States and personally, are taking various countermeasures. This includes the opening of a US missile defense base in Romania, preparations for the creation of a second such base in Poland, as well as the intention to deploy an armored brigade in the territories of the Baltic countries. In addition, under the pretext of the same threat, the United States demanded that its European allies promptly bring their military spending to two percent of GDP. Articles appeared in the Western media not about a possible, but about an inevitable war with Russia.


It seems that by doing such actions, the United States seeks to convince its satellites that all of them are under the reliable protection of NATO, as well as to create the necessary international atmosphere for making important decisions at the Warsaw summit regarding the extension of anti-Russian sanctions .

The reminders of 5 article of the NATO Charter on the protection of any member of the bloc in case of aggression are getting louder. The article, of course, is important, but what to do with such unbridled members of the alliance as Turkey, Poland and Lithuania? The rhetoric of their irresponsible leaders leads to a clash with Russia, and no one wants a big war, not even the United States. To intimidate the whole world with a threat from the East, to knock out extra money from the congress for the military budget - is this, please, but to fight because of (or even instead of) “loyal dogs”? .. Let's see who was the first to start. Turkey has already shown this.

But another thing is interesting. All the warlike politicians and scribblers of the West, ready at least tomorrow to "deal with aggressive Russia", forgot about what time they live. Their main mistake is that they do not understand what a modern war can be. It seems to them that everything will happen as in the 2nd World War. We have so many brigades tanks, planes, and Russia has so many bayonets and other things. And with this technique of politics, as General Bridlaw said, “they are ready to fight with Russia until victory.” They don’t realize that the European armies are now not the same as they were 30 years ago, and the US Army needs time to get to Europe.

Let's look at the current situation in the troops of some NATO countries.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and loud assurances from both sides about the end of the Cold War, armies and military budgets were cut. And it was not only the Russian army that was shrinking. So, by 1990, the American army numbered 2,4 million, who, first of all, were aimed at war with the USSR, and the sphere of US influence in the world was less. In Europe alone, the US held a grouping of 250 thousand people. Now (all figures are from open sources for February 2015 of the year), the US ground forces do not count 900 thousand bayonets, but are reduced from 560 to planned 490 thousand. In Europe there are only about 60 thousand. All warehouses with heavy weapons and equipment, intended for airborne reinforcement forces gain, long ago exported to the States. A lot of American troops are scattered around the world, and that’s why the United States thought for a long time where to get one armored brigade to deploy it battalionally in Poland and the Baltic countries.

Britain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands withdrew their forces from Germany and also reduced their armed forces. In 1990, the FRG and France had armies numbering 500 thousand, after the reforms in the German troops only 201 thousand remained, in France - 135 thousand, in the UK - 100 thousand, and in the Netherlands - 47 thousand, including personnel of the general staffs, providing and rear parts. A similar reduction took place in all European armies. Currently, instead of the former plan connections, it is planned to have 90 army rapid deployment corps by up to 9 days. Including: united army corps, Eurokorpus (on the French-German paper. In peacetime there are only four battalions in the whole Eurokorpus unit: two German and two French, total from 900 to 1300 people), German-Dutch, Spanish, Italian , French, Turkish, German-Danish-Polish and Greek corps.

Modern NATO in Europe only takes up to three months to deploy units to military states. But it is a big question. Given the current events in Greece, Brussels can hardly count on its share in the 50 thousand bayonets. On the Turkish troops, too - because then who will fight with the Kurds and save the country "democracy"? The big question is the participation of Spain. So the stated deadlines are likely to be disrupted.

To summarize: currently, all NATO’s Joint Forces have 1,5 million people, of whom 990 thousand are American troops (of which only about 100 thousand soldiers and officers are stationed in Europe, and the rest are deployed in the US around the world or are involved in the wars being waged by America in the Middle East and Afghanistan). The number of troops of the European countries of the bloc itself is 600 thousand. This number includes all the national armed forces of the participating countries, but less than a third, that is, about 200 thousand military personnel, is given under the command of the staff of the alliance.

The weakening of the actual combat capabilities of the alliance forces is disguised by the NATO command with a large variety of exercises, sometimes involving up to a hundred military personnel from any country, rather than full-fledged units, and a loud PR program to form all kinds of “rapid deployment” forces. The number of "Very High Readiness Joint Task Force" or "Joint forces of very high alert" was 5 thousand people. In February, 2015 was decided to increase them to 30 thousand military personnel. They are based on parachute, airmobile and other "special" units from the 28 countries of the alliance, including two light infantry battalions, one of which is from the German-Dutch corps. The whole feature of the new structure is only that it can be used for its intended purpose for a period from 3 to 10 days. (By the way, during the Cold War, army groups within NATO were ready to fight in two days.) That's all that the entire North Atlantic alliance today is capable of putting on the battlefield. But even this remains in doubt, since the officers in the headquarters of the Supreme Command of the Allied Forces of NATO do not conceal that the real level of mobility of the “Joint Forces” is not yet known.

Now let's see how things are with the transfer of reinforcing forces to the Eastern Front. Back in 2009, the developed Eagle Gard plan was announced, according to which aviation, and also by sea, four divisions will arrive at the ports of the Baltic Sea and protect everyone.

The transport aircraft of the NATO countries are outdated and have greatly decreased in size, so it is most likely impossible to transfer all forces only by air. Railways do not have enough high-capacity platforms for transporting heavy military equipment. Therefore, it is assumed that part of it, together with ammunition, food and other equipment, will be deployed in advance in special supply points in Eastern European member countries of NATO. This structure was to be fully operational by 2016. It should be.

The United States is also required to deliver troops to the future theater of operations. The airborne transfer option is no longer possible - in this way airborne units and rapid reaction forces, which have only light armament, can be deployed. Remains transfer by sea. To this end, there is the Maritime Shipping Command (ILC) in the USA, which deals with the transportation and supply of troops. It consists of large rolls, container ships, bulk carriers, tankers, etc. The most famous KMP ships are the Algol-class high-speed roller, the 55 displacement thou. Tons and the speed at the 33 knot. One such ship is able to transport up to 1000 units. cars and various armored vehicles, and with the help of a ramper, the rammers provide self-loading and unloading of vehicles. Thus, the US division (17 thousand people with equipment and weapons) may be deployed by several such ships. It should be noted that the United States is constantly considering various shipping companies for the purchase of similar ships from them. They even have a former Soviet Rokker.

But the transfer of troops is not all. The troops in large quantities need ammunition, fuel, other military goods, and the personnel must also be fed. And the American rations are very different from the soldier rations of Eastern European armies, remember the dissatisfaction of the Lithuanian soldiers with the fact that in joint maneuvers, they prepared food simpler than for the Americans. And all these problems need to be addressed.

Let us recall one example. About 30% of the personnel of the US armed forces that existed at that time, about 4 thousand tanks, 2 thousand aircraft and 3,7 thousand guns were attracted to participate in the operation “Desert Storm” in the Persian Gulf. The war was preceded by FIVE months of intensive training, ALL forces of the Shipping Command were involved. Moreover, the Americans still had to charter civilian vessels for this. In total, the 250 ships were engaged in the delivery and supply of troops. During the preparation for the operation and the operation itself, over 12 million tons (!) Of cargoes were delivered to the combat zone. At the same time, the Americans provided with great difficulty the supply of all this huge military grouping. So, towards the end of “Desert Storm,” an acute shortage of aerial bombs began to be felt. On average, it took Americans only 25-30 days to deploy only one overseas division, while the deployment of an army corps took up to 5 months.

Thus, the Europeans take 3 a month to prepare for war against the Russian Federation, and the Americans almost six months, which negates any effect of surprise. But who will give NATO half a year to fully deploy the troops to attack? 1941 year will not be repeated.

The Russian army is also not the same number as in the 1980s. As they say in the press, currently there are only 1,2 million people in it. Of these, ground forces account for only 400 thousand, which are deployed in the vast expanses of our country, and not only in the western direction. This is the only reason why Russia will not attack anyone.

Nevertheless, according to the author, if there is a real threat to the security of the country, the Russian army will have a sufficient arsenal of various means to “force the world” of all its closest “sworn friends” even before the arrival of the reinforcement forces. The remaining members of NATO will not stand up for these frantic "democrats" and Russophobes, and the American tankers, if they are there, are not kamikazes and not even mercenaries. And at NATO headquarters, too, they are able to count the bayonets and understand what is what. Therefore, PR campaigns for any reason will be continued, someone needs to “cut” the military budget, but no more. Of course, if our gunpowder itself is dry.

But the United States, and with them NATO, can go another way. There are sober-minded people in America who warn that the administration is currently following the Wolfowitz doctrine developed in 1992. This was confirmed by Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter in an interview with Vox. The author of this doctrine later wrote: “The purpose of this document was to prevent the emergence of a bipolar world, that is, a new world rivalry in the spirit of the Cold War, or a multipolar world, that is, a world with a number of powers wars To do this, it is necessary to prevent the enemy power from achieving a dominant position in a key region with resources, industrial opportunities and people who, if controlled by the enemy power, could pose a challenge of global proportions. ” NATO is aggressively moving to the Russian borders. It turns out that, despite all the talk about Asia, the military priority of America and NATO is in fact Central Europe near the borders with Russia.

But this may change after the election of the President of the United States. Now the Republican Party still has confusion and vacillation, but more and more of its members are leaning towards Donald Trump, who impresses many Americans with a sober look at the possibility of changing relations with Russia, NATO, etc. As American political analyst Stephen Cohen wrote, “it will take time to untie some knots, but you can deal with some relatively simply, and D. Trump knows this. It would be possible to give this start with the help of a large-scale diplomatic initiative. If you look into history, this is how all the most radical projects started: the rejection of established ideas and a way out of the political impasse allows the reformer to suppress the most stubborn resistance to change (in this case it’s about Wall Street and the financial oligarchy).

It would be enough for Trump to declare that America’s (and Europe’s) national security is directly dependent on Russia (this is obvious), that Moscow does not pose a threat to Washington (this is also a fact), and that NATO is “outdated,” as he said. It would be perfectly logical to unite with Russia and its partners in order to surround and destroy DAISH.

According to Cohen, Trump is not so far from being able to follow this path. Of course, Trump is an American and a patriot of his country, but after all, there were sane presidents in the US who, even out of necessity, went to cooperate even with the communist Soviet Union and signed mutually beneficial agreements. After all, in the age of nuclear weapons a thin world is better than a good quarrel.
Author:
49 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Teberii
    Teberii 2 June 2016 06: 37
    +5
    An attempt at military pressure, creating the illusion of tomorrow’s war with Russia. All this is nothing more than another hysterical attempt to pump out more money.
    1. visitork67
      visitork67 2 June 2016 06: 52
      +6
      I agree. Some are on swine flu, some are on the ozone hole, and these are pumping loot on aggressive Russia.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. siberalt
      siberalt 2 June 2016 07: 33
      +12
      I agree with the author's conclusions about 100. NATO is a phantom of the 20th century. The organization has turned from a military to a political-commercial one. This is how capital works, if there is no profit in a war, then on propaganda. One preventive, practically, "bloodless" (by American standards) single blow from Russia and there is no NATO. So, they are afraid of this. Hence all the propaganda about Russia - the aggressor. The king is naked! laughing
      1. HERMES
        HERMES 2 June 2016 07: 53
        +13
        About the likely NATO war with Russia

        ... and likely outcome ...
        1. Aryan
          Aryan 2 June 2016 10: 14
          +7
          Generals, as always, prepare for the past war ...
      2. kos2910
        kos2910 2 June 2016 12: 48
        +9
        Underestimating the enemy is dangerous, they have more iron at times, though people are so-so ...
      3. ruAlex
        ruAlex 2 June 2016 17: 15
        +4
        Let's not underestimate the enemy, history has shown that he is, besides everything else, insidious and cunning, but in general I agree with the conclusions.
  2. poquello
    poquello 2 June 2016 06: 39
    +7
    "A cockroach is advancing on the wall ..."
    That's where they climb, nuclear weapons in Poland are, in principle, cooler than our missiles in Cuba.
  3. Odysseus
    Odysseus 2 June 2016 06: 41
    +35
    It seems to me that the author is somewhat naive. Of course, Western politicians are well aware of the capabilities of the armies of NATO countries and know what modern war is. Theses about the "war" with Russia are rhetorical, not real.
    The meaning of these theses is to maintain an atmosphere of fear in society (as you know, it is easiest to manage people with the help of fear and "threats from the outside"), to justify economic restrictions against Russia that are beneficial to the United States, to increase military budgets - and this is a huge amount of money for world corporations.
    As for the real struggle with Russia, the main weapon of the West is the fifth column within the Russian government itself, the West is trying to act by promoting self-oriented people in the leadership of the Russian Federation, capturing the cultural and ideological space. The main enemy is inside Russia, not outside.
    PS Perhaps the only purely military real threat to Russia from the West is missile defense bases in combination with the concept of a "global strike." But it is reasonable to respond to this by strengthening the strategic nuclear forces.
    PPSAnother threat is the use of East European natives. For this they need Ukraine so much. Here the West can easily fight with us until the last Ukrainian.
    1. kit_bellew
      kit_bellew 2 June 2016 10: 48
      +9
      Quote: Odyssey
      As for the real struggle with Russia, the main weapon of the West is the fifth column within the Russian government itself, the West is trying to act by promoting self-oriented people in the leadership of the Russian Federation, capturing the cultural and ideological space.

      It is, of course, true. However, one should not forget about the main geopolitical task of the arrogant Saxons: the fragmentation of Russia on the more, the better the specific principalities. In order to gain control over its natural resources, as well as the final destruction of civilization that can resist them. This task has been taking place for more than one hundred years and will not go anywhere, as long as we are - or they are.
      PS: As for the fifth column, it is completely incomprehensible to us why not create the same fifth column for them. IMHO is a great weapon, especially since it’s much easier for them to stir up, they have a corrupt mentality by definition wassat
      1. Corsair
        Corsair 2 June 2016 17: 18
        +5
        Quote: kit_bellew
        IMHO is a great weapon, especially since it’s much easier for them to stir up, they have a corrupt mentality by definition

        The problem is that they don’t have the pure democracy that they scream about all over the world. Any wrong sneeze or performance, and a person will be taken to jail, or even further - to a pleasure trip to Cuba.
        That in the USA, that in the EU, dissent is instantly suppressed, if any left-wing freedoms arise, then precedents are set up that allow them to be eliminated.
        The rest is a certain semblance of choice and freedom, such as you can choose from 1000 varieties of sausages, jeans, you can choose who you will sip on, you can choose who you are - a girl with a medium-half-hair, etc., but God forbid a Negro to be called a black man.
        1. Odysseus
          Odysseus 2 June 2016 18: 47
          +4
          Quote: Corsair
          The problem is that they don’t have the pure democracy they are yelling about all over the world.

          This is all completely true and accurate. But this is not a reason to do nothing. The West has its own weaknesses and it is difficult to create a fifth column there, but it is possible.
          It's just that since the days of Khrushchev's concept of "peaceful coexistence," no one has been doing this. And, as you know, water does not flow under a lying stone.
      2. Odysseus
        Odysseus 2 June 2016 18: 40
        +5
        Quote: kit_bellew
        PS: As for the fifth column, it is completely incomprehensible to us why not create the same fifth column for them.

        Then you got to the point. You can’t even imagine how many times I asked the same question. In response, they all just shrug their hands. In the process, I found out that we have not engaged in a real fight against the West since 1953. In Soviet times (since 1953 until 1985) instead, official party parties were supported, which for the West was unpleasant, but generally parried easily.
        And after all they stopped doing this.
        But speaking in the words of one very famous person, this comrades is a matter of archival and archinuity.
  4. Blondy
    Blondy 2 June 2016 06: 51
    +5
    About the likely NATO war with Russia
    Like all these flocks of thoughtful tired. They only think there how they will tie up with a pederast parades, and in friendly ranks with bare backs they will rush to beat Russia. The guys from behind the puddle have a different task - to take control of Europe, do not let the battle intensify, especially if you sniff with Russia (I don't mean limitrophs) and can grumble.
  5. Aleksandr72
    Aleksandr72 2 June 2016 06: 54
    +11
    Article and author from me + for a detailed analysis of the forces of the parties and the political background of the conflict between NATO and Russia. However, the author lost sight of such an important component as the availability of a trained reserve from the number of conscripts who had served in the army (not all European countries switched to a professional contract army), a significant amount of armaments and military equipment is stored in the warehouses of the reserve. And for some reason, it seems to me that the equipment at the storage bases, for example in Germany, is in a much better (and combat-ready) condition than similar in Russia. The author completely does not take into account such a component of modern weapons as WMD - as I see any high-intensity conflict between NATO and Russia, it will necessarily lead to a mutual nuclear missile strike (if it does not start at all with it). But the author is more than ever right in making such a conclusion.
    After all, in an age of nuclear weapons, a bad world is better than a good quarrel.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 2 June 2016 16: 21
      +3
      Quote: Aleksandr72
      Article and author from me + for a detailed analysis of the forces of the parties and the political background of the conflict between NATO and Russia.

      Here I agree with the author and with you. But there is another opinion. The United States needs tension in the West in order to prevent Russia, Iran, India and Pakistan from uniting in opposition to the Pacific Partnership under the auspices of the United States. Now the United States is more afraid of China with its Silk project. Routes. The classical route, through the Dzungarian Gate with access to the countries of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf. The second route, this is using the Trans-Siberian, with ports in Primorye and railway crossings Grodekovo and Zabaikalsk on the land border with access to northern Europe. But here is the Baltic mongrel. fly deeply, whipping up tensions on the borders with Russia. The Russian Federation is already redirecting its cargo in the Baltic to the ports of the Gulf of Finland and practically blocking traffic through the Baltic States. And it may happen that some of the Chinese cargo will go through the ports of Finland. There are many aspects, but this option must also be considered. The Yankees will do everything to destroy the SCO and remain a leader in the world. And here the author is right: "But the United States, and with them, NATO can also go the other way. There are sober people in America who warn that the administration is currently following the "Wolfowitz Doctrine" developed in 1992. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter confirmed this in an interview with Vox. The author of this doctrine later wrote: “The purpose of this document was to prevent the emergence of a bipolar world, that is, a new global rivalry in the spirit of the Cold War, or a multipolar world, that is, a world with a number of powers, as it was before the two world wars. To do this, it is necessary to prevent the enemy power from achieving a dominant position in a key region with resources, industrial capabilities and population, which, if controlled by the enemy power, could form a global challenge. " NATO is persistently moving towards the Russian borders. "If I am wrong, express your opinion. Because the United States by any means will seek the impossibility of creating a multipolar world.
  6. avva2012
    avva2012 2 June 2016 07: 04
    +5
    IMHO. Something big doubts exist that Trump will be elected. The last relatively "independent" US president was Kenedy. The fact that no one expected that he was on his own mind proves the extremely unpopular measure that was taken to eliminate the threat. There is a feeling that the elite will not repeat such a mistake, "enough, we have suffered under Roosevelt, we made a mistake with Kennedy." The rest of the presidents were clowns and the elite slept peacefully.
    If a miracle happens and Trump becomes president, then we should not be happy either. Perhaps what the author writes about will change.
    Europeans need 3 months to prepare for war against the Russian Federation, and Americans for almost six months
    . Trump can approach the situation as a business person.
    The presence of Russia on the world map is a threat to the United States. They still have to solve this problem.
  7. shimus
    shimus 2 June 2016 07: 07
    +5
    "Morons b .. ..." This expression is very suitable BY the way.
    Not only do they not teach the history of wars, they almost imagined themselves to be gods !!!
    At least all of the United States, together with Europe, or rather Geyropa, will only set foot on our Native land, Tryndets, people, and so are already on the platoon. When the Nazis attacked the USSR, the people still kindly treated them kindly, and here the people are already mentally prepared to use NATO blades to figure out NATO and the USA, so they have no chance at all to capture at least a hectare !!!
  8. alex-712
    alex-712 2 June 2016 07: 42
    +1
    I liked the analysis in the article, but I just don’t understand why I can’t answer the deployment of missile defense by installing missiles in Cuba or somewhere on the islands of the Pacific Ocean? or have you already started?
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. siberalt
      siberalt 2 June 2016 08: 09
      +2
      Why not answer base in Cuba?
      Why answer? It will fly to America and from Russia without problems. Now is not the 60s of the last century. hi
      1. avva2012
        avva2012 2 June 2016 08: 13
        +2
        You know, we have other options for working with NATO and the United States. laughing
        Against the American system of global lightning strike, the first ever joint Russian-Chinese command and staff exercises (KKSHU) were held under the name "Aerospace Security 2016". The Central Research Institute of Aerospace Defense of the Russian Ministry of Defense was chosen as the base for the exercises.
        See full: http://politrussia.com/world/voennoe-sotrudnichestvo-s-877/
    3. Aroma77
      Aroma77 2 June 2016 10: 42
      0
      And why did you decide that Cuba is now ready to become a target?
  9. feniks
    feniks 2 June 2016 07: 46
    +1
    Nobody is forgotten, nothing is forgotten - the slogan used in relation to the feat of soldiers of the Great Patriotic War, which remained the property of the national memory.
    So that we remember and do not forget. Please visit, but we do not advise you to meddle with hostile goals.
  10. Pitot
    Pitot 2 June 2016 07: 58
    +3
    If something starts suddenly - first of all, we need to extinguish our 5th column. These nits can do a lot of harm.
    1. atos_kin
      atos_kin 2 June 2016 08: 12
      +3
      Smart leaders (J.V. Stalin and others) are crushing this "5th column" before the war. It will be worse for the country where these "nits" are in power.
      1. siberalt
        siberalt 2 June 2016 09: 43
        +1
        To extinguish the fifth column is tantamount to changing the system and adopting a new Constitution. But her guarantor is on guard. So that everything is according to the Law.
        1. Corsair
          Corsair 2 June 2016 17: 27
          0
          Quote: siberalt
          To extinguish the fifth column is tantamount to changing the system and adopting a new Constitution. But her guarantor is on guard. So that everything is according to the Law.

          what Maybe there are fears that as soon as the GDP starts with a reliable team (I really want to believe that there are such people) to seriously extinguish the 5th column and make specific changes that reject other people's tentacles from the state's body, there will be really dangerous sanctions and freezing of accounts from outside " partners "?
    2. Volzhanin
      Volzhanin 2 June 2016 08: 15
      +1
      Unfortunately, it’s not written on their faces that they are collaborators and traitors. Only a militant minority. And there are much more latent ones - the legion! How to reveal their hidden traitors? They, under the patriots and statesmen, know how to mimic in the current situation.
  11. Demeter
    Demeter 2 June 2016 07: 59
    0
    If the United States and its sixes do not cease to put pressure on the borders of Russia and deploy their military bases on the borders of Russia, then war becomes quite likely.
  12. denvar555
    denvar555 2 June 2016 08: 03
    0
    "... Of course, Trump is an American and a patriot of his country, but there have been sane presidents in the United States who, even out of necessity, cooperated even with the communist Soviet Union and signed mutually beneficial agreements. nuclear weapons a bad world is better than a good quarrel ... "
    The problem is that the real power in the USA is not with the president - another doll (it doesn’t matter whether he is black or woman), but a certain group of people who can only shake the world on earth.
  13. Darkness
    Darkness 2 June 2016 08: 50
    +2
    It is more likely that our "ilita" stupidly surrender the country than a direct invasion of NATO.
    And Berkem, with his "Marauder", will be a prophet.
  14. iliya87
    iliya87 2 June 2016 09: 35
    0
    The United States will never climb into a war (open) with Russia, just as we don’t need it in FIG. And the hysteria about the fact that the aggressor has never stopped (well, except for the period of rule of Gorbachev-Yeltsin). The buildup of NATO forces in Europe has also never stopped. What new gentlemen are we seeing now? Never mind. We must keep our heads cool and mindfully respond to the challenges of NATO, the main thing is not to go too far with the arms race, the economic part is equally important as the military component.
  15. Thompson
    Thompson 2 June 2016 10: 00
    0
    Quote: siberalt
    I agree with the author's conclusions about 100. NATO is a phantom of the 20th century. The organization has turned from a military to a political-commercial one. This is how capital works, if there is no profit in a war, then on propaganda. One preventive, practically, "bloodless" (by American standards) single blow from Russia and there is no NATO. So, they are afraid of this. Hence all the propaganda about Russia - the aggressor. The king is naked! laughing

    Salvage money, but if there is a weapon, it will someday shoot, especially when NATO acquired inadequate baboons in eastern Europe
  16. Vadim237
    Vadim237 2 June 2016 10: 17
    0
    At the very first threat of war, NATO will immediately fall apart - no one will fight there.
    1. Corsair
      Corsair 2 June 2016 17: 31
      0
      Quote: Vadim237
      At the very first threat of war, NATO will immediately fall apart - no one will fight there.

      This is still xs, usually the presence of a strong enemy and a nondescript perspective unites even the dodgy and the cowardly, not a single war has shown the true face of the Europeans.
  17. Dave36
    Dave36 2 June 2016 10: 32
    0
    Our GAU did not make it ambiguous that no matter what adventure was undertaken with respect to Russia, and its HE from NATO, the first and main blow would be inflicted on the United States ... and then others would get it. I do not think that the States will put their lives at stake !!
  18. Rorabek
    Rorabek 2 June 2016 11: 12
    +1
    I began to read, but didn’t finish ... the author probably JUST DOESN’T KNOW ... that for every US Army soldier in Afghanistan and Iraq there are 3-4 PMC employees who actually conduct military operations and suffer (unofficially) losses ... powdering our brains about the fighting ability of a potential enemy ... and he didn’t serve in the army, where there is a rule: it’s better to overstay than not to stay long lol
    By the way, for the entire period of hostilities in Iraq, Amer PMCs have already lost about 1 employees / 542-2001 / in Afghanistan, 2011 / 887-2001 / according to the US Department of Labor;
    US casualties Iraq 4464 and Afghanistan-1667, over the same time period
  19. v.yegorov
    v.yegorov 2 June 2016 11: 13
    0
    After all, in an age of nuclear weapons, a bad world is better than a good quarrel.

    Especially if you remember that we will burn everything.
  20. Idiot
    Idiot 2 June 2016 11: 15
    0
    The article is interesting in some ways, but on the whole about nothing. There will be no confrontation between Russia and NATO in the usual sense. No one already considers active bayonets. In my opinion, there will be no war until the Russian Armed Forces are capable of: Air defense is guaranteed to destroy 70% of NATO forces and equipment (air attack), to destroy 100% of NATO military infrastructure in Europe and the countries adjacent to the Russian Federation where there are NATO bases, to control the adjacent waters where possible deployment of sea-based NATO forces and equipment, including electronic warfare; accordingly, to sink in the range of coastal systems of RCC everything that flies under the flag of NATO. And most importantly - while the Russian Federation will be able to guarantee the destruction of the United States as a place of compact residence of English-speaking citizens. And with them the islands of Japan, the United Kingdom and the big island of Australia, where English-speaking citizens plan to sit out for the time of a big schucher ... And the size of the modern army of the Russian Federation is quite enough to deter a global enemy and force peace (!) Of various jackals.
  21. Vladimir61
    Vladimir61 2 June 2016 11: 40
    +1
    The lion is a formidable and powerful enemy, but the "weather" in the savannah is made by flocks of hyenas, which in modern Europe are the former countries of Eastern Europe. It is understandable ... I want free jam and gingerbread!
  22. Lord blacwood
    Lord blacwood 2 June 2016 12: 55
    +1
    In the West, journalists are making money with the help of the "Russian threat". After all, for every scary and sensational article, they receive a lot of money.
    1. behemot
      behemot 2 June 2016 19: 41
      +1
      not only journalists, or rather politicians, but journalists are just talking heads.
  23. Lanista
    Lanista 2 June 2016 12: 55
    +1
    The material in my opinion is good, the conclusions are correct. A definite plus to the author. From myself I’ll add:
    1. The backbone of the US forces in Europe is not "linear" units directly conducting combat operations, but command structures - mainly headquarters of various levels. The highest level of the American military presence in Europe is the headquarters structure, which roughly corresponds to the scale of the Soviet operational-strategic alliance "front / military district".
    2. The readiness of the materiel of NATO troops is assessed by NATO analysts themselves as very low. Recently there was a scandal related to a shortage of machine guns in the armored (PzGrd) units of the Bundeswehr ... Again, the same Bundeswehr, apparently understanding the full depth of the problem, was forced to divide its forces (4 divisions) into "forces of constant readiness" (1 divisional of mixed composition) and "forces of development of success", and in the second category are only cropped parts with often faulty technique.
    3. None of the NATO countries (with the exception of Turkey) is capable of waging a full-scale war with Russia alone for at least some satisfactory period. In Russian, the duration of resistance of any individual NATO country depends solely on the distance from the border with the Russian Federation to the capital of this country.
  24. Berber
    Berber 2 June 2016 13: 10
    +1
    The main thing is not to be led to the Western "divorce". As VVP says - to act asymmetrically. Author +. No nonsense and to the point.
  25. petrovihdanil
    petrovihdanil 2 June 2016 14: 39
    +3
    Americans do everything classically. The loudest shouts are "Stop thief!" They point to Russia. And at that moment they themselves "climb into the pocket of others." It is clear that by accusing and showing us that we are a threat, they themselves create it - they are moving their weapons to our borders. Thus, they drive the image of an enemy and an aggressor into the heads of Europeans, distracting them from the fact that they themselves are the aggressor and climb into their home with their bases insolently. And they crush everything and everyone.
  26. behemot
    behemot 2 June 2016 19: 37
    0
    the main thing is to deliver a preventive strike in time. And it is imperative to incinerate the Eurogays and jackals (simply from the principle): Greater Poland, Greater Ukraine, Baltic tigers and other yapping trash.
  27. Yak28
    Yak28 2 June 2016 21: 37
    0
    I think that a nuclear war with NATO is impossible without NATO, since Russia loses a lot in the number of aircraft and ships, and NATO has much more human resources. Consequently, in a protracted war, NATO can replenish losses in technology and manpower much longer than Russia. And if suddenly China silently he wants to grab a piece from Russia, then the edge altogether. So that in a nuclear war, before losing the war, Russia will be able to inflict tangible damage to the enemy, but without nuclear, there’s nothing to catch, we will again fight mainly in our territory with a superior enemy. wink
  28. Ros 56
    Ros 56 3 June 2016 15: 13
    0
    Stupid question. Russia will respond at the same time very harshly with the maximum possible infliction of such damage that the Europeans will not want to repeat this for another 200 years. Otherwise, these clowns will puff about the Russian threat throughout the 21st century.
  29. Sonik
    Sonik 3 June 2016 21: 56
    0
    Hysteria in the media, warming up of moods, this is a promise to internal enemies in Russia, according to the principle_ we are with you, break the system, if you can help, these are signals to internal forces, as in 1941, part of the generals were ready to give the country, but something went not this way. so that 1941 may be repeated unfortunately, but how it will pass is unknown .....