Military Review

Nuclear fraternity

39
Somehow, the July 1 date imperceptibly flashed along with the termination of the Warsaw Pact. A quarter of a century has passed since the idea of ​​a military bloc under the auspices of Moscow on its own initiative turned into a geopolitical fiasco.
The Warsaw Pact Organization was publicly and pathetically called fraternity arms. It would be possible to clarify: on nuclear weapons. Although, unlike NATO, only the USSR was a nuclear power in the Department of Internal Affairs.

The United States initiated the military "nuclearization" of Europe. Moreover, the Americans not only placed their own nuclear weapons on the territory of their allies. The Pentagon went further, starting to equip their armies with the means of delivering nuclear and thermonuclear charges, namely fighters, tactical and operational-tactical missiles, heavy howitzers. Nuclear bombs stored in European NATO countries and Turkey, missile warheads, artillery shells were under American control. In the event of war, special ammunition was to be transferred - under the same control - to the allies and applied by them in accordance with the general strategy of the North Atlantic bloc. In addition, Great Britain and France, which was somewhat away from the plans of the USA, had their own nuclear weapons.

East German frontier

The USSR responded to NATO’s nuclear "performances" quite symmetrically. Warsaw Pact armies also received missiles and aircraft for use of nuclear weapons in the continental theater. And the charges for them were placed within these countries, but under Soviet control. Special mobile arsenals, which at hour X were supposed to equip carriers with terrible stuffing and transfer them to the combat units of the rocket forces, were called mobile rocket-technical bases (RTB).

Nuclear fraternity


Already in 60, the Soviet Union urgently began to equip the NDR of the GDR with nuclear weapons. Volksarmi began to receive tactical (Luna, then Luna-M, and finally Tochka) and operational-tactical (Р-11М, aka 8К11М, and Р-17, 8К14) from the USSR rockets. They fell to the East Germans and OTRK "Oka". These were the most up-to-date systems at the time of their appearance, moreover, they were handed over to the Allies almost immediately after being adopted by the Soviet army.

With our help, the East Germans deployed two operational-tactical missile brigades (3-I - Tautenkhayn and 5-I-Demen) and 11 of separate tactical missile divisions.

According to information made public by the Committee of Defense Ministers of the Warsaw Pact member states, on July 1 1988, the NNA GDR had 80 launchers of tactical and operational tactical missiles against 26, which had remained in the Bundeswehr by that time. The nuclear missile potential of both German states (taking into account the Soviet and American special combat units envisaged for them) was quite strategic towards each other - the distances were nothing at all. In addition, on the territory of the GDR, in addition to the Soviet PRTB, there were missile brigades and separate rocket regiments of the GSVG (from the 1989 of the year - the Western Group of Forces). The NNA had its own PTTB ready for the adoption of Soviet nuclear weapons.

Learning to start the then German, like the other "brothers in arms" went to the Kapustin Yar training ground. There, the brave Volksarmi officers adored being photographed at the monument to the first Soviet T-series ballistic missile launched in October 1947. Still would! After all, it was reproduced in the USSR V-2 of their countryman Werner von Braun, which we entered into service as the P-1.

To all the sisters of the earrings

Of course, not one GDR received the Soviet rocket technology of small (within the front) range. Fourty missile brigades of operational-tactical purpose acquired Bulgaria (46-I - Samokov, 56-I - Marno Pole, 66-I - Kabile, 76-I - Telish), three - Czechoslovakia (311-I - Jince, 321-I - Rokučany, 331-i - Boritsa-na-Morave), four - Poland (2-i - Hospitable, 3-i - Bedrusco, 18-i - Boleslawiec, 32-i - Orzic), two - Romania (32-i - Tekuch, 37-I - Ineu) and one - Hungary (5-I - Varpalota). And this is not counting several dozen separate battalions of tactical missiles in the armies of these countries, as well as their own PTT. Total west of the Urals at the Warsaw Pact in 1988, there were 1608 PU, which is almost 12 times the number of NATO (136 units). The USSR accounted for the 1221 launcher.

The PRTB of the Soviet Army, which was also intended for the “nucleation” of the allied forces, was stationed in Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and even Bulgaria, where there were no Soviet troops officially, except for the territory of the GDR. There was a part (the same PRTB), whose personnel wore Bulgarian uniform for the sake of conspiracy. According to information from open sources, the transfer of nuclear munitions to the Polish Army was assumed to be the Vistula plan, its Czechoslovak analogue was called Yavor.

As their former chief inspector, Lieutenant-General Retired Dimitar Todorov, writes in the book “The Rocket Forces of Bulgaria”, the transfer of nuclear warheads from storage (without being equipped with means of detonation and without carrying out necessary checks of functionality) into a state of full readiness for docking with the rocket body OTRK 9K72 required 180 minutes, for Luna-M - 90 minutes.

Romania stood somewhat apart, receiving Soviet missiles, but apparently it didn’t quite fit into the Warsaw Pact nuclear planning. Too chaotic policy pursued Ceausescu, who managed to cooperate in the military-technical field, not only with the USSR, but also with China, Yugoslavia, and even with France and Britain. In addition, it is known that the Romanians, under the curtain of their socialism, have advanced quite far in creating national nuclear weapons. Some experts even suggest that Bucharest intended to develop its own nuclear warheads for the P-17 received from the USSR. However, the fall of the Ceausescu regime led to a curtailment of the program.

Long-playing "Oka"

There was an incident with “Oka”. The Americans, who appreciated the military stats of these weapons, achieved their inclusion in the list of medium and short-range missiles to be destroyed according to the 1987 agreement. Of course, Oka and 9М714 with their 450 kilometers did not reach the lower threshold for the reduction (500 km). However, Gorbachev willingly went to meet Washington. As a result, the domestic ground forces were once left without this high-precision system. Taking into account the liquidation of the Temp-S OTRK (900 km range) under the INF Treaty, it turned out that the most long-range army missile system was obsolete 9КХNUMX with Р-72 (17К8) missile. However, the USSR at that time put the newest "Oka" of Bulgaria, the GDR, Romania and Czechoslovakia. And their governments did not sign any agreement with the Americans. And if after the unification the Germans tried to get rid of the Oka as soon as possible, in the other three armies these missiles were in service right up to the start of the 14, that is, before the accession of these countries to NATO. True, now everything is recycled.

In addition to missile weapons, the Soviet Union supplied the Warsaw Pact countries with aircraft carrying nuclear weapons. The first of these were the Su-7B supersonic fighter-bombers, which arrived (in the Su-7BM and Su-7BL) modifications to the Polish and Czechoslovak air forces (for more information, Ivan the Terrible of Khrushchev). Unlike similar machines sold to countries in Asia and Africa, the Polish and Czechoslovak “dryers” had, as in the USSR Air Force, special equipment that allowed the use of nuclear ammunition (a device for precision bombing from a cabrirovanie and a special girder holder). The tactical nuclear bombs that were part of the special equipment of the dryers included the 244Н (8Х69) products, РН-24 and РН-28, created at VNIITF, which is in Chelyabinsk-70 (now Snezhinsk). Polish and Czechoslovak pilots trained to use special munitions. So in nuclear terms, the Warsaw Pact and NATO went nostril to nostril.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/31490
39 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Old26
    Old26 24 July 2016 07: 04
    +5
    An interesting overview of the missile units of the Air Force countries. In principle, now it is probably already difficult to establish the "initiator" of the deployment of nuclear weapons on the territory of the countries of both blocs. In any case, both sides transferred weapons of destruction to their allies in blocks and taught them how to use them, deployed storage bases for nuclear warheads on the territory of these countries. Therefore, it is sometimes ridiculous to read (for example) the statements that "the Americans are such byaks, they taught their allies how to use them, gave them weapons of destruction, thereby violating the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, but we were not so white and fluffy." We did it too. Took similar measures, and rightly so
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 24 July 2016 08: 08
      0
      Quote: Old26
      In principle, it is probably already difficult to identify the "initiator" of the deployment of nuclear weapons on the territory of the countries of both blocs.

      Yes, it is necessary to squeeze these three American brains into one skull in order to invent something to stop the "armada of tanks rushing to the English Channel"!
    2. Svidetel 45
      Svidetel 45 24 July 2016 19: 55
      +5
      It was the Americans who were the first to create the NATO bloc, they were the first to arm their allies and deploy nuclear weapons in Europe, these are real facts, so there are no difficulties in establishing the initiator of the deployment of nuclear weapons.
  2. gostomysl
    gostomysl 24 July 2016 07: 25
    +2
    When I saw 2k6 tears in my eyes at the Artillery Museum in St. Petersburg. Of course it would be 9k52 better, I didn’t see the point U. But if it came down to the lyrics. I like gobachev.
  3. parusnik
    parusnik 24 July 2016 07: 48
    +4
    So, in the nuclear plan, the Warsaw Pact and NATO went head to head.. Eeeeh ... There is already no Warsaw Pact ..
    1. gladcu2
      gladcu2 6 October 2016 16: 50
      0
      parusnik

      How is this "neck to neck ..."?

      USSR exceeded 12 times. Well, this is a socialist economy, not a miserable capitalist one. This was a common cause, not the attempts of the egotist economists. Thinking is completely different.

      If you test the system for durability, egoists always act as a weak link. They never look to the future. But if they do something, then only what is important to them. Constantly solving their problems, while creating three times more problems for others. But egoists have obvious makings of leadership. They spit la surrounding fellow

      So and Humpbacked, he sold everyone.

      So liberals are selling the state. This is not only in Russia, by the way. They do not care that this state has been gathering for generations in order to protect society. One life, I’ll steal (sell), and let generations not see the future.

      No words, just curses.
  4. Yak28
    Yak28 24 July 2016 08: 49
    +6
    Notice how quickly many countries of the Warsaw Pact and the republics of the USSR turned into NATO or simply became the litter of the United States, accusing Russia of all mortal sins. These things must not be forgotten and forgiven, in any situation NATO will fall apart, underdeveloped states like Poland, Ukraine and so on for a century blood should cry for the betrayal of Russia.
    1. Beefeater
      Beefeater 24 July 2016 10: 41
      +1
      Quote: Yak28
      Notice how quickly many countries of the Warsaw Pact and the republics of the USSR turned into NATO or simply became the litter of the United States, accusing Russia of all mortal sins. These things must not be forgotten and forgiven, in any situation NATO will fall apart, underdeveloped states like Poland, Ukraine and so on for a century blood should cry for the betrayal of Russia.

      There will never be such a thing.
      To confront the USA and the West, we need allies and countries such as Poland and Ukraine, we simply need a transformed and cleansed of the most odious anti-Russian forces. Will you kick them in this situation so that they cough up blood?
      1. iouris
        iouris 24 July 2016 13: 08
        +1
        Quote: Beefeater
        we need allies and countries such as Poland and Ukraine

        Ukraine is a part of Russia. But Poland, as an ally, is a very problematic state.
      2. v02000
        v02000 24 July 2016 13: 55
        0
        Excuse me, but what is Ukraine - 9 regions? Do you even know how many Lenin and Stalin joined them? By the way, the capital letters are correctly spelled out - respecting the personalities. At the expense of the Allies ... Well, you already fed the vegetable, and he surrendered all, Russian, Russian-speaking, Orthodox, and other NOT Fascists. Who will be your ally is a Pole who considers .... (from me warnings) the Mordor and the Mordoroids to be the main threat of rifling of the descendants of the floor, or of those Raguli who since the time of the humpback to the frontal bone the idea breaks down that the mordor is bad, everything is there ...... The truth is that they’re going to work ... But take out the hawala - and Zelensky and others, who then transfer the money earned to you to the Karbats firing at the LDNR ... Wait for the Allies. ..Harks ...
        ,
        1. gladcu2
          gladcu2 6 October 2016 18: 18
          0
          Raguli and the Union went to work to earn money. To the north.
          Therefore, when the USSR was destroyed, they became shuttles. They are not used to it.

          Nothing good was and never was. And the inhabitants of the city called them. For the low level of development. And not the possibility of improvement. How many do not tell them, only with pokes in the face, the concept comes. If this was taken to the factory, then the workshop master cried. Whatever the task, everything is through analytical reproduction.
      3. Lyubopyatov
        Lyubopyatov 24 July 2016 18: 21
        +2
        The betrayal of the former allies was preceded by a genuine betrayal of the Gorbachevites, and in fact they were the top of the Soviet Union, to which the Czechs swore allegiance "for eternal times", about which the East Germans repeated that "where the Soviet Union is, there is Victory!" For many sincere friends and allies of the USSR, the betrayal of the Soviet elite turned out to be an unbearable blow: a wave of suicides swept through the countries of the "Soviet bloc", and many were left to live with the loss of the meaning of life. These deaths are also on the conscience of the Moscow Judas: the Gorbachevs, Yakovlevs, Arbatovs, Kalugins, Andropovs, Kuusinens, etc.
        1. Svidetel 45
          Svidetel 45 24 July 2016 20: 12
          +3
          But one cannot but agree with this, it was the traitors in the leadership of the USSR and Russia who gave the start and activated the entire Russophobic public in the countries of Eastern Europe, it was these Judas who betrayed those in these countries who were loyal or at least loyal to the USSR, and there were such there are many in the GDR and Bulgaria, therefore, by and large, we have no moral right to reproach the peoples of these countries for betrayal, because we ourselves did not stop "our" traitors in the late 80s and early 90s, maybe not the reason cowardice, but due to a lack of understanding of the situation at that time, but nevertheless it is so.
    2. Svidetel 45
      Svidetel 45 24 July 2016 20: 01
      +3
      Yes, they never betrayed, especially Poland, it has always been our enemy, and only the fact that it was the Red Army, and not the American, entered its territory in 44 and made it an "ally" of the USSR. The overwhelming majority of Poles with their mother's milk accept hostility to Russia, this has been the case at all times, and nothing has changed today.
    3. gladcu2
      gladcu2 6 October 2016 16: 56
      0
      Yak28

      What do you mean spread?

      If you change the country's management to puppet, and make the media financially dependent, then do what you want.

      Why talk this nonsense about nations. As if it’s not clear what is happening. What can you do? Got into shit, get comfortable. What else to do?
  5. VladimS
    VladimS 24 July 2016 10: 13
    +1
    Quote: Yak28
    Notice how quickly many of the Warsaw Pact countries and the republics of the USSR went over to NATO or simply became the litter of the United States, accusing Russia of all mortal sins. These things must not be forgotten and forgiven, in any case there will be NATO ...

    The usual thing. The owner had difficulties and he was no longer able to generously pay for his support - vassals. Something similar, I believe, will soon be observed in NATO. Old is like a world.
    1. gladcu2
      gladcu2 6 October 2016 19: 06
      0
      VladimS

      The USSR was not the master. The USSR was a state. The state is a tough machine to protect the country and society. And the mistakes of any state are expensive and cruel.

      These modern liberal state machines protect the interests of the minority, to the detriment of society. It can be defined as a state of parasites. Called to consume from society.
  6. pytar
    pytar 24 July 2016 11: 37
    +4
    Quote: Yak28
    Notice how quickly many countries of the Warsaw Pact and the republics of the USSR turned into NATO or simply became the litter of the United States, accusing Russia of all mortal sins. These things must not be forgotten and forgiven, in any situation NATO will fall apart, underdeveloped states like Poland, Ukraine and so on for a century blood should cry for the betrayal of Russia.

    Notice how everything is being changed from head to toe! First answer yourself: Who gave a start to all these processes and who overstepped first? Who ruined the USSR, ATS, CMEA? Who betrayed all his allies? Who didn’t ruin Russia too? Have you heard about Gorbi and Yeltsin ??? Who was behind him? About that rotten Soviet partocracy and the "socialist" nomenklatura, whose representatives are both Gorby and Yeltsin you heard ??? Why get rid of a sick head on a healthy one ??? No NATO would have stood near your borders if you had not invited him! Something too quickly you forgot what you said to the East European countries Yeltsin! “We will be friends with the West!”, “We will build a democratic Europe from La Manche to Kamchatka!”, “Western-style democracy” and so on ... Many Eastern European countries were extremely reluctant to follow Russia in the “democratization” of society. So, the fact remains: Such a grand betrayal, which happened to the USSR, the world did not know before! And the world is so arranged - in nature, an empty place does not stand for a long time! And there is a law of gravity! Big planets integrate little ones! Like it or not, it doesn't matter.
    1. Baby doll
      Baby doll 24 July 2016 13: 50
      +1
      Quote: pytar
      Have you heard about Gorbi and Yeltsin ???

      You also forgot Nikolai Ryzhkov! It was he who, in 1990, at the CMEA session, announced that trade for "transferable rubles" (practically without money) was terminated, and the currency in the future was the dollar for any product at a price not lower than the world one. And what else could the USSR do when its Eastern European partners began to consider themselves too independent and what exactly they give to the CMEA more than they receive. The dollar and world prices did not suit them, as they got used to privileges and preferences, as a result, CMEA disintegrated. After some time, according to the Bulgarian journalist Valery Naydenov: "... after a few years Bulgaria lay in ruins ...". Well, who betrayed whom and escaped from the CMEA, and who gave more?

      Quote: pytar
      Big planets integrate little ones!

      I will formulate differently whether you like it or not: small countries are looking for a patron and sponsor in the face of large countries.
  7. VladimS
    VladimS 24 July 2016 12: 51
    0
    Who is the first, who is the first ... Baltic States, back in the 90th year. Poland even earlier.
    Further, as in a joke: the central authorities of the USSR pretended to rule everything,
    and the union republics pretended to be subordinate to this administration.
    Namely, seeing all this and began to ripen / crawl out, for the time being,
    smoothed contradictions and elite spirit. Republics and the Center.
    And the West did not doze off, seeing these contradictions ... skillfully playing on interests
    allied "princelings".
    And only later, based on the actual state of affairs, at that moment,
    interstate structures of the Union and the CMEA countries of Eastern Europe began to crumble.
    As the Union rained down under systemic contradictions and difficulties, so did the allies through lured elites
    began to look to the West, as soon as Moscow stopped subsidizing in different forms of this,
    their closest "allies".
    1. iouris
      iouris 24 July 2016 13: 11
      +2
      Quote: VladimS
      the central authorities of the USSR pretended to rule everything

      USSR collapsed from Moscow. The republics had no choice but to submit. A counter-revolution took place in the USSR, and the seizure of socialist property was carried out.
    2. pytar
      pytar 24 July 2016 14: 12
      +2
      You partially coped with the chronology ... And with the reasons, not really that ... The East <-> West confrontation was conducted on an ideological principle. Interethnic and intra-national contradictions, in many respects, were part of this ideological struggle. The "periphery" sometimes rebelled, and sometimes even managed to slip away from the power of the Center! But the system, although creaking, held on until the time when the Center itself (Moscow) collapsed from within due to the ideological erosion of the ruling class. How weak the entire system was is evident from how little it needed to "spill". Well, where did you get your claims to the former allies ??? Are they to blame for you? After all, the socialist system was imposed in Eastern Europe! The USSR imposed it, he destroyed it too, collapsed himself! You are talking about the Baltics, Poland ... Most of the countries of socialist co-operation, although they wanted to be relatively independent, did not want to ruin the social bloc at all! When it fell apart, for many it turned into a national tragedy! So why do you reproach THEM about what you did ??? It was understandable that the West would immediately take the place of the USSR! How and how, it depends on the specifics of the respective country! After all, the USSR also dominated Eastern Europe for half a century, using its own methods! Socialism could not stand the competition. The Western model turned out to be more attractive for all of us / and you / ... while we were watching it from behind the fence ... And a few more words ... Put the word "allies" in brackets ... This is because Moscow subsidized them, and almost all anti-imperialist movements in the world. This is a very widespread opinion in today's Russian society. In fact, as far as Eastern Europe is concerned, the process was going in both directions. Trade and economic cooperation between the CMEA countries was to the benefit of everyone, including the USSR! As far as this is correct I do not know, but when the CMEA collapsed it turned out that the USSR had debts to the majority of its allies. As for "developing countries with a socialist orientation," they were helped not only by the USSR, but also by all the CMEA countries! And not only Russia, but also other former socialist countries wrote off their debts! Bulgaria, for example, wrote off debts in the amount of billions of dollars, which was several times more than its foreign exchange reserves! If the USSR had spent so much on subsidizing the Eastern Bloc, then logically, after the collapse of the CMEA, Russia should have been happy and will get rich very quickly! Something I do not see you have neither joy nor prosperity, comparable to the times of socialism. Ksati can be viewed from such an angle on the topic of military cooperation between the ATS countries! We all spent huge amounts of money on defense and together guaranteed our safety! Your bases in Eastern Europe, removed the enemies away from your own borders!
  8. Baby doll
    Baby doll 24 July 2016 14: 16
    +1
    "The tactical nuclear bombs that are part of the armament of the" dryers "included the items" 244N "(8U69), RN-24 and RN-28"
    Right without dash: PH24, PH28
  9. Yak28
    Yak28 24 July 2016 14: 45
    0
    Quote: pytar
    Who ruined the USSR, ATS, CMEA? Who betrayed all his allies? Who didn’t ruin Russia too? Have you heard about Gorbi and Yeltsin ???

    The USSR was destroyed, or rather allowed to collapse and contributed to the collapse not of Gorby and Yeltsin, but our valiant special services that allowed them to come to power and do different crap with the country. , but they did not stand up to defend the country. And as for our "brotherly" peoples, Russia saved some from genocide, others from the Nazis, Turks and so on. They built infrastructure, taught to read and write. pour slop over Russia and the Russians, at the same time joining anti-Russian unions. And you say yes, this is all nonsense, a holy place is never empty.
    Quote: pytar
    Such a grand betrayal, which happened to the USSR, the world did not know before!

    But what about the betrayal of the Russian Empire, our valiant army swore allegiance to the tsar to the tsar betrayed the state, the collapse of the USSR is the same. In less than 100 years, the army has betrayed Russia twice, this world really didn’t know wink
    1. pytar
      pytar 24 July 2016 15: 50
      +3
      Yak28 - "But when Russia for various reasons weakened ungrateful peoples they began to pour mud on Russia and the Russians, at the same time joining anti-Russian unions. But what about the betrayal of the Russian Empire, our gallant army, which swore allegiance to the tsar, betrayed the state, the collapse of the USSR is the same. In less than 100 years, the army betrayed Russia twice. " - Aha! So again, these ungrateful peoples are to blame for you! Ah, how bad they are! In general, they are all traitors! All to one! Both yours and ours! And special services and communal ...! Even the tsarist army ... betrayed the Russian Empire .... the USSR was created as a result of this betrayal, but we betrayed it ... and indeed everything ... and ... here I got confused ... bully I guess you're kidding ... laughing Otherwise, I would ask what kind of cuckoo has cut your brain? fool So, and if it’s more serious ... Doesn’t it seem to you that the entire Social Union, led by the USSR, was defeated in the 3-MV? So I believe that Bulgaria was defeated in the ranks and, as the former closest ally of the USSR, was placed under merciless occupation. And the occupied countries do not choose where to go. Maybe this is news for you, but it happens in life! bully On the Balkan front, so far the enemy has an overwhelming superiority ... we hope that everything will change soon.
    2. Svidetel 45
      Svidetel 45 24 July 2016 20: 25
      +1
      And you do not confuse Russia and the authorities of Russia, the army a hundred years ago, and in 91 refused to support and defend the power that went bankrupt before the people and the country, but the same army, or its main part, in 18-21 defended the country from an external threat, participating not only in the civil war, but also reflecting foreign intervention, and after 91 years continued, albeit not in the best condition, to carry out its tasks of protecting itself from an external enemy. And how many times did the military in other countries change their power by force, in Turkey itself, and what, each time they betrayed their country?
  10. pytar
    pytar 24 July 2016 14: 46
    +2
    Quote: Pupsen
    Quote: pytar
    Have you heard about Gorbi and Yeltsin ???

    You also forgot Nikolai Ryzhkov! It was he who, in 1990, at the CMEA session, announced that trade for "transferable rubles" (practically without money) was terminated, and the currency in the future was the dollar for any product at a price not lower than the world one. And what else could the USSR do when its Eastern European partners began to consider themselves too independent and what exactly they give to the CMEA more than they receive. The dollar and world prices did not suit them, as they got used to privileges and preferences, as a result, CMEA disintegrated. After some time, according to the Bulgarian journalist Valery Naydenov: "... after a few years Bulgaria lay in ruins ...". Well, who betrayed whom and escaped from the CMEA, and who gave more?

    Quote: pytar
    Big planets integrate little ones!

    I will formulate differently whether you like it or not: small countries are looking for a patron and sponsor in the face of large countries.


    I watched Valery Naydenov's video. This is his point of view. Others have a different one. Do not take information from one source. Well, if everyone was dissatisfied with the CMEA, then it was correctly disbanded! Nobody "feeds" anyone, right? All world trade takes place in currencies ... then your enemies ... Congratulations! You are great! Keep it up! good For some reason everyone forgets about the CMEA that it was an economic structure operating on non-market principles! Only market relations are considered fair in the world! But after all, it was not the countries of Eastern Europe that "chose" non-market socialism before market capitalism? The social system, with all its shortcomings and outright morons, was introduced in Eastern Europe by the Red Army! Who brought the communists to power there ?! Just a few more words ... "small countries are looking for a patron and sponsor in the face of large countries" - no question whether I like it or not! The question is that this hardening is wrong! From small countries, after the collapse of the Social Bloc, some began to develop better, others worse, and the third slipped into poverty. For example, the Czech Republic is a very successful small country! Poland is also developing quite well! Here is the same Romania scolded to everyone, in fact, it is also developing very successfully! You are simply confusing one thing with another! Socialism-capitalism, with russophilia-russophobia! Ideology with economics ... Read the article under which we write again! There we are talking about strategic military cooperation of FORMER SOCIAL countries in the Department of Internal Affairs! The socialist system is gone! For many countries in Eastern Europe, this was what connected them with the USSR. An ideology that no longer exists! But! I have one good novelty for you ... A new and even more powerful alliance with Russia at the head will be created, probably based on the existing structures of the CSTO and the CU! That union will include many of the countries of the former Socialist Bloc, including Bulgaria. This is inevitable, as circumstances make us all unite. It's a question of time.
  11. Yak28
    Yak28 24 July 2016 17: 03
    -1
    Quote: pytar
    Do not you think that the entire Social Union, led by the USSR, was defeated in 3-MV?

    Well, not in 3-MV, but in the Cold War. And this is a big difference. If the USA suddenly weakens and Russia regains its former power, or even not Russia, and the Ottoman Empire is reborn, the lion's share of American allies will be abandoned by the states and crossed to the other side
    1. clidon
      clidon 24 July 2016 20: 43
      0
      For this, the applicant country will have to offer a viable and efficient world order. And not a set of slogans.
  12. Old26
    Old26 24 July 2016 19: 36
    0
    Quote: pytar
    Just a few more words ... "small countries are looking for a patron and sponsor in the face of large countries" - no question whether I like it or not! The question is that this hardening is wrong! From small countries, after the collapse of the Social Bloc, some began to develop better, others worse, and the third slipped into poverty. For example, the Czech Republic is a very successful small country!


    We are not talking about whether a small country has become successful or has slipped into poverty. The point is that small countries on their own, especially in Europe, will not survive. They should always have an "Big Brother" who could guarantee the existence of this or that country. There was the USSR, now the USA, together with NATO, have become the "Big Brother". Virtually none of the countries found themselves outside the bloc. Sooner or later, they came under the wing of the United States and NATO.

    But the topic is actually that the Warsaw Pact countries, and not just NATO, were preparing for the use of Soviet nuclear weapons if necessary.
  13. Old26
    Old26 24 July 2016 19: 40
    0
    Quote: Yak28
    Well, not in 3-MV, but in the Cold War. And this is a big difference. If the USA suddenly weakens and Russia regains its former power, or even not Russia, and the Ottoman Empire is reborn, the lion's share of American allies will be abandoned by the states and crossed to the other side

    It is not for nothing that there is a proverb: "a fish seeks where deeper, and a man - where is better"

    Quote: pytar
    I have one good novelty for you ... A new and even more powerful alliance with Russia at the head will be created, probably based on the existing structures of the CSTO and the CU! That union will include many of the countries of the former Socialist Bloc, including Bulgaria. This is inevitable, as circumstances make us all unite. It's a question of time.

    But I’m not at all sure about this. Especially with regard to Bulgaria. NATO country just Will not give enter into such a union.
  14. grandfather Mih
    grandfather Mih 24 July 2016 19: 59
    0
    Here, somewhere, everything is sideways and in parallel. Russia overstrained itself to carry everything. Didn't slap a nuclear fist - don't forget everything. Not out of fear. Let Samantha hysterical before Churkin: "You are the losing side!" Remember the Gore-Chernomyrdin commission to the pile. The nuclear fraternity is nonsense. Commander one. It's my opinion.
    1. clidon
      clidon 24 July 2016 20: 45
      +1
      Well, the CMEA countries paid for the "nuclear shield" with us "in kind" - with uranium ore.
  15. pytar
    pytar 24 July 2016 22: 37
    +2
    Quote: clidon
    Well, the CMEA countries paid for the "nuclear shield" with us "in kind" - with uranium ore.

    The first nuclear charges from the USSR were made with Bulgarian uranium. Later, the USSR also developed its uranium deposits, but despite this, all exports of Bulgarian uranium until the end of the 90 were intended for the USSR. Strategic hardships and technologies for the USSR were also exported from other ATS countries.
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. rigoletto2001
    rigoletto2001 25 July 2016 10: 49
    -1
    The USSR was a full-time state, as it is good that neither its Warsaw Treaty is anymore.
    PS
    I liked the article, thanks.
    1. murriou
      murriou 25 July 2016 12: 04
      0
      Quote: rigoletto2001
      USSR was a full-time state

      "face-to-face" - is it like, translated into human?

      Quote: rigoletto2001
      how good that neither he nor the Warsaw Pact is anymore

      Yes, after the collapse of the USSR and the ATS, no one * to the US rulers * prevents the rest of the world from bending and pressing as they want. Grace s. wink
      1. rigoletto2001
        rigoletto2001 26 July 2016 13: 15
        0
        Sorry, full-time state (as it was in the original edition, ub ... full-time).
  18. Old26
    Old26 25 July 2016 15: 57
    0
    Quote: pytar
    The first nuclear charges from the USSR were made with Bulgarian uranium. Later, the USSR also developed its uranium deposits, but despite this, all exports of Bulgarian uranium until the end of the 90 were intended for the USSR. Strategic hardships and technologies for the USSR were also exported from other ATS countries.

    The question is quite controversial and difficult. The fact that in the 40s Bulgaria supplied uranium to the USSR, along with Czechoslovakia and subsequently the GDR, is not in doubt. By the way, the supply of uranium concentrate from Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria in the second half of the 40s was approximately equal. What was the entire export of Bulgarian uranium information rather contradictory. How much of the total amount of uranium concentrate for the needs of the USSR was then supplied from Bulgaria, and how many from other countries is unknown. Deliveries from the same Bulgaria certainly played at a certain time, but I don’t think that only on Bulgarian uranium was a bet
    1. pytar
      pytar 25 July 2016 21: 24
      +2
      What is controversial and complicated? Of course, bets were made not only on one Bulgarian uranium! Nobody repeats this! At the end of the 40's in the USSR there were still not enough explored and developed own sites of uranium ore. Bulgarian sites were at that time well-known / the Germans worked /, easily accessible / near Sofia are / and the ore was easy to finish / shallow mines /. It had several thousand tons already finished, which was simply loaded on trains and sent to the USSR. And in the following decades, all Bulgarian uranium continued to be exported to the USSR, although it made up a small part of the uranium already being sought in the USSR and from other CMEA countries.
    2. clidon
      clidon 25 July 2016 21: 45
      0
      Uranium was supplied by all CMEA countries. At least in the 70s. They took it either from their own stocks, or purchased inside CMEA or on the international market.
  19. Old26
    Old26 27 July 2016 21: 43
    0
    Quote: pytar
    In the late 40s, the USSR still did not have sufficiently explored and developed its own sites of uranium ore.

    There were few explored, few were developed, here you are right