Last Ultimatum: US Demands Turkey to Destroy C-400


The United States administration is not abandoning attempts to force the Turkish leadership to abandon the use of Russian anti-aircraft missile systems S-400 Triumph.


The US Foreign Office issued a statement at a recent briefing by a senior department official stating that having received the S-400, Ankara puts itself at risk of CAATSA sanctions by Washington. It is reported RIA News".

At the same time, according to the official, the United States has not yet decided what kind of influence these restrictive measures will be. He noted that it is not too late for Turkey to return to the negotiating table, but the only condition for this is the rejection of Russian systems: Ankara must “destroy, return or dispose of” the Russian S-400.

The official also said that the United States has not yet ruled out the possibility of Turkey acquiring a battery of American Patriot missile defense systems, which "meet Turkey’s air defense needs."

At the same time, Turkish Minister of Defense Hulusi Akar said that the Russian S-400s will "function", for which the Turkish military is now being trained.

Recall that the reason for the cooling of relations between Ankara and Washington was the attempted armed coup in Turkey, initiated by the Americans with the tacit consent of the EU countries.
  • Photos used: https://haber111.com
22 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in
  1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
    Pishenkov (Alexey) 22 November 2019 11: 30
    +3
    The question is for everyone who regularly criticizes this weapon and doubts its abilities:
    And why are the Americans so worried about this if the S-400 is nothing special? All the former Warsaw Pact countries, which today have long been in NATO, still have enough Soviet weapons, including air defense missile systems, and not only them. And newer systems, already made in the Russian Federation, are available in Europe, Asia, and South America. And for some reason, no one in the West was so steamed about it. And then suddenly there was almost a split in NATO. Why did it happen? Or is it just that American specialists, unlike the local "couch generals", are better acquainted with the capabilities of these complexes?
    1. Afinogen Offline Afinogen
      Afinogen (Afinogen) 22 November 2019 11: 54
      +1
      And then suddenly there was almost a split in NATO. Why's that?

      In no case do I want to cast a shadow on our air defense systems. Everything is simple. A colossal battle for a place in the sun is going on in the arms market, any means are used to obtain a contract. For colossal NATO money is spinning there, it has always been the "vegetable garden" of the Americans. And no one thought to climb there. All NATO members are simply obliged to take only American weapons. The amerikosov military-industrial complex thrives on this, then they are not yet selling their NATO members all over the world. And then a "riot on the ship" - Turkey decided to buy from Russia, and this is an emergency in the camp of the Americans. This is how everyone will start amateur performances, there will be no discipline, NATO will fall apart, and then the military-industrial complex of the amerikosov, to whom they will still lend so many expensive weapons.
      1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
        Pishenkov (Alexey) 22 November 2019 12: 13
        +2
        On the one hand, yes, you are right, NATO and the introduction of new states into it is, perhaps, even more of a US commercial project than a real military one. They certainly understand what kind of allies such as the Baltic states, Montenegro, Slovakia or Bulgaria ... except for the purchase of their weapons and replacing them with Soviet, no sense. Moreover, in some NATO countries, as in the Czech Republic, they even deliberately destroy their own production of competitive technology. But, nevertheless, earlier the purchases of the same air defense systems and other weapons in Russia were made, for example, by Greece - a NATO member, not members, but associated states of Austria and Finland. In Eastern Europe, some, like the very pro-American Poland, are in no hurry to get rid of Soviet weapons, but they will modernize it and use it later, for example, tanks and helicopters. And at the same time they are purchasing, including, Russian components. This, of course, also makes Americans angry, but there have never been such problems as with Turkey and the S-400 ... So I wonder - why would it?
  2. g1washntwn Offline g1washntwn
    g1washntwn (George Washington) 22 November 2019 11: 40
    +1
    Immediately I remember "The Diamond Arm", a scene about a house manager and lottery tickets:

    - ... and distribute among the tenants (American F-35 and Patriot).
    - And if they don’t take it?
    - And they will not take it - we turn them off gas carefree life.


    Everything you need to know about American economic theory.
  3. Dust Offline Dust
    Dust (Sergei) 23 November 2019 15: 33
    +1
    I think Americans are doing everything right for themselves. Russia, as a competitor, is removed from the road by any means. Please note that they already threaten sanctions all over the world if they dare to buy Russian weapons (India, Egypt, Arab countries ...) ... The goal of any turmoil in the country is to capture markets !!! This happened in Eastern Europe, in the countries of the former USSR. The question is, what can be done with US hegemony? There are two options: nuclear war or being an obedient vassal of the United States. Sadly, so far everything is going to the first option .... In the meantime, we are surrounded by bases, keep in mind - with rocket launchers. The desire of the United States to deliver a sudden nuclear strike on Russia has not been canceled in the United States. When we are told in the mailbox that after striking Russia, we will respond in 30 minutes with a retaliatory strike .... it only causes a sad ironic smile .... Who will be interested in this in 30 minutes?
    1. gunS Offline gunS
      gunS (gunS) 23 November 2019 16: 02
      -2
      Quote: Dust
      The desire of the United States to deliver a sudden nuclear strike on Russia has not been canceled in the United States.

      And, shy to ask, what for does the US need this?
      And why didn’t they turn the USSR into a nuclear burial ground in the 40-50s? When the USSR could be taken with his bare hands, he did not have missiles, but the United States had plenty of warheads.
      Perhaps it’s enough to drive the blizzard that the United States is only sleeping and seeing how to bomb the Russian Federation. Since the days of the USSR, this stuff was full, and I no longer want to.
      No, of course, the desire of some circles to knock out as much money as possible from the budget to "strengthen defense capability" is understandable. But just in case, I will remind you of one budget, which, due to excessive concern for defense capabilities, eventually burst (together with the state), the budget of the USSR.
      1. plabu Offline plabu
        plabu 23 November 2019 16: 43
        +1
        Let's start with the fact that there were "enough" NOT warheads, but rather ammunition, heads are somewhat different)
        Yes, and the US military at that time did not give the guarantee of destruction, and completely exclude the fact that nothing would get into the US territory - no one gave guarantees either, that's why they didn’t roll it out ...
        But with what you have after that - rather, I agree, in general, for sure)
        1. gunS Offline gunS
          gunS (gunS) 23 November 2019 17: 16
          -3
          Quote: 321
          and the US military at that time did not give the guarantee of destruction, and completely exclude the fact that nothing would enter the US territory - no one gave any guarantees either, that's why they didn’t roll it out ...

          The USSR was not touched because it did not bother anyone. In addition, the USA is a democratic country. And it is extremely difficult to destroy someone in a democratic country. Even in WWII, which is extremely advantageous for the USA, the USA entered extremely reluctantly. Yes, and now with Sev. Korea pulled to the last.
          As for delivery vehicles, the USSR only had single missiles by the end of the 50s (the "royal eight", although Korolev is exactly the same zits-chairman as Kalashnikov). And more or less massively, only in the 60s (Yangel's rockets).
          That is, before the end of the 50s, the USSR could not send nuclear charges to the United States simply physically. There was nothing. And for a long time, there was nothing. Mass production of nuclear weapons and the production of a single bomb are two different things.
          Those. the United States had as many as 10 years in order to irresponsibly bombard the USSR with nuclear charges.
          But the United States did not. Didn't want to. These are the "villains".
          1. plabu Offline plabu
            plabu 23 November 2019 17: 37
            +2
            Forgive me, but even with regard to the USA, not everything is smooth with you - there were more than one plan, but your main mistake is that you think that the USSR had nothing to answer at all - the Americans have an increased attitude to their human losses, there used to be a critical importance of them - now I just haven’t been interested in it for a long time, I don’t want to make a mistake, BUT to inflict losses on the Americans, and not in the amount of 10, but much more, the USSR had the opportunity, here is at least one reason for you ...
            Hence the conclusion - about recklessly mistaken.
            PS Korolev created after all the SEVEN, and not the eight.
            PPS Didn't you write about sectarians there before?) So is your sect - those who are about Korolev, Kalashnikov, etc. I’m already tired of it, but you’re out of luck - I had previously seen some papers myself and held in my hands, so I kind of do these prayers of mine) I don’t need to continue)
            1. gunS Offline gunS
              gunS (gunS) 23 November 2019 18: 18
              -2
              Quote: 321
              ... but your main mistake is that you think that the Soviet Union had nothing to answer.

              Nothing at all, one time. Moreover, the USSR knew about this. And until the 60s, the USSR, especially on the world stage, did not survive. And when he took over the edge, as with missiles in Cuba, then ALWAYS worked out back. Because, apart from bluffing, the USSR could not do anything then. There was nothing to do.

              Quote: 321
              Korolev created after all the SEVEN, and not the eight.

              Yes, seven, only Korolev is not here to do with business. Like other Soviet "designers".
              You didn’t notice at all that the areas in which the Reich was strong suddenly developed very rapidly after the war in the USSR. In those areas where the Reich was weak (for example, the construction of aircraft carriers), they did not receive development in the USSR at all.
              Think about this "coincidence".

              Quote: 321
              here is your sect - those who are about the Queen, Kalashnikov, etc. I’m already tired of it, but you’re out of luck - I had previously seen some papers myself and held in my hands.

              Holding paper and understanding the essence of the matter are two different things.
              As for the Korolev, I won’t continue, it’s enough to see what the Germans did in 1945, and what he did then. And also to study the activities of a guy by the name of Grettrup. In the Reich and in the USSR.
              But about the Kalashnikov and "his" machine gun, I could tell you a lot.
              But I will say only one thing, Kalashnikov AK did not. Just was not able to. How unable to do something like this was the whole Soviet defense industry combined.
              And Schmeisser's group did. As before, she did the MP43 / StG44.
              But in reality, AK was a diversion against the USSR. This is a special (assault) weapon (in the Reich MP43 / StG44 went into service exclusively with panzergrenadiers) and the army needs it in small quantities. And in large quantities the army needs infantry weapons. But the SA never received it (it wasn’t in the Reich).
              When in the 70s in the USSR they understood (they studied, apparently from a textbook somewhere, terminal ballistics), how Schmeisser and his group threw them, they rushed to do something to replace few people who needed AKM (they were then massively given away different kind of "friends" and other beggars, since no one was even going to pay money for this wretched "happiness"). And then just the war in Vietnam and the triumph of the M16 there. Therefore, we decided to make a Soviet analogue of the M16.
              And then, just a textbook, from which it is clear that the AK was made by the Germans. Classics of the genre.
              AK for firing bursts further than 100-150 m was not designed. The main one was a single fire. Features of the mechanism, etc.
              But the M16 was just a full-fledged automatic rifle. And the Soviet machine gun decided to make a full automatic. But the AK mechanism did not allow this !!!
              Which exit?
              Make a new mechanism.
              But with this in the USSR it was very bad. They still cannot make a new (balanced) mechanism in Russia (there is never and never really was a design school - one empty talk-propaganda).
              What are they doing in the USSR?
              They use the AK mechanism (Schmeisser mechanism, there was no other), fitting the CARTRIDGE under it !!!! It’s the same as plowing a horse backwards, the main component, the cartridge, in the AK-74 has become secondary. And all because of the lack of the ability (no designers) to make a capable mechanism.
              The cartridge was somehow adjusted in terms of power and caliber, but the infantry automatic rifle, like the M16, could not be obtained. It was possible to get only the STORM automatic rifle. In any case, it was better than AKM. But much worse than the M16. Since, I repeat, the army is in great need of infantry, and not of assault weapons (assault is also needed, but very little).
              And with such a flawed, in general, weapon on a flawed, in general, cartridge 5,45x39 mm, the army is armed to this day. But Schmeisser died a long time ago. But the army is "armed" with its relict, in general, mechanism to this day.
              And why not?
              But because in the USSR / Russia there never was and there is no rifle design school. And in the USSR / Russia NEVER a single independent design of modern (for its time) INFANTRY small arms was made.
              1. plabu Offline plabu
                plabu 23 November 2019 18: 38
                +1
                How many letters, why? I already hinted that I don’t even intend to tell everything that I know and saw, not to prove something - they give a lot for some things from this series)
                Further, if you do not understand or have not realized that it is figurative to hold what was written earlier in your hands, well, I can sympathize, there is nothing to help, but it was a question of blueprints and similar primary sources ...
                Well, and about further - I already wrote to you earlier what happened - is that where we stop, to prove in the internet? Why do I need it?
                And finally - everything that you have already written to me here has been encountered in one form or another, well, and some absolutely "outstanding" things are from AK, you say, you can't go further than 100-150 in bursts?)) Well then I, apparently , a Chinese pilot - somehow I did it quite differently, and more than once, and in different places, and not only from my own, and in different climates, so the conclusion is one - you need to be able, this is the main thing).
                It has disadvantages, naturally, but there are many systems, who do not have them? But about M16, I beg you, if you consider it a role model, then there are almost no words - just interjections, I had to work with him and very tightly, the shooting machine was almost in ideal conditions - immediately after cleaning and at the training ground, here there, yes, a little wind, snow, rain, but God forbid to shoot with him first and only then ... chur me, chur me).
                PS And as for the Schmeisser mechanism - even in the television box they already showed the difference in the mechanisms, it’s not even funny anymore.
                1. gunS Offline gunS
                  gunS (gunS) 23 November 2019 19: 29
                  -1
                  Quote: 321
                  ... and some absolutely "outstanding" things are from AK, you say, you can't go further than 100-150 in bursts?))

                  Bursts? Sighting further than 150 m, it is impossible.
                  Only aimlessly.

                  Quote: 321
                  Well, then I, apparently, a Chinese pilot - somehow it turned out very differently from me, and more than once,

                  Tamper open. There, in the applications, everything is written. In numbers.
                  Therefore, keep your "it worked, and more than once" with you.

                  Quote: 321
                  so there’s only one conclusion - you need to be able to, this is the main thing)

                  You can’t jump above your head. And if the technique does not allow further 150 m to shoot closely, like AKM, then it will not work.

                  Quote: 321
                  I had to work with him very tightly, the machine for shooting was almost in perfect conditions - right after cleaning and at the training ground, yes, there was a little wind, snow, rain, and God forbid to shoot with him first and only then .. .chur me, chur me)

                  You needlessly retell me the funny stories of Runet. I met them quite often and for a long time. Therefore, I know by heart.
                  M16 is an automatic infantry rifle, which the Soviet Union could not make an analogue of (the AK-74, this is only an automatic Assault rifle).
                  M16 quite successfully in the ranks for more than 50 years. And now nothing is expected to replace her.

                  Quote: 321
                  P.S. And as for the Schmeisser mechanism - even in the television box they already showed the difference in the mechanisms, it’s not even funny anymore.

                  The fact is that Schmeisser was a weapons designer. Real, not from Sovagitrop. Therefore, in his career there were many different mechanisms. And therefore, it is simply foolish to compare the MP43 / StG44 and AK mechanisms - yes, both of them were from Schmeisser. But these were different mechanisms.
                  You still compare the mechanisms of revolvers and rifles Nagan. And you also will not find many similarities between them. But from this, all these mechanisms do not become someone else's, not Nagan.
                  1. plabu Offline plabu
                    plabu 23 November 2019 20: 15
                    +1
                    Why do I need NSD, you offer them my experience and replace my TARGET shooting, and in an unfamiliar place, at different times of the day and climate, too?))) But no one bothers you from continuing to tell that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to shoot like that)))) or even impossible).
                    You need to be able to, but about M16 - I would like to see you, after you crawled a number of meters with this gadget, but then you reached the opening line of fire, let’s call it like that - only you need to remember to take the ear plugs, but then they can curl up, you’re far from the first one who would be in this situation, statements - I’ll write so, are easily predictable) - but again, you can continue to write that you already know all this by heart, and consider tales - no matter what, runet or something else).
                    But the most important thing is not even this - you wrote that AK is dregs and doesn’t represent anything - only the experience of TRAINING the most ordinary soldiers, no special selection, clearly shows that they can easily be taught almost everything that I was talking about a little earlier wrote - the details and methods, of course, are NOT disclosed and there will be no further discussion about them - so NSD is one thing, but practice is another.
                    PS Anticipating objections about aiming and aiming - on an unfamiliar training ground, with unknown targets and even distances - is it aiming or aimless?)
                    1. gunS Offline gunS
                      gunS (gunS) 23 November 2019 20: 51
                      -1
                      Quote: 321
                      Why do I need NSD

                      To tighten the materiel. And then no longer write nonsense about how from AK you soaked at targets at 400 m in bursts.

                      Quote: 321
                      replace my experience and my target shooting, and in an unfamiliar place, at different times of the day and climate too?)))

                      Tell these other fishing stories to someone else.
                      By the way, where did you get the AK? They are already in the army about 65 years old, as not. How old are you? 85?
                      Or do you unknowingly confuse AK / AKM with AK-74?
                      If so, then my condolences to you are weapons of a different class. And it just looks similar to each other.

                      Quote: 321
                      and about M16 - I WOULD LIKE to look at you after you crawled a certain number of meters with this gadget, but then you reached the opening line of fire, let’s call it like that - only you need to remember to take the ear plugs, otherwise they can fold, you are far from the first who would be in this situation, statements - so I will write, are easily predictable)

                      Wow. USA, a powerful industrial power. A country with many years of existing weapons school. And no one there knows what you know easily and simply.
                      I envy you. Happy you.

                      Quote: 321
                      only the experience of TRAINING, of the most ordinary soldiers, no particular selection, clearly shows that they can easily be taught almost everything that I wrote a little earlier - the details and methods, of course, are NOT disclosed, and then there will be NO conversation about them - so that NSD is one thing, but the practice is completely different.

                      NSD is an OFFICIAL document. And your stories, this ..... Sorry, but I will not say that.

                      Quote: 321
                      is it aiming or not aiming?)

                      Sighting, this is an opportunity to get a growth figure GUARANTEED by automatic fire. The target is if you are in the know.
                      1. plabu Offline plabu
                        plabu 23 November 2019 21: 39
                        +1
                        Have you written everything once already? Wrote - here and digest the information, well, if they are capable, of course, but these efforts to humor - why do I need them? Read about what you think or seems to be?)
                        And what a new idea that AKM and AK are different machines, as they sometimes say))) what discovery you made, well, it’s amazing))))
                        That's when you personally touch YOUR OWN hands - only after that we’ll talk, but for now the theorist’s delights are NOT more interesting at all ...
                        They took off in the army, so what? THROW OUT? AHA, NOW))) and if you don’t get the idea - where in the army even the Soviet, even the Russian M16 can not only be held - well, I can only sympathize with you, there is nothing for you to help in THIS CASE).
                        Is the USA the most powerful country? But they sell and produce Kalashnikov there, however, right from the start, as far as I remember, but these are details, so they will "drag" any dregs, where is the logic in your writing? She is not there)))
                        And as for the targets - it’s already written to you at the very end of the post, read it again, then again - and so on until you understand the meaning of what was written to you).
                        PS 400 meters, you say ??))) - my personal record, or a little more at the most, but why do you need the exact figure? You will survive without her, you are still here "Unbeliever Thomas", so I am not going to prove anything to you ...
                      2. gunS Offline gunS
                        gunS (gunS) 23 November 2019 21: 58
                        -1
                        Quote: 321
                        and what a new thought that AKM and AK are different machines.

                        How is everything running? You don’t even know what AK is, what AKM is, and what AK-74 is.

                        Quote: 321
                        Is the USA a powerful power? That's just Kalashnikov there and sell, and produce

                        Yeah. In pharmacy quantities.

                        Quote: 321
                        ... true, arguing, as far as I remember ...

                        Remember badly. It is impossible to stash AK. There are no patents for its nodes (there was nothing to patent). And the design patent has ended a long time ago.
                        Therefore, anyone can make AK today.

                        Quote: 321
                        400 meters, say ??))) - my personal record, or a maximum a little more.

                        Yes, I already understood who I’m dealing with. March to learn lessons, record holder, the day after tomorrow to school!
                      3. plabu Offline plabu
                        plabu 23 November 2019 22: 09
                        +1
                        Judging by your posts - read and re-read what has already been written to you - until you understand the meaning of what you already wrote, until you understand the meaning ...
                        PS Consider further that everything the United States does is only good).
                        It’s strange when you write that Gagarin did not fly into space and WWII was won exclusively by Anglo-American allies? Something you were late with this)))))
                      4. gunS Offline gunS
                        gunS (gunS) 23 November 2019 22: 44
                        -2
                        Quote: 321
                        You will try to give out such commands to your cat.

                        Ага.

                        Quote: 321
                        when will you write that Gagarin did not fly into space.

                        In fact, this question is dark. And there is no evidence for this fact. Absolutely not. And after it turned out that Gagarin was lying about his landing, the case took on a very bad turn. And after that only Fideli and other Gandhi began to meet with him. Just in case.

                        Quote: 321
                        WWII won exclusively Anglo-American allies?

                        Mostly Americans and Axis residents won from WW2. Although, of course, the inhabitants of the Axis countries won at the cost of very large losses.
                        From 2MB Dzhugashvili won quite noticeably. And the Bolsheviks as a whole won too.
                        But fellow citizens from 2MB lost and lost very much. 20% of the pre-war population of the USSR only by direct losses (corpses), this is not a pound of raisins.
                      5. plabu Offline plabu
                        plabu 23 November 2019 22: 51
                        0
                        Now almost everything is clear with you - a sect, it is a sect, so you are a sectarian with all the ensuing consequences, so there’s essentially nothing to talk about, here’s one thing that remains to be clarified, although you’re already somewhere then hinted), well, nothing, let's wait a little longer that the sectarians will write about the war).
                        Something tells me that the wait is relatively short ...
              2. plabu Offline plabu
                plabu 25 November 2019 12: 36
                +1
                There is a little time, now it’s possible in essence, with details and with the arrangement -

                ... but your main mistake is that you think that the Soviet Union had nothing to answer.

                Nothing at all, one time. Moreover, the USSR knew about this. And until the 60s, the USSR, especially on the world stage, did not survive. And when he took over the edge, as with missiles in Cuba, then ALWAYS worked out back. Because, apart from bluffing, the USSR could not do anything then. There was nothing to do ...

                It’s difficult to say an artistic whistle in another way - both about bluffing and about back, although why not play back, especially when those who FIRST launched their rockets into Turkey, Jupiters removed them in 1961 , yes, in exchange for leaving Cuba, so what? Is there a result? There is, and what else is needed - nothing, nothing yet ...
                And personally, you can continue to believe that our nuclear weapons, so far I will call it that, well, there was absolutely nothing to deliver - that I’m not going to prove it, I’m not going to prove it, they give a lot for it ...

                ... when will you write that Gagarin did not fly into space.

                In fact, this question is dark. And there is no evidence for this fact. Absolutely not. And after it turned out that Gagarin was lying about his landing, the case took on a very bad turn. And after that only Fideli and other Gandhi began to meet with him. Just in case…

                Everything is approximately as expected from you - well, you can’t refrain from trying to kick again (- oh, what a fundamental difference, it landed in the ship, or the parachute was used))) - this changes the fact of the flight space? Not.
                And the rest of the details - and to whom are they so much interested now? Basically, to specialists, no more, but still, of course, to those who have “disclosed” to us))))
                And about the fact that "... the case has acquired a very bad turn. And after that they began to meet with him only of various kinds ... ”(c) - well, especially for you
                Shortly, from the wiki, so that you don’t have to load up anyone much with details -

                ... Almost a month after the flight, Yuri Gagarin was sent on his first foreign trip with the so-called “Peace Mission” - the first cosmonaut visited Czechoslovakia, Finland, England, Bulgaria and Egypt.
                In 1961, Gagarin visited Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Finland, the UK, Poland (July 21-22), Cuba, Brazil with a stop on the island of Curacao, Canada with a stop in Iceland, Hungary, India, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), Afghanistan.
                In January - February 1962 Gagarin visited the United Arab Emirates (Egypt), in September 1963 Gagarin visited Paris, where he took part in the XIV International Congress of Astronauts. Gagarin visited Finland twice - in 1961 and 1962. Gagarin and V. Tereshkova were in Berlin in 1963.
                In total, Yuri Gagarin in the framework of foreign visits visited about 30 countries ...

                Where else could I go), here and so many countries are listed, somewhere else ???), but again you need a negative).
                And this is NOT even remembering what you wrote here before - “after it turned out that ... you lied” - in which year did our people essentially say that the first ship still used a parachute? -

                ... When the triple Voskhod started in 1964, an official message appeared in the Soviet media that his crew first got the opportunity to land in their ship ...

                PS Judging by your silence, the lessons have not ended yet?) Well, maybe at least there, at school, they will give you some knowledge while you have a hard time with this) ...
                PPS And then write about NSD, targets and the like, theorists you, though not ours, to theorize - it's not you to turn over the bags) ...
  • plabu Offline plabu
    plabu 23 November 2019 16: 54
    +1
    Didn’t you try to understand the details of these processes?) From the moment of striking and before something that is launched or dropped, reaches the territory, some time passes and you wait for someone to write somewhere the exact time that it takes ? Before writing such numbers, it is advisable to dry crackers, and more ...
    And most importantly, the property of nuclear weapons, well, not from the very moment of its inception, but for a very long time, is a guarantee of an answer, and this has been "working" as a deterrent for a decade already - no one wants to receive a response ...
  • gunS Offline gunS
    gunS (gunS) 23 November 2019 15: 57
    -1
    Last Ultimatum: US Demands Turkey to Destroy C-400

    Ax to destroy? Or a two-handed saw?
    Lord, what kind of "news" you will not find in the Russian Internet.