NATO commanders will be in for a shattering shock when their aircraft start falling in quantity and the casualties swiftly mount into the thousands and thousands. After all, we are told that the Kiev forces lost two thirds of their military equipment against fighters with a fraction of Russia’s assets, but with the same fighting style.Read the entire article here. Its kinda disjointed and rambling to the point of irritation but the point is clear. This guy thinks Russia would win a war against NATO.
But, getting back to the scenarios of the Cold War. Defending NATO forces would be hit by an unimaginably savage artillery attack, with, through the dust, a huge force of attackers pushing on. The NATO units that repelled their attackers would find a momentary peace on their part of the battlefield while the ones pushed back would immediately be attacked by fresh forces three times the size of the first ones and even heavier bombardments. The situation would become desperate very quickly.
His reasoning? Russia would simply reinforce success, ignore battlefield losses and push toward their objective.
He goes on to point out that over reliance on air power is the Achilles heel of the organization and the West's way of war.
The crazy thing?
He might be right. Russia can achieve achieve local superiority and due to the bureaucratic nature of NATO, probably achieve limited goals before the alliance could even mobilize.
I believe this is what the Eastern European countries realize and thats why they're engaged in rapid rearmament programs.
Poland is probably too tough a nut to crack at this time. But Estonia, Romania, Georgia and others are all under the gun. The West's way of warfare...to rely on airpower...is a problem. I call it the SOCOM-ization of ground combat. SOCOM has the luxury of having dedicated air assets assigned to every mission they undertake (the USMC once had that advantage uniquely but appears determined to piss it away to the Combined Air Operations Center). What does that mean? Assault until you run into opposition, then pause, call for fire and once the opposition is destroyed you continue. This must change or a loss of airpower (which appears more and more likely if the F-35 limps into service) will be the reason we lose the next war.
The main question- what “ the War” is? I’ve radically changed my mind about the problem and now have all relevant basements to suppose that the War is already started and the red line crossed, at least for us, Russians.
ReplyDeleteBut the current war looks to be proxy and hybrid with leading role of economy and media.
Aye, the problem is with that definition of what type of conflict we speak of. Is this will be the classic full military clash or small proxy ones, or something between. There is too many options and with everyday we get next ones. But every type of open conflict would be disaster for Russian economy, it is an fragile one that rest on resources export. Attacking the main receiver of it would be a... suicide move.
DeleteThen I agree, proxy, hybrid, economy pressure but not full war. If it would happen, God's protects, the repercussions would be unimaginable.
@But every type of open conflict would be disaster for Russian economy@
DeleteDisagree, pan. Only for “market” (or if to be more correct – “bazaar”) part of economy. Russian economy in general, as well as political and social systems are designed to be most effective only in war (crisis) circumstances. Of course in this case a lot of people lost their jobs (managers, designers, sales agents, lawyers and so on) – but totalitarian system will deliver them to build railways in Siberia or any another “healthy job on open air”.
@the repercussions would be unimaginable. @
USA as a single global ruler will determine the Future of all humanity – it is their decision to be maid, and their responsibility to carry on.
thats a tiresome refrain. question. what is the difference between the US as a superpower and every other empire that has ever gone before? answer. resources and wealth were extracted from far flung countries of the empire that went into the coffers of the leading nation. the US hasn't done that. quite the contrary. the US has seen a remarkable amount of wealth LEAVE its shores and head to other parts of the world.
Deleteif the US is an empire then its acting stupidly. if its the single superpower then its acting against its own interests. thats where all the anti-US people fail. they always assume that the US is plotting shit worldwide but fail to say how those plots directly BENEFIT the US! they don't.
@remarkable amount of wealth LEAVE its shores and head to other parts of the world@
DeleteWhat do you mean, sir? What does USA concrete transfer to my country, more then achieve from us?
With all due respect – BUT
The first.
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/spydell/22074195/859688/859688_original.png
this pic shows that Russia mostly issued our own currency directly to our monetary funds (which mostly consists of Western papers) changes. Another word – we can’t issue our own currency without buying Western papers which are not proved with gold or another liquid and safe asset.
Russians still buy American treasures and dollars – we try to disconnect our systems. And we are punished for this right now with such instruments as “free oil market”, “free currency and papers market” and “free western media”.
The second
This schedule shows that USA imports greatly more then exports.
http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/conc5en/img/leadingtraders.png
http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/conc5en/leadingtraders.html
The third.
USA now operates in Afghanistan – so how many civil objects (like schools, plants and so on) you build for Afghany? I never met any info about it. USSR built more then one hundred such objects. Some are still operational – as fertilizer plant in Mazary-Sharif.
So I beg to differ, sir.
And how many Russia or rather Soviet Union blow up in times of war in Afganistan? I don't know how many civis building US forces did repair or build, I can give you an info how many did Polish contingent.
DeletePolish PRT end 194 projects including: build or repair in Ghazi province some 25km of waterworks, 40km of roads, 19 schools, kindergartens and hospitals, 4 water dams, 3 hydro powerplants & sewage treatment plants, 10 trash burners. Medic personnel help 11 411 patients.
I presume Sol' would have more data about US works.
@ I can give you an info how many did Polish contingent. @
Deleteinteresting, thanks!
google translation
DeleteList of main facilities and activities for which the performance of the obligations of the USSR to provide technical assistance to Afghanistan is completed.
The year of completion of the obligations of the USSR to the Afghan side.
1. GES Puli Khumri-II capacity of 9 thousand. KW p. Kungduz 1962
2. Thermal Power Plant at nitrogen fertilizer plant capacity of 48 thousand. KW (4x12) Phase 1 - 1972
Stage II - 1974
(36 MW)
Extension - 1982
(up to 48 MW)
3. The dam and hydroelectric power station "uppity" on p. Kabul capacity of 100 thousand. 1966 kW
extension - 1974
4. The transmission line with substations of the hydroelectric Puli Khumri-II to the city of Baghlan and Kunduz (110 km) 1967
5. The power line to the substation 35/6 kV TPP at nitrogen fertilizer plant to the city of Mazar-i-Sharif (17.6 km) 1972
6-8. Substation in the north-western part of Kabul and transmission lines - 110 kV electrical substations of "East" (25 km), 1974
9-16. 8 tank farms with total capacity of 8300 cubic meters. m 1952 - 1958 years.
17. The gas pipeline from the site of gas to nitrogen fertilizer plant in Mazar-i-Sharif length of 88 km and a capacity of 0.5 billion. Cube. meters of gas a year 1968 1968 г.
18- 19. The gas pipeline from the gas fields to the border of the USSR 98 km long with a diameter of 820 mm and a capacity of 4 billion. Cube. meters of gas per year, including an air passage through the Amu Darya river length of 660 meters in 1967,
aerial crossing pipeline -1974g.
20. Looping on the pipe length of 53 km in 1980
21. power lines - 220 kV from the Soviet border near to the city of Kunduz Shirhana (the first stage) 1986
22. Expansion of storage facilities in the port of Hairatan on the 5 th. Cu. m 1981
23. The tank farm in the town of Mazar-i-Sharif with a capacity of 12 thousand. Cu. m 1982
24. The tank farm in Logar capacity of 27 thousand. Cu. m 1983
25. The tank farm in the town of Puli - Khumri capacity of 6 thousand. Cu. m
26-28. Three motor companies in Kabul with 300 trucks "Kamaz" every 1985
Delete29. Transport company servicing oil tankers in Kabul
30. The service station car "Kamaz" in Hairatan 1984
31. Construction of gas fields in the area of Shiberghan capacity of 2.6 billion. Cube. meters of gas per year in 1968
32. Construction of gas fields in the field "Dzharkuduk" with a set of facilities for desulphurization and preparation of gas for transportation of up to 1.5 billion. Cube. meters of gas per year in 1980
33. Booster compressor station on the gas fields "Khoja Gugerdag" 1981
34-36. Nitrogen fertilizer plant in Mazar-i-Sharif capacity of 105 thousand. Tonnes of urea to the residential village and building a base in 1974
37. Auto Repair Plant power in Kabul in 1373 capital repair of motor vehicles and 750 tons of metal per year in 1960
38. Airport "Bagram" from the runway to 3000 m in 1961
39. The international airport in Kabul with runway 2800h47 m 1962
40. Aerodrome "Shindand" with runway 2,800 m in 1977
41. The line of multi-channel communication from the city of Mazar-i-Sharif to the point Hayraton 1982
42. Fixed satellite station "Intersputnik" type "Lotus"
43. House-Building Plant in Kabul capacity of 35 thousand sq. M of living area in the year 1965
44. Extension of house-building plant in Kabul to 37 sq. M. m of living space per year in 1982
45. Asphalt-concrete plant in Kabul, street paving and supply of road vehicles (delivery of equipment and technical assistance implemented through MW) 1955
46. River port Shirhan designed to process 155 thousand. Tons of cargo per year, including 20 thousand. Tonnes of petroleum products in 1959
extension 1961
47. Highway bridge over the river. Khanabad near the village Alchin length of 120 m in 1959
Highway 48. "Salang" through the Hindu Kush mountain range (107.3 km 2.7 km tunnel at an altitude of 3300 m) 1964
49. Reconstruction of the technical systems of the tunnel "Salang" 1986
50. Highway Kushka - Herat - Kandahar (679 km) with cement concrete pavement 1965
51. Highway Doshi - Shir Khan (216 km), finished in black 1966
Delete52-54. Three road bridges in the province Nangarharskoy across the river. Kunar in areas Bisuda, Kamei, Asmar length respectively 360 m, 230 m and 35 m in 1964
55. The road to Kabul - Jabel - us-Seraj (68.2 km) 1965
56-57. Two road bridge over the river and the Salang Gurband 30 m each in 1961
58. Central repair shops for repair of road construction equipment in Herat in 1966
59. The road Puli Khumri-Mazar-i-Sharif, Shiberghan length 329 km with a black coated 1972
60. The road from the highway Puli Khumri-Shiberghan to the point of Hairatan on the bank. Amu Darya 56 km
61. Automobile and railway bridge over the river. Amu Darya 1982
62. The grounds of the terminal station on the left bank of the river. Amu Darya near Hairatan
63. Kindergarten for 220 seats and a nursery for 50 places in Kabul in 1970
64. City electric network in Jalalabad 1969
65-66. City electric networks in the cities. Mazar-i-Sharif and Balkh 1979
67-68. Two neighborhood in Kabul a total area of 90 thousand sq. M. m 1978
69-74. 6 meteorological stations and 25 posts in 1974
75-78. 4 Weather Stations
79. Center for Maternal and Child 110 visits per day in Kabul in 1971
Delete80. Geological, geophysical, seismic and drilling for oil and gas in northern Afghanistan in 1968 - 1977.
81. Complex search and survey work for solid minerals
82. Polytechnic Institute in Kabul for 1200 students in 1968
83. College 500 students for training of Petroleum Geologists and miners in the city of Mazar-i-Sharif in 1973
84. Automotive College 700 students in Kabul
85-92. 8 vocational schools to train skilled workers in 1982 - 1986.
93. Boarding School on the basis of an orphanage in Kabul in 1984
94. Bakery in Kabul (elevator with a capacity of 50 thousand. Tons of grain, two mills - 375 tonnes per day mill, a bakery 70 tons of bread per day) 1957
95. The elevator in Puli Khumri capacity of 20 thousand. Tons of grain
96. Bakery in Kabul capacity 65 tons of bread per day in 1981
97. Mill in Puli Khumri capacity of 60 tons per day in 1982
98. Bakery in the city of Mazar-i-Sharif productivity 20 tons of bread per day
99. Mill in Mazar-i-Sharif productivity 60 tons of flour per day
100. Jalalabad irrigation canal with a knot head intake structures on the river. Kabul 70 km long with a capacity of 11.5 thousand kW GES 1965
101-102. Dam "SARD" Reservoir capacity of 164 million. Cu. m and irrigation networks at the dam to irrigate 17.7 hectares of land in 1968 - 1977gg.
Delete103-105. Two diversified agricultural farm "Gazibad" with the territory of 2.9 hectares, "Hulda" with the territory of 2.8 hectares and irrigation and reclamation land preparation in the area of Jalalabad channel on an area of 24 thousand. Ha in 1969 - 1970.
106-108. Three veterinary laboratories to combat infectious animal diseases in the cities. Jalalabad, Mazar-i-Sharif and Herat in 1972
109. The processing plant citrus and olives in Jalalabad 1984
110. Testing laboratory for seed crops in Kabul
111-113. 3 soil and agrochemical laboratories in the cities. Kabul, Mazar-i-Sharif and Jalalabad
114-115. 2 cable crane near Khorog and Qala-Khumb 1985 - 1986.
116. The transmission line 220 kV "State Border of the USSR-Mazar-i-Sherif" 1986
117. Comprehensive laboratory analysis of solid minerals in Kabul in 1985
118. The elevator capacity of 20 thousand. Tons of grain in Mazar-i-Sharif
119. Service Stations Truck 4 post in Puli Humrm
120-121. 2 hlopkovh seed laboratory in the cities. Kabul and Balkh
122. Polyclinic Insurance Company of civil servants for 600 visits per day in Kabul
123-125. Artificial insemination station in the cities. Kabul (Binigisar), Mazar-i-Sharif (Balkh), Jalalabad
126. The Institute of Social Sciences of the Central Committee of the PDPA in 1986
Delete127. Feasibility study the feasibility of establishing two state farms on the basis of the irrigation system "SARD"
128. 10 kV transmission line from the state border in the area Kushka to the station. Turgundi substation - "-
129 filling stations in Kabul capacity of 2 tons per year
130. Base of the Ministry of Interior in Hairatan for unloading and storage Label (on contract terms)
131. Reconstruction of the railway station Turgundi 1987
132. Restoration of a bridge over the river. Samangan
133 filling stations in Hairatan capacity of 2 thousand. Tons of liquefied gas
134. Looping 50 km pipeline USSR - Afghanistan
135. Rehabilitation work on main roads
136. Secondary school for 1300 students in Kabul with the number of subjects taught in Russian
137. Installation of gas condensate processing into diesel fuel production capacity of 4 th. Tons per year on gas fields Dzharkuduk
138. MGB base in the port of Hairatan
139-141. Three tarmac at Hairatan
142. The enterprise for progressive assembly of bicycles capacity of 15 thousand. Units per year in Kabul in 1988
I think you are finally touching on a subject that is ignored in our military and that is the discussion on how we wage war.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Lind, author of the Maneuver Warfare Handbook, and others have long insisted the US is still stuck in the 2nd Generation of warfare with its emphasis on firepower rather than maneuver. Our reliance on airpower today is nothing more than a holdover from our reliance on artillery was earlier Vietnam, Korea, WWII.
I guess current military problems of the West are directly connected with ideological content of present populist regimes in relevant countries: it is greatly easier to sell for the electorate the idea that some High-Tec devices will smash all the enemy of “free people”, than idea that the above said electorate must decrease their living rate to transform toy-armies into developed armies possible to perform large-scale land operations. It is just a next proof of theory that democratic regimes are decent to peaceful times (a very rare thing in Human’s history) but authoritarian regimes (like Putin’s) are decent to crisis times.
ReplyDeleteOverdependence on airpower can be seen in lebanon 2006 conflict with hezbollah. the campaign was marred by israeli's overconfidence that airpower alone can stop hezbollah rockets , it didn't. the official report from IDF and winograd commision are telling.. israeli command also limit attack helo supporting groundtroops in lebanon because of hezbolah's manpads , proved by the shotdown of CH53 troop carrier.
ReplyDeleteAir power is a massive force multiplier and yet it worked both ways, deny it over the battlefield and your ground force will lose. Many example in vietnam war about units saved from being overrun by the timely help of airstrikes.. the question is how many US ground unit will be overrun in the next war , if there's no air support because the enemy's A2/AD ?
well you're mixing apples and oranges and i didn't help did i. most assume that ground forces won't be employed into an active A2/AD environment or at the very least there will be corridors created to allow safe passage of air and sea forces to the objective.
DeleteWhat have Hezbollah done since the 2006 war?
DeleteA few isolated successes does not a victory make.
Hezbollah was utterly blitzed, its strategy was to win an artillery duel, it lost.
Then its strategy was to win a decisive land battle, it lost
Finally its strategy was to flood TV crews to the few isolated points where its soldiers didn't piss their pants and run away.
Isolated tank kills is not the same as over running and destroying entire battalions.
who said about tank kills ? hezbollah vs IDF conflict in lebanon 2006 is not about tank kills like some of the pro-hezbollah crowds like to advertise .. it is not about merkava that got ambushed .. it is more complex than that.. the deficiency of IDF in lebanon 2006 are acknowledged by Israeli goverment. in the years preceding 2006 conflict , IDF's budget focused on IAF and the chief of staff was ex-IAF who think IAF can solved the hezbollah rocket problem just by airpower alone..
Deletefalling that, they pushed their regular ground force to enter southren lebanon , and got suprised by hezbollah's defensive layout there .. it is an intelligence failure when your main ground forces got suprised by enemy, Then in a late and belated move, the Israeli leaders called up the reserves so suddenly.. and the lack of training proved to be fatal for a reserve paratrooper units , in which 50 para entered a building and the hezbollah used 2 ATGM to destroy the building killing and wounding many..
Mind you all these factuals are from Israeli sources and US military analyst , and not some pro hezbollah propaganda outlet.. The Israeli goverment commision Winograd commitee to study IDF's failing in lebanon 2006.. it is a sobering read.
That's like saying Japan won the second world war because pearl harbour.
DeleteIsrael expected to do better, but Hezbollah expected to do much much much much better
my point in mentioning IDF vs Hezbollah war is to state that even the BEST military in the world (the israeli) can get complacent after decades of COIN in westbank and gaza , with the bulk of operation done by spec-ops type in occupied territories..
DeleteThe purpose of IDF was to stop hezbollah rockets , and it failed to do that.. IAF's bombing on lebanon's infrastructure to make the goverment there pressure hezbollah instead caused massive resentment among lebanese populations and caused them to support the hezbollah.. this is massive propaganda lost by israel and a win for hezbollah..
This small comment from a Sayeret Egoz soldier should explained it all : "We expect them to have a few AK and a tent.." , is this hubris and overconfidence will also be the undoing of NATO/US military when they fought future opponents ?
Again, The IDF did worse than it expected, that is not in doubt.
DeleteBut, that does not mean it lost.
Hezbollah went in to that war expecting to terror bomb Israel in to a settlement and expecting to destroy entire armoured battalions on the battlefield.
Hezbollah's defeat was so total they have avoided picking another fight for a decade and it will be a generation before they are stupid enough to pick another.
The IDF has quite happily give after Hamas and Syria since.
i suggest you re-read the widely available analysis of the lebanon war in 2006 , from western military analyst , to avoid getting propaganda stuff either from hezbollah or the israeli.. there's was no 'hezbollah' defeat in 2006, only IDF's defeat and humiliation.. please dont take my word for it , but read the very detailed analysis by various analyst.
DeleteYou made a false assumption that it is hezbollah who initated the War in 2006.. It is not , the hezbollah have a standing order to harrass and kidnap IDF soldiers in the border area , and when the israeli goverment reacted by invading southern lebanon , it took hezbollah leaders by surprise (mr Nasrallah admitted that in recorded speech)..
My comment is not about supporting either side, my point is to show that even the 'best' military force in the world (the Israelis) can be unprepared and unready for conflict because of intelligence failures, hubris , overconfidence, overreliance of airpower alone, lack of budget for training reserves (IDF's backbone), lack of discipline on regular units.. it should be a lesson for any military not to underestimate a determined opponent like the hezbollah..
Hamas on the other hand , are not as trained as Hezbollah , thus that's why IDF can still show it's muscle in gaza strip repeatedly..
So Hezbollah's standing orders are still to kidnap Israeli soldiers?
DeleteAnd they still do that?
Do they still fire rockets at Israel?
Or have they stopped that too?
im curious how quickly the losing side of NATO vs Russia war will resort to nukes.. Russia already stated they willing to use nukes to defend foreign invasion, im interested how much is their resolve in using nukes (i assume tactical / battlefield nukes).. and if one side cross the line on using nukes, whats stopping them from using chemical / biological stuff ?
ReplyDelete@Im interested how much is their resolve in using nukes (i assume tactical / battlefield nukes).@
ReplyDeleteOnly practice will show (God forbid!). But It was stated in “military-around” circles and through some “info-outlets” that Russia can manage an unacceptable damage to NATO countries. At my take most possible place for Hiroshima-style PR action in Russian performance – current Ukraine.
@can manage an unacceptable damage to NATO countries. @
DeleteI mean damage with non-nuke measures.
The UK has (had) 36 operable tanks.
ReplyDeleteGermany has (had) half a dozen operable Typhoons.
The UKs Tornado fleet is heavily deployed against the Caliphate and barely operable even against that target.
If Russia rushed tanks in to Romania, or Poland, I don't see what (none US) NATO assets are available to repel them.
I don't see that as likely though.
What happens when ethnic Russians in Latvia start sniping police officers? Or Russian special forces posing as Latvians of Russian heritage start doing so?
Are Italian soldiers going to set up checkpoints in the Capital? Border check points? How does that stack up against the EUs fundamental freedom if movement?
Russia today will have a field day with the internment if ethnic Russians in the EU.
Delayed actions like the one we are seeing in Ukraine and the Latvia etnic sniping gives a sign and an indicator of what Russia wants to do giving more time for Western opposition to prepare and retaliate if they want to. I wouldnt be surprised if the Russians just Gazumped up a small country one fine day in one go.
DeleteFreedom of movement go to the trash in the times of war. Just like to other "freedoms".
DeleteRussia does have the ability to win a War against any Individual NATO country except USA. And even if they dont outright win the war, they have the ability to deal such massive damage as to end the war on their terms and extract the maximum from it. And there in lies the question as to what Russia expects to gain from any War with any country that borders it or is near it ?
ReplyDeleteIf even a limited proxy campaign in Ukraine can leave their economy in shambles and without many allies in the world, then what do they expect to gain from a full on "WAR" with another country ?
Also, what does that other country gain by Antagonizing the Russians so much that they start a war with them ?
Answer these questions and you have a decent chance of winning this "hypothetical" War.
We have only one territorial question to be resolved soon – Ukraine. And even this is nothing but correction of negative results of USSR fall for us – to protect our transport lines in Black sea. The question of invading all Ukraine is not on the table.
DeleteEach war must have an aim. I see no drecent aim for Russians to wage global war.
And what if Kreml would like to resolve other "territorial questions"? Appetite comes with eating.
DeleteFor what? Each geopolitical step has special reason. At my take Russian geopolitical aims right now – organize global transport rout APEC- EU and Mediterranean sea countries trough our territory. This is why (IMHO, of course) our love with Turkey and our take of Crimea. And we need more stable financial system (to support the above said rout as well), real international not “one-player-game” like right now. That is all. Of course, if USA nuke bombs will be loaded in Polish bombers (for example) we will respond for this. Why should we invade EU? To help them in organizing LBGT parades? But we have no such experience. Bgggg.
DeleteDon't worry, we don't have bombers. And US would not give us any nukes.
DeleteAh an you remember who represent Russia in one of Eurovisions? Some... two girls who became a stars when they pretend to be lesbians. I just love the face of one Russian last week when I throw that in to his face when he start this topic.
"At least we did not send a wannabe lesbos to represent our country in Eurovision"
Ah his face... priceless. :D
It used to be the 'Green' / Environment stuff that used to embarass goverments and made them look bad, now it is LGBT issues.. what next ? it is evil for chinese to eat cats and dogs ? good luck with that lol as they are delicacy for some people in china..
Deletei dont eat dogs btw , just pointing out that culture differs around the world.. try pushing LGBT issue in Saudi Arabia and see how amused their goverment will be..
The Russians don't even need to send batalliins, they can smash Poland and Germany from Kalininsgrad ising their Smersh and Iskander.with 300 Km range.
ReplyDeleteThe Iskander have an internal jamming device that protect them to be intercepted by missiles.
Iskander and SMERCH Mobile Ballistic Missile Laun…: http://youtu.be/KB8DEG3pJS8
You know... this maybe a surprise to you... but what the hell, we have Christmas time of wonders!
DeleteYou know that Poland is a lot... a LOT bigger then 300km. And Germany are a LOT far away then 300km from Königsberg. Some 1/5 of Poland is in range of those missiles.
Russia deploys Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad: http://youtu.be/fUphnhyyKmY
DeleteIskanders can reach Berlin, Stockholm and Warsaw from Kaliningrad.
DeleteDamn boys... you really sucks at geography. 0_0
DeleteGoogle translate
ReplyDeletePutin approved the new edition of the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation
MOSCOW, December 26. / TASS /. Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree "On the military doctrine of the Russian Federation." This is the official website of the Kremlin. This document introduces clarifications to the existing doctrine.
Clarification of the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation carried out pursuant to a decision of the Security Council of Russia from July 5, 2013. Changes made to the document approved at the meeting of the Russian Security Council December 19, 2014.
By another decree, published on the official website of legal information, the previous edition of the Doctrine revoked.
Changes as prescribed old doctrine, made in connection with "the changing nature of military threats and military threats, and challenges in the field of military security and defense, as well as the conditions for the development of the Russian Federation"
According to the official website of the Security Council, the changes "primarily related to the emergence of new threats to the Russian Federation, which appeared in the situation in Ukraine and around it, as well as the events in North Africa, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan." "In the fight against the leading nations of the world for their interests have become typical of" indirect action ", the use of the protest potential of the population, radical and extremist organizations, private military companies; built up NATO's offensive capabilities directly from the Russian border, active measures are being taken to deploy a global missile defense system, "- noted in the report of the Security Council.
see also
Russia needs to strengthen the orbital group, said Rogozin
Actual position of the current military doctrine remained unchanged in the new version. «Save the defensive nature of the Military Doctrine, focusing on Russia's commitment to the use of military force only after exhausting the possibilities of the use of non-violent action," - said in a statement. "Remains the same principles on the use of the Armed Forces and the order to use nuclear weapons", - stated in it.
At the same time specify the basic formulation. "First of all it refers to the main external and internal military dangers, especially armed conflicts, as well as the application of the Armed Forces," - noted in the Security Council. "The concept of non-nuclear deterrence, keeping in mind the maintenance of a high level of combat readiness of general purpose forces. Specified and supplemented the main tasks of the Russian Federation to deter and prevent armed conflicts, "- said in a statement.
In addition, Doctrine (pdf) given to the concept of mobilization readiness and set objectives to maintain it at the appropriate level, including the tasks to improve the effectiveness of military-patriotic education of citizens. List of the main tasks of the Armed Forces, other forces and agencies supplemented provisions could aerospace defense, ensuring Russia's national interests in the Arctic, as well as the creation, development and modernization of military infrastructure.
In the new edition corrected the problem military and economic security defense. "In the development of the military-industrial complex of the emphasis placed on improving the quality and competitiveness of military products, the creation of a system for managing the total life cycle of weapons, military and special equipment," - noted in the Security Council.
The paper addresses the issues of expanding cooperation with the BRICS countries, the development of relations with the republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. "The necessity of maintaining an equitable dialogue with the EU and NATO, to help build the Asia-Pacific region, a new model of security," - said in Doctrine.
use links guys. not articles within the comments!
DeleteIt's mostly a matter of political will. I heard over the BBC world service (sorry, can't remember which day) that independent polls in Russia show widespread support for Putin, and even a slight increase in his standing since sanctions took affect. The drop in oil prices has hurt their economy but is seen as being deliberately anti-Russian (something a lot of the blogosphere would agree with). Instead of turning them against Putin, they are rallying around the flag.
ReplyDeleteHow solid is his opposition in the EU and the US? While we have shouted nice and angry, not a lot has really happened. The sanctions are not making Russia change it's mind but are putting strain on Germany and other nations that do trade/invest with Russia. And now Russia is even publicly supporting North Korea on the Sony Hack, saying the US has no proof--just to poke a finger in our eye.
Let's say Russia did invade the rest of Ukraine. and it looked like were going to push into Poland. I firmly believe Putin has the will to try that...but would we even fire a shot?
Sure Poland is a part of NATO and we might respond later...once it was too late and there Russian tanks across the border. But act preemptively? NO.
It doesn't matter about the troops on the ground if we lack the political will to send those troops.
Assume Poland is attacked. How quickly do we respond? The big brother NATO always depends on, the USA has our troops all over the place and is in the process of cutting what we have. If we go to actual war with ISIS and start sending combat units there we would be unable to pull them out without risking ISIS taking Iraq and turning its attention to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. So those troops are out of play. China...without firing a shot...starts putting its naval forces in large numbers around disputed territory in the pacific. Big Brother USA has to help there as well and now we have some of our naval and marine forces tied up in the pacific regardless of ether any actual shooting starts. And don't let talk about our "11" carrier force distract you...go to http://nextnavy.com/ and read the excellent article Craig Hooper has written about our 11 carrier force only having 7 actual available ships. Not that the Baltic is an ideal place to send carriers anyway.
So how much US military actually goes to assist NATO? A lot less than NATO expects. And that air power that NATO depends on? What happens when the latest surface to air Russian missiles appear on Polish soil?
So what is left? Threaten with Nukes? Does anyone really believe that the present US administration would deploy tactical nuclear weapons? And even if it did, deploy where? Dropping them on the country we are trying to save, because that is where the Russian troops will be in Poland. Back in the 80's Ralph Peters wrote a novel of a Soviet invasion of Germany where the Russians more or less one, because West Germany was afraid the US was going to nuke Soviet forces on German soil. Poland might not surrender--they remember being a Soviet vassal-- but the EU would positively freak about the possibility of fallout spreading over Europe.
Besides the nuclear deterrence is even worse off considering the scandals involving our ICBM sites here in CONUS, and our Trident subs on the verge of retirement with no replacement in sight, we seem less serious about the nuclear Triad then ever.
If Russia were to strike at the right moment; US on the ground (again) in middle-east, China throwing its weight around, and political and economic problems in the US & EU...yea, they have a very good chance at attacking and keeping the Baltic States and/or Poland.
thus brings up the gorilla in the room , can US military might fought both Russia and China together at 2 different geographic location without resorting to nukes ?
Deletei think the only chance for either US or Russia to achieve victory would be to perform a suprise first strike against their opponent, crippling their nukes launch facilities and their cities and their military bases in one stroke, while trying to survive the inevitable retaliation (hopefully weak retaliation)..
Deleteassuming ground conflict happened in europe , would russia accept defeat of their conventional forces without resorting to nukes ? would US / NATO accept defeat of their conventional forces without resorting to tac nukes ? i doubt in WW3 both sides can bear to see their armies got slaughtered when they still got tac nukes ready to launch .. im sure US leaders willing to use tac nukes on european soil , the question is the EU want their soil to be irradiated ?
I think that the question of whether tactical nukes could be used depends on several factors.
Delete1) who is in charge? Both sides must have enough desire to win...or at least not lose...to deploy them. I DO think that neither side would resort to a full scale world ending exchange even if they are deployed, assuming that full command and control still exists. But using them and suffering a com blackout from EMP at the top level (i.e. Putin and the Kremlin) could trigger a Russian strategic commander into thinking WW3 had kicked off and it was time to launch. Fortunately, proper tactical use would preclude that.
2) type of weapons deployed. Size and yield, range, all factor into whether it makes an acceptable choice. An enhanced radiation device (otherwise known as a "neutron bomb") has minimal fallout and generates particles that are excellent for penetrating armor and were meant for stopping a soviet armored invasion of western Europe during the cold war. The W61 warhead can not only have it's yield dialed down but can be fitted with the same gps guidance system used on the JDAM resulting in a "smart nuke" for taking out a command bunker or say a port in Crimea.
3) It would have to be delivered by tactical source, not an ICBM or SLBM to reduce risk of mass retaliation. An Su-34 or F15E for example or even a Backfire/B-1. Had we not taken away the "special" tomahawk missiles, a strike from a Burke mixed with conventional tomahawk strikes as cover would work as well.
D) but it mostly comes down to how that leader wants to be seen by the rest of the world. I doubt that even when faced with losing Eastern Europe few American Presidents would do so. He would be a pariah to Europe...after all it would be dropped on European soil..and NATO might even seek a truce just to stop the US from making a second strike. If Russia was losing, and Putin deployed a nuclear weapon, his own leadership may force him to step down in fear of large scale retaliation. However if European and American politicians are more afraid of escalation than the Russian leadership, a tactical nuke might work.
Brinksmanship is not a game for the faint of heart.
I doubt Russia could do it with their economic state.
ReplyDeleteGermany was bankrupt when it began WWII, and Italy and Japan were the poster kids for limited resources.
DeleteI wonder is the next cold war will be as cold as the last one.
ReplyDeleteA Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Since…:
http://youtu.be/LLCF7vPanrY
I maybe flogging a dead thread here, but questions about tactical nukes raised, I thought I should share a quote about current Russian nuclear strategy.
ReplyDeleteThis is their updated (as of this month) official stance on nuclear weapons--pay close attention to the last line:
"Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear weapons or any other types of weapons of mass destruction against Russia or its allies, as well as in the case of an attack with conventional weaponry that threatens the very existence of the state," the doctrine says.
Did you catch that? "...an attackwith conventional weaponry that threatens the very existence of the state." That is a nice open ended line---some Russian officials will say that that is only if Russian soil is invaded ala 1942. But if Russia expands west and runs into a reinvigorated NATO, then that seems to me that some Russian leaders with Soviet thinking could be very sore losers. Should they be pushed back enough that it threatens say, control of Crimea, tactical nukes could be on the table.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russias_New_Military_Doctrine_Permits_Retaliatory_Nuclear_Strike_Only_999.html
The UK (and France possibly) will first use in "extreme self defence"
Delete