Will Russia launch a preemptive strike against NATO?

February 15 2021 78

The largest NATO exercise "Defender Europe - 2021" after the collapse of the USSR will begin very soon not far from the western borders of our country. Their purpose is not particularly hidden: the military personnel of the North Atlantic Alliance will practice maneuvers and attack schemes on our country, to counter which this "defensive" bloc was created. But what if, in a certain scenario, the Kremlin decides to launch a preemptive strike itself?

The question is extremely controversial. It should be very clearly understood that Russia is very seriously inferior to a united Europe, supported by the United States, in conventional weapons. It is estimated that in the event of a war in our country, the NATO bloc will be able to fire from 1000 to 1500 cruise missiles in just one day. The operation will involve from 1500 to 2000 combat aircraft, and another 400 to 500 winged carrier-based aircraft, as well as strike UAVs. At the same time, more than fifty surface ships of the North Atlantic Alliance and from 20 to 25 multipurpose nuclear submarines will carry out missile strikes.

This is, without exaggeration, a terrible force, which no air defense / missile defense system can effectively resist for a long time. The aim of NATO's massive strikes will be to disable the infrastructure facilities of the RF Ministry of Defense for managing nuclear forces, communications, reconnaissance, combat aviation, space defense, the most combat-ready military formations, as well as government bodies. That is, for the military defeat of Russia, it must be blinded, stunned and disarmed by a swift combined attack, and then taken with a "tepid" one. Then the tank and mechanized divisions of the North Atlantic Alliance will be put into action, the infantry will occupy key military facilities and territories.

There is a kind of "Barbarossa-2 plan". Washington and Brussels clearly do not count on a full-scale nuclear war and do not believe that the conflict will last too long, since the mobilization and military-industrial potential of Russia and NATO are incomparable. Hypothetically, something like this can only work if a large military grouping of the North Atlantic Alliance is concentrated near our borders under some plausible pretext, such as large-scale exercises, and a sudden massive strike "without announcement" at 4.00:XNUMX am. In principle, we have already gone through something similar, and it ended badly for the aggressor.

True, it should be borne in mind that today much more technologically advanced types of weapons have appeared, and Russia's industrial potential is indeed very much inferior to the united West. NATO will not succeed in a dastardly "blitzkrieg" this time either, but the price of the issue for our country may end up being even higher than in 1941-1945. Therefore, the question arises again, is it not worth hitting first?

Let's say the geopolitical situation on the western borders is pre-war. The NATO bloc has assembled a large military grouping in Eastern Europe and is pulling the US Navy AUG to the Russian coast. Should we wait for the alliance to strike first with superior power, or to strike preemptively ourselves? And how can we really hit NATO first, if we take nuclear weapons aside?

Probably, we can talk about the use of the Iskander-M OTRK, the Kalibr cruise missiles, the hypersonic Daggers and Tsirkons, and the RF Aerospace Forces aviation. But there is one problem. If you look "here and now", then we do not yet have in our arsenal a sufficient number of missiles from the listed ones to guarantee zeroing the offensive potential of the NATO grouping. They still need to be produced and put into service. That is, without the use of nuclear weapons, we can “pinch” the alliance well, but not crush it.

At the same time, one must be aware of the consequences of such a step. If the USSR were the first to strike a preemptive strike against the Third Reich before June 22, 1941, actually starting the Second World War itself, then our country would become the "aggressor". With an extremely high degree of probability, Great Britain would side with Germany, and then the whole world history would then follow a different scenario, unfavorable for the Soviet Union. Initial tactical success would ultimately have turned into a strategic defeat. If Moscow attacks the NATO bloc first in 2021, we will not defeat the Western alliance, but they will appoint us as "bad guys", and then they will put pressure on a broad international coalition.

Taken together, this means that a preemptive strike is, alas, not our method. Our cause is just when we defend ourselves and then drive the enemy away. The only question is at what cost.

Sergey Marzhetsky

Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

VK Zen Telegram

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Alexzn

+5

15 February 2021 15: 44

In the spring of 1941, behind the air battle for England, Coventry lies in ruins. The USSR is tearing up the non-aggression pact and ... according to Marzhetsky, England together (!!!) with Germany ...
A curtain.
1. Ulysses
  
  +3
  
  15 February 2021 19: 34
  
  According to the perverted logic of the author of the article, Poland, represented by its government in exile, would immediately declare war on the USSR and, together with Hitler, would oppose "aggression in the east."
  1. Marzhecki
    
    -3
    
    16 February 2021 06: 50
    
    Everything with my logic is fine
2. Marzhecki
  
  0
  
  16 February 2021 06: 53
  
  The remark is correct, but only to the extent that I incorrectly indicated the date of such a possible strike. Of course, it was not about June 1941, when the war between the Germans and the British was going on, but earlier. We're talking about alternative history, right?
  But mock if your soul pleases. At least assert yourself so.
  1. Ulysses
    
    +2
    
    16 February 2021 21: 26
    
    The remark is correct, but only in the part that I incorrectly indicated the date of such a possible strike. Of course, it was not about June 1941, when the war between the Germans and the British was going on, but earlier. hi We're talking about alternative history, right?
    
    This is not incorrectness, but a deliberate twitching followed by an attempt to pull the owl onto the globe.
    
    Next time, title the article "An Alternative History in My Personal Fantasies".
    It will be more honest towards readers ..
3. boriz
  
  +1
  
  16 February 2021 11: 12
  
  ... according to Marzhetsky, England together (!!!) with Germany ...
  A curtain.
  
  Suffice it to recall the words of Senator (future president) Harry Truman, quoted in the New York Times on June 24, 1941:
  
  If we see that Germany is winning, then we should help Russia, and if Russia is winning, then we should help Germany, and thus let them kill as much as possible!
  
  Andrei Fursov: Stalin knew very well that there would be an attack, but he also knew one more thing very well - the fact is that in 1937 Roosevelt declared that if Germany attacked the Soviet Union, the United States would help the USSR, and if the Soviet Union attacks Germany, or allows itself to be provoked, then the United States will help Germany. On April 17, 1941, the US Congress adopted a corresponding decision, which recorded these words of Roosevelt as the official position of the United States, therefore, it was very important for Hitler to provoke Stalin into some actions that could be presented to the world - first of all, the United States of America - as the aggressive actions of the Soviet Union.
  
  And then England was led by the United States.
  So, learn the materiel.
  1. Alexzn
    
    +1
    
    16 February 2021 12: 45
    
    If we see that Germany is winning, then we should help Russia, and if Russia is winning, then we should help Germany, and thus let them kill as much as possible!
    
    Here she is - a militant EDUCATION.
    let's still look at the FULL quote -
    
    If we see that Germany is winning the war, we should help Russia, if there is Russia, we should help Germany, and let them kill each other as much as possible, although I do not want under any circumstances to see Hitler in the winners. None of them hold the promised word.
    1. boriz
      
      +2
      
      16 February 2021 14: 27
      
      let's still look at the FULL quote -
      
      What does it change? He expressed his intentions. And about Hitler he just made a curtsy, because he embodied at that time the world's evil. He could not say anything else. Moreover, he really had no goal of creating the United States as a too powerful competitor in the post-war world.
      For World War II, the United States and the World Bank had different goals.
      WB - to destroy the USSR and weaken Germany as much as possible.
      USA - to liquidate the British Empire and weaken the USSR and Germany.
      1. unholyknight
        
        -1
        
        16 February 2021 18: 41
        
        Um, is it okay that the position of one senator - even in retrospect and who became president - does not reflect the opinion of the entire US leadership and its president? As if thanks to Roosevelt and his Land Lease, the war was won in 4 years. Because the hell without the Studebakers, the Red Army could have surrounded the Germans so effectively in 1944-1945.
        
        boriz
        
        +1
        
        16 February 2021 22: 05
        
        Do you seriously think that the senator who became in 1945. president, in 1941. was on your own?
        How often does it happen that a senator, right without intermediate posts, jumps to the presidency of the United States?
        Do you seriously think that such a senator, just because he wanted to get worn out, gave an interview not to his Massachusetts newspaper, but to the New York Times on such a strategic issue?
        
        Nothing in this world happens just like that, not even a sheep in sheepskin coats.
        
        (C)
  2. Alexzn
    
    -1
    
    16 February 2021 12: 55
    
    It is naive to believe that the position of the West should differ from the approach of the USSR in geopolitics, where the stake was placed on a war between the imperialist powers, as a result of which the world revolution would win. The USSR did everything to play off the Western countries, so why the United States, as a new strategic player in the world arena, had to be against the war between the Nazis and the Communists? This was within the framework of the geopolitical interests of the Anglo-Saxons - a common knowledge.
    And, finally, in 1941 England was still the number 1 power, the states will become such only by the end of the war.
    1. boriz
      
      +3
      
      16 February 2021 15: 07
      
      The USSR did everything to play off the Western countries,
      
      Nonsense. Before Hitler came, the USSR and Germany had good relations. And the USSR signed the Treaty with Hitler's Germany last. The USSR made every effort to create a system of peace treaties to ensure peace in Europe. It is not his fault that the initiatives were not supported. It was the Americans who brought Hitler to power. Nanny to him since 1922.
      was assigned to Ernst "Putzi" Hanfstaengl, Roosevelt's classmate at Harvard. He lent small sums himself, for large sums he sent to the right people. Dropped the idea of American football fans' marches to emotionally impact brownshirts. I wrote a dozen marches myself. All Hitler's marches originate from there. Read at least in the Wiki, useful. The foundations of racial theory were prepared by Houston S. Chamberlain. Back in the late 19th century.
      Well, Hitler was financed by industrialists, including American ones. Not the USSR.
      
      in 1941 England was still the number 1 power, the states will become such only by the end of the war
      
      Do not make me laugh. In 1940. England dumped the last currency and gold for arms supplies from the USA. And when the currency ran out, she was forced to give:
      
      -Newfoundland (today's part of the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador).
      -Eastern Bahamas
      -South coast of Jamaica
      -West coast of Saint Lucia,
      -West coast of Trinidad (including the Gulf of Paria)
      Antigua
      - the coast of British Guyana (today the state of Guyana) up to 50 miles
      distances to Georgetown.
      The agreement also granted the American side rights to Great Sound (Bermuda) and Castle Harbor, Bermuda; South and east coast of Newfoundland.
      
      in exchange for 50 obsolete WWI destroyers.
      
      Only later did Roosevelt accept the Lend-Lease.
      And in August 1941. Churchill signed (as a lend-lease fee) the Atlantic Charter, which opened the British Empire's markets to the United States (which had been closed to countries other than the World Bank since 1929), which predetermined the collapse of this empire. The United States achieved its main goal in WWII without joining it.
      The US and the WB had different goals in that war.
      WB - to destroy the USSR and weaken Germany as much as possible.
      USA - to liquidate the British Empire and weaken the USSR and Germany.
      
      By the time of its entry into WWII, the United States stripped the World Bank down to cowards and drove it into credit.
  3. Ulysses
    
    +1
    
    16 February 2021 21: 39
    
    Suffice it to recall the words of Senator (future president) Harry Truman, quoted in the New York Times on June 24, 1941:
    
    Maybe not Truman а Roosevelt?
    
    And spoken in 1937when the situation was, to put it mildly, other.
    Roosevelt was not a stupid person and understood what a European Reich, headed by Germany, was worth with the material resources of the defeated USSR.
    
    Therefore, I changed my shoes quickly.
    No, American private companies supported Hitler for a long time, but this is a "nothing personal" business.
    1. boriz
      
      +1
      
      16 February 2021 22: 28
      
      I am aware of Roosevelt's statement and the decision of the Congress on this matter.
      But I preferred to quote a more "fresh" statement by Truman. 2 days after the attack on the USSR.
      
      ... but this is nothing personal business.
      
      Of course, nothing personal, just politics. The business was instructed by the global bankers to pay and paid. "The party said" must "- the Komsomol answered" yes "!"
4. boriz
  
  +2
  
  16 February 2021 15: 18
  
  ... according to Marzhetsky, England together (!!!) with Germany ...
  
  Remember, at least, Churchill's plan "Unthinkable". Even at the beginning of 1945. Churchill's logic remained the same.
  Use Germany against the USSR. If necessary, support.
  Well, it didn't work, what can I do ...
  1. Alexzn
    
    0
    
    16 February 2021 15: 33
    
    Why are you trying to present history as a collection of conspiracy events?
    Read the materials of the VKPB congresses until the 20th. There the Soviet doctrine is OFFICIALLY given, read the Party Program (1,2).
    The USA was still not a world power; it was still brewed in America. Yes, the rich, yes, gaining strength, but not yet defining world politics ...
    The unthinkable is, after all, the use of German resources against the USSR, and not England with Germany ...
    1. isofat
      
      +1
      
      16 February 2021 16: 49
      
      Alexzn, you have nothing more to answer but to appeal to the decisions of the congresses of the communists of the USSR?
      
      Are you ready to admit in history only what is given OFFICIALLY? And if there is no marriage certificate, there is no relationship?
      
      Scientists who study history operate with facts, but official, documented and published decisions are only a small part of them that require explanation!
      
      Quote: AlexZN
      The USSR did everything to play off the Western countries ...
      
      And why are you adding to the set of conspiracy theories?
      
      Quote: AlexZN
      It is naive to believe that the position of the West should differ from the approach of the USSR in geopolitics
      
      It is naive to think that such different systems duplicate their approaches.
      1. Alexzn
        
        0
        
        16 February 2021 17: 20
        
        Are you ready to admit in history only what is given OFFICIALLY?
        
        And where do such thoughts come from? No, not only.
        
        It is naive to think that such different systems duplicate their approaches.
        
        No, not naive. Systems do not duplicate (an inappropriate word in the context) their approaches, just problems assume the similarity of solution methods regardless of the difference in solvers.
        
        isofat
        
        0
        
        16 February 2021 18: 42
        
        Quote: AlexZN
        And where do such thoughts come from? No, not only.
        
        Here is where:
        
        Quote: AlexZN
        ... The Soviet doctrine is OFFICIALLY given, read ...
        
        You limited yourself to only this.
        
        PS Which is naive, which is not naive ... I hope we figured it out.
        
        boriz
        
        +1
        
        16 February 2021 22: 31
        
        In the decisions of the VKPB congresses, they wrote what they considered necessary to write for the general public.
        
        isofat
        
        +1
        
        16 February 2021 23: 15
        
        When a person talks about an official policy, he automatically admits the existence of an unofficial one. That's why I asked this question. Emphasis was placed. The word "officially" is written in capital letters. Your arguments are no less convincing.
Uneven

-6

15 February 2021 16: 01

The author's conclusions are correct.
1. Just a cat
  
  0
  
  15 February 2021 16: 10
  
  Only this time Ukraine will not be liberated
Sergey Latyshev

+4

15 February 2021 16: 30

Money does not smell ... Trade with Ukraine proves it.

Russia is selling to NATO countries. Gas, oil, titanium, aluminum, retired ministers and oligarchs, etc.
Will strike, suddenly, to whom will the gas be sold?
Fourth Horseman

+2

15 February 2021 17: 06

The headline reminded:

is there life on Mars, is there life on Mars, science is unknown ..
Miffer

0

15 February 2021 17: 38

Will Russia launch a preemptive strike against NATO?

https://ok.ru/video/1262353256935
Valentine

+2

15 February 2021 17: 44

Now no US and NATO will attack us, for this you must first prepare the "ground" for this "Drang nakh RF", and win over the Japanese in the east, the Chinese and Turks in the south, the Germans, Poles and Galician , Romanians and Hungarians in the west, and from the north all the Scandinavian brothers and the British with the Americans will rush at us - that's when they can do something to us, but they need to be warned right away that those nuclear remnants that still remain with us, we will have time to grind all of Europe and the United States into dust and nuclear ashes ..... If the third world war with Russia starts, this is the end of the entire earthly civilization.
1. Miffer
  
  0
  
  15 February 2021 19: 41
  
  If the third world war begins with ... - this is the end of the entire earthly civilization.
  
  This was clear even 40-50 years ago. Therefore, no one was going to fight on the model of Adolf, and there was no "Drang". They made it much thinner: they reached an agreement with the sheikhs and dropped the oil to $ 6 per barrel, and then they simply "bought" the Soviet elite with all the guts and "Maximov's raises." The rest was already a matter of technology.
Volga073

+1

15 February 2021 19: 35

In any case, Russia will be appointed "bad guy."
So you have to hit first.
1. Miffer
  
  +1
  
  15 February 2021 21: 48
  
  "27. The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and (or) its allies, as well as in case of aggression against The Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened.
  
  https://cont.ws/@bia354444/1219479
  
  PS If you need something, you have to beat your forehead against the wall.
Ulysses

+4

15 February 2021 19: 50

The author of the article is apparently unfamiliar with the decree "Fundamentals of the state policy of the Russian Federation in the field of nuclear deterrence."
Or he doubts the determination of the Russian leadership to use nuclear weapons in the event of a real danger of military defeat for the Russian Federation.

19. The conditions that determine the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons by the Russian Federation are:

a) the receipt of reliable information about the launch of ballistic missiles attacking the territory of the Russian Federation and (or) its allies;

b) the use by the enemy of nuclear weapons or other types of weapons of mass destruction in the territories of the Russian Federation and (or) its allies;

c) the enemy's influence on critical state or military facilities of the Russian Federation, the disabling of which will lead to the disruption of the response actions of the nuclear forces;

d) aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is jeopardized.

20. The President of the Russian Federation may, if necessary, inform the military-political leadership of other states and (or) international organizations about the readiness of the Russian Federation to use nuclear weapons or about the adopted decision to use nuclear weapons, as well as about the fact of their use.
Robot Bobot

0

15 February 2021 19: 52

We can't beat OTAN without hydrogen!
Cyril

-1

15 February 2021 23: 08

In principle, we have already gone through something similar, and it ended badly for the aggressor.

This, dear Sergei, and almost ended badly for us. It is worth remembering that neither Britain (the largest and most powerful country in Europe at that time) nor the United States fought on the side of Germany at that time. Yes, and the participation of France and Spain was rather symbolic - except that the material base helped the Germans and volunteers.

With an extremely high degree of probability, Great Britain would side with Germany, and then the whole world history would then follow a different scenario, unfavorable for the Soviet Union.

Why suddenly such conclusions? Britain had been at war with Germany for a year before the latter attacked the USSR.
1. 123
  
  0
  
  15 February 2021 23: 33
  
  This, dear Sergei, and almost ended badly for us.
  
  Are you saying we kind of won almost by accident? With Napoleon, it almost ended badly too? Everything ended as it should. This "little" has already happened more than once. Learn history.
  
  Britain (the largest and most powerful country in Europe at that time), nor the United States. Yes, and the participation of France and Spain was rather symbolic - except that the material base helped the Germans and volunteers.
  
  ABOUT !!! Of course, the Germans are all exclusively themselves, just a little bit of the material base of the French and Spaniards and their volunteers ...
  True, there was also a little bit of the material base of Belgium, Luxembourg, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Denmark, Slovakia, Austria and other occupied territories and a drop of volunteers from there, a little more material base and the regular army of Hungary, Romania, Italy. And the special role of Bulgaria and Finland.
  Are you here to glorify the Wehrmacht?
  1. Cyril
    
    -2
    
    15 February 2021 23: 56
    
    Are you saying we kind of won almost by accident?
    
    No, we won not by chance, but the price of this victory was very high. The likelihood of defeat was also high.
    
    With Napoleon, it almost ended badly too?
    
    Napoleon
    
    But with the Tatar-Mongols, everything did not work out very well. AND? Is your slender "Russia always wins" system suddenly falling apart?
    
    Learn the story.
    
    I know her better than you.
    
    ABOUT !!! Of course, the Germans are all exclusively themselves, just a little bit of the material base of the French and Spaniards and their volunteers ...
    True, there was also a little bit of the material base of Belgium, Luxembourg, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Denmark, Slovakia, Austria and other occupied territories and a drop of volunteers from there, a little more material base and the regular army of Hungary, Romania, Italy. And the special role of Bulgaria and Finland.
    
    The material base of Luxembourg is, of course, very strong. Of all these countries, Germany supplied half of the weapons itself.
    
    And even more so, the potentials of these countries are not comparable to those of Great Britain and the United States.
    
    Are you here to glorify the Wehrmacht?
    
    You are hallucinating again. Take your medicine.
    1. 123
      
      0
      
      16 February 2021 00: 09
      
      But with the Tatar-Mongols, everything did not work out very well. AND? Is your slender "Russia always wins" system suddenly falling apart?
      
      It just took more time and effort. The result is one.
      
      The material base of Luxembourg is, of course, very strong. Of all these countries, Germany supplied half of the weapons itself.
      
      So they were just a burden? Did the Germans tear themselves away from themselves to provide them? Can be more detailed Let's hear how Russophobes are trying to change the story.
      
      And even more so, the potentials of these countries are not comparable to those of Great Britain and the United States.
      
      And they got to do with? The same Americans traded both with us and with the Germans, the British were not particularly zealous in the war.
      https://www.welt.de/geschichte/zweiter-weltkrieg/article190218161/General-Motors-Wie-US-Konzerne-mit-Hitler-zusammenarbeiten.html
      
      You are hallucinating again. Take your medicine.
      
      I'm sorry, I didn't understand right away You glorify the Anglo-Saxons, without whom, of course, the cranes would have been sivolapy for us and they saved everyone now am i right?
      1. Cyril
        
        -1
        
        16 February 2021 00: 19
        
        It just took more time and effort. The result is one.
        
        It took 200 years and the loss of state independence. Well, yes, this is such a trifle ...
        
        So they were just a burden? Did the Germans tear themselves away from themselves to provide them? belay More details
        
        Most of them had one benefit - extra manpower. At the same time, having already conquered most of Europe, Germany and its satellites put out against the USSR not much more manpower than our country had.
        
        And they got to do with? The same Americans traded both with us and with the Germans, the British were not particularly zealous in the war.
        
        They are:
        
        1. They delayed part of the German troops due to military operations in the North African theater of operations and in the Atlantic, and Britain so robustly thinned out the forces of the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain;
        2. Helped the USSR under the Lend-Lease program.
        
        If the United States and Britain had sided with Germany, the outcome of the war against the USSR would most likely be very different.
        
        You glorify the Anglo-Saxons, without whom, of course, we would have cranes and they saved everyone smile now am I right?
        
        Obviously, you never took a pill for hallucinations.
        
        123
        
        +1
        
        16 February 2021 00: 35
        
        They pulled back part of the German troops due to military operations in the North African theater of operations and in the Atlantic, and Britain so robustly thinned out the forces of the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain;
        
        And the USSR was forced to keep troops in the Far East against another ally of Germany.
        
        They helped the USSR under the Lend-Lease program.
        
        Did you help? This store worked for everyone. The article by the Germans is above the link. Vision problems?
        
        If the United States and Britain had sided with Germany, the outcome of the war against the USSR would most likely be very different.
        
        So that's the thing? If they only traded with the Germans, would they win? The result would be the same, but more effort and sacrifice would be required. At the same time, you see no reason why they could side with the Nazis. This is pretty revealing.
        
        1. The economy of the entire occupied Europe worked for the Nazis, and not some kind of Luxembourg.
        2. The same countries participated in the war as volunteers, and some of them were regular troops and were the official allies of the Reich.
        3. For the United States, it was just a business, traded with everyone, no morality. Just greedy bourgeois.
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        16 February 2021 00: 52
        
        And the USSR was forced to keep troops in the Far East against another ally of Germany.
        
        AND? How does this cancel out the fact that the United States and Britain were pulling back significant forces of the Germans in North Africa, Atlantic, Italy?
        
        Did you help? This store worked for everyone. The article by the Germans is above the link. Vision problems?
        
        Firstly, this "store" supplied the USSR under Lend-Lease with important products, if not free of charge, then at a very large discount and on very favorable terms.
        
        Secondly, there is no link above.
        
        1. The economy of the entire occupied Europe worked for the Nazis, and not some kind of Luxembourg.
        
        Well, you compare the material base of the troops of the Germans and their allies with the material base of the USSR at the time of the attack.
        
        If you have problems with this, then here:
        
        Personnel. Germany and its allies have 4,3 million people, the USSR has 3,3 million people.
        Guns and mortars. Germany and its allies - 42, the USSR - 601
        Tanks and assault guns. Germany and its allies have 4171, the USSR has 15.
        Aircraft. Germany and its allies have 4846, the USSR has 10.
        
        Somehow, despite the fact that most of Europe worked for Germany, in material terms, the help is somehow not very impressive.
        
        The same countries participated in the war as volunteers, and some of them were regular troops and were the official allies of the Reich.
        
        Yes, the number of ROA alone, recruited from Soviet prisoners of war and in the occupied territories, was greater than that of most of these countries.
        
        123
        
        0
        
        16 February 2021 01: 16
        
        AND? How does this cancel out the fact that the United States and Britain were pulling back significant forces of the Germans in North Africa, Atlantic, Italy?
        
        Nothing, just not so significant. They distracted part of the Germans, the Japanese distracted part of our forces. What of this?
        
        Firstly, this "store" supplied the USSR under Lend-Lease with important products, if not free of charge, then at a very large discount and on very favorable terms.
        
        The "store" supplied important products, if not free of charge, then at a very large discount and on very favorable terms in both directions. Nothing personal, just business.
        
        Secondly, there is no link above.
        
        Is it difficult to notice what you don't want to see? I repeat:
        
        https://www.welt.de/geschichte/zweiter-weltkrieg/article190218161/General-Motors-Wie-US-Konzerne-mit-Hitler-zusammenarbeiten.html
        
        Well, you compare the material base of the troops of the Germans and their allies with the material base of the USSR at the time of the attack.
        
        What will I compare there?
        1. The economy of the entire occupied Europe worked for the Nazis, and not some kind of Luxembourg.
        2. The same countries participated in the war as volunteers, and some of them were regular troops and were the official allies of the Reich.
        3. For the United States, it was just a business, traded with everyone, no morality. Just greedy bourgeois.
        
        Yes, the number of ROA alone
        
        Why is it so delicate? About Vlasov colobractionists and traitors?
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        16 February 2021 01: 29
        
        Nothing, just not so significant.
        
        First, look at how much equipment the German troops and their allies in North Africa had at their disposal. Hint - the same as on the borders of the USSR at the beginning of the war. Now imagine that these two armies are united and rush to the USSR.
        
        The "store" supplied important products, if not free of charge, then at a very large discount and on very favorable terms in both directions. Nothing personal, just business.
        
        No need to lie. During the war years, neither Britain nor the United States supplied Germany with anything.
        
        Is it difficult to notice what you don't want to see? I repeat:
        
        Answered in detail in another comment.
        
        What will I compare there?
        
        Well, of course, this will destroy your pink world :)
        
        3. For the United States, it was just a business, traded with everyone, no morality. Just greedy bourgeois.
        
        Since the US entered the war, they have not traded with Germany.
        
        Why is it so delicate? About Vlasov colobractionists and traitors?
        
        Where is the delicacy? I simply named this organization as it is called in historiography.
        
        123
        
        +1
        
        16 February 2021 02: 03
        
        Where is the delicacy? I simply named this organization as it is called in historiography.
        
        How delicate So you consider the Vlasovites coloractionists and traitors?
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        16 February 2021 02: 21
        
        So you consider the Vlasovites coloractionists and traitors?
        
        Of course
        
        Oleg Rambover
        
        -2
        
        16 February 2021 09: 47
        
        Quote: Cyril
        Firstly, this "store" supplied the USSR under Lend-Lease with important products, if not free of charge, then at a very large discount and on very favorable terms.
        
        You're not right. Lend-lease supplies were free of charge (free rent). Materials and equipment expended during the war were not subject to payment. (The rent of stew sounds especially interesting, since it was used up during the war, it was also not payable) Since it was a free rent, everything that was left after the war was either subject to return to the United States, if the USSR wanted to keep something for itself after the war, this payable. The USSR retained several oil refineries, an aluminum plant, many different industrial equipment (including a rotary machine, without which the USSR was unable to produce a significant number of T34-85 tanks), steam locomotives, ships and ships. For this, after the war, they agreed to pay about 750 million (out of the total supply of 11 billion). The USSR paid about 50 million of them, the rest was paid by the Russian Federation, and without recalculating for inflation. In short, the USSR actually paid nothing for Lend Lease. And so the respected 123 is absolutely wrong that Lend Lease is about money. Lend Lease about politics.
        
        Cyril
        
        -3
        
        16 February 2021 10: 17
        
        Yes, I know all this, I just decided not to traumatize the tender (child?) Psyche with such a harsh truth.
        
        boriz
        
        +2
        
        16 February 2021 22: 48
        
        Paying for Lend Lease is not about politics.
        And about the difference in losses. 200 and 000. Due to this, the payment was repaid.
        
        Oleg Rambover
        
        -1
        
        17 February 2021 00: 01
        
        You want to say paid with the blood of Soviet citizens?
        This is not actually the case. Without Land Lease, the losses would have been even greater, he saved the lives of Soviet citizens.
        If Lend Lease isn't about money (and it's not about money), then it's about politics.
        
        boriz
        
        +1
        
        17 February 2021 00: 05
        
        You want to say paid with the blood of Soviet citizens?
        In fact it is not.
        
        In fact, it is so. At the negotiations, they pressed precisely on the factor of human losses.
        And politics has nothing to do with it. The Cold War was already underway and the United States was interested in pushing us down economically. But our diplomats were of a high class. It was not possible to argue this difference in losses. Plus they were engaged in litigation, they referred to the ratio of debt and payments to the WB, a lot of other petty works. Well done, in short.
        
        Oleg Rambover
        
        -1
        
        17 February 2021 00: 41
        
        Quote: boriz
        In fact, it is so. At the negotiations, they pressed precisely on the factor of human losses.
        
        There is no need to make beasts out of the Soviet leadership who pay in blood for deliveries. The United States provided assistance to the USSR not for the lives of its citizens, but because they considered Germany's victory not in their interests. And by the way, by the end of 42, the outcome of the war was generally clear, but supplies were not reduced.
        What negotiations? Post-war? There the main emphasis was on the precedent with Great Britain.
        
        Quote: boriz
        And politics has nothing to do with it. The Cold War was already underway and the United States was interested in pushing us down economically. But our diplomats were of a high class. It was not possible to argue this difference in losses.
        
        This is politics. And it is unlikely that 750 million dollars or the initial 2,1 billion in installments for 30 or 50 years could seriously harm the USSR. There was a lend-lease agreement, the USSR actually refused to fulfill it.
        
        Ser sash
        
        0
        
        16 February 2021 11: 01
        
        And what was the number of ROA?
        
        boriz
        
        +2
        
        16 February 2021 22: 42
        
        The digital data is very strange. Where are they from?
        I remember exactly that the USSR had 5,7 million people at the beginning of June. Germany has a little more.
        The overall ratio of artillery to barrels was strongly in favor of the USSR. On the contrary, in terms of shells, the USSR had tanks somewhere like that. Germany has 6,7 thousand. It also does not fight airplanes.
        In general, the discussion of these figures is a dead-end question. Not here. Many books have been written on this subject. And far from everything depends on numbers.
        Personally, I am inclined to believe that there was a massive betrayal at the top of the army. At the beginning of the war, they did not understand, so as not to sow panic in the army. And after the war and the creation of nuclear weapons in 1949. Stalin took up this issue (five questions from General Pokrovsky). In the end he was killed. Too many of the traitors have become war heroes and great generals and marshals.
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        16 February 2021 01: 12
        
        Did you help? This store worked for everyone. The article by the Germans is above the link. Vision problems?
        
        And, sorry, there is a link, I missed it. Okay, we read (the translation will be machine, but the general idea is clear):
        
        On the contrary, there was indeed normal business between Hitlerite Germany and the United States. Such contacts were not illegal before the US declared war on the United States... But due to the Nazis' methods against political opponents and Jews, as well as Hitler's constant violations of international law, they were also considered offensive in the United States.
        
        Naturally, these countries traded before the declaration of war. Let me tell you a secret - before the war, the USSR also traded with Germany. Moreover, until June 22.
        
        GM headquarters was aware of this dilemma. For example, top manager James D. Mooney came to Germany in late 1939 and then in February 1940. On the one hand, his trips were aimed at appeasing those in power in Berlin. On the other hand, the manager hoped to have a moderating effect on the brown rulers - a complete misjudgment of the situation. GM headquarters soon realized this: in the spring of 1941, the last US citizens were recalled from the Opel executive cabinet. Since then, the interests of the group have been represented by lawyer Heinrich Richter.
        
        Thus, in the spring of 1941, Opel ceased to belong to GM de facto.
        
        And finally:
        
        On the other hand, there is no evidence that parent companies in the United States had a direct impact on their German daughters from late 1941 to 1945. It is also impossible to prove that the headquarters made a profit from the German war economy. On the contrary, under strict control of financial relations between Hitlerite Germany and the United States this is extremely unlikely.
        
        The story of the alleged supply of fuel to the Reich by Standard Oil is based entirely on the book by Charles Hyam "Trade with the Enemy". The author is suddenly! - never a historian, but a poet and journalist.
        
        The quality of this little book can be judged by one simple example. The author asserted that during all the years of the war not a single Standard Oil ship was sunk. But the owner of the first American tanker, which was sunk in January 1942 after America and Germany were at war, was Standard Oil Co of New Jersey, New York. Here is a list of ships sunk only in the first six months of 1942, using the example of two companies - Standard Oil Co of New Jersey, New York and Panama Transport Co (Standard Oil Co).
        
        1. "Charles Pratt" (8,982 brt) October 20, 1939. Owner: Panama Transport Co (Standard Oil Co), Panama. Sunk U65 21.12.40 - 2 dead
        
        2. "IC White" (7,052 brt) 1940. Owner: Panama Transport Co (Standard Oil Co), Panama. Sunk U66 27.09.41/3/XNUMX - XNUMX dead
        
        3. "Allan Jackson" (6,635 gr) Owner: Standard Oil Co of New Jersey, New York. Sunk U66 18.01.42 - 22 dead
        
        4. "WL Steed" (6,182 grt) Owner: Standard Oil Co of New Jersey, New York. Sunk U103 02.02.42 - 34 dead
        
        5. "RP Resor" (7,451 Brt) Owner: Standard Oil Co of New Jersey, New York. Sunk U578 27.02.42 - 47 dead
        
        6. "Hanseat" (8,241 brt) 1935 Owner: Panama Transport Co (Standard Oil Co), Panama. Sunk U126 09.03.42 - no fatalities
        
        7. "Penelope" (8,436 grt) 1935 Owner: Panama Transport Co (Standard Oil Co), Panama. Sunk U67 14.03.42/2/XNUMX - XNUMX dead
        
        8. "EM Clark" (9,647 brt) Owner: Standard Oil Co of New Jersey, New York. Sunk U124 18.03.42/1/XNUMX - XNUMX dead
        
        9. "Esso Boston" (7,699 Brt) Owner: Standard Oil Co of New Jersey, New York. Sunk U130 12.04.42/XNUMX/XNUMX - no fatalities
        
        10. "Heinrich von Riedemann" (11,020 brt) Owner: Panama Transport Co (Standard Oil Co), Panama. Sunk U66 17.04.42/XNUMX/XNUMX - no fatalities
        
        11. "Harry G. Seidel" (10,354 brt) 1935 Owner: Panama Transport Co (Standard Oil Co), Panama. Sunk U66 29.04.42/2/XNUMX - XNUMX dead
        
        12. "Esso Houston" (7,699 Brt) Owner: Standard Oil Co of New Jersey, New York. Sunk U162 13.05.42 - 1 dead
        
        13. "MF Elliott" (6,940 grt) Owner: Standard Oil Co of New Jersey, New York. Sunk U502 03.06.42 - 13 dead
        
        14. "LJ Drake" (6,693 grt) Owner: Standard Oil Co of New Jersey, New York. Sunk U68 05.06.42 - 41 dead
        
        15. "COStillman" (13,006 brt) Owner: Panama Transport Co (Standard Oil Co), Panama. Sunk U68 06.06.42 - 3 dead
        
        16. "Franklin K. Lane" (6,589 brt) Owner: Standard Oil Co of New Jersey, New York. Sunk U502 09.06.42/4/XNUMX - XNUMX dead
        
        17. "EJ Sadler" (9,639 Brt) Owner: Standard Oil Co of New Jersey, New York. Sunk U159 22.06.42/XNUMX/XNUMX - no fatalities
        
        18. "William Rockefeller" (14,054 brt) Owner: Standard Oil Co of New Jersey, New York. Sunk U701 28.06.42/XNUMX/XNUMX - no fatalities
        
        19. "Benjamin Brewster" (5,950 Brt) Owner: Standard Oil Co of New Jersey, New York. Sunk U67 10.07.42 - 25 dead
        
        20. "RW Gallagher" (Br7,989) Owner: Standard Oil Co of New Jersey, New York. Sunk U67 13.07.42 - 10 dead
        
        21. "Beaconlight" (6,926 brt) Owner: Panama Transport Co (Standard Oil Co), Panama. Sunk U160 16.07.42 - 1 dead
        
        But you can continue to trust the books of the "poet and journalist"
        
        Marzhecki
        
        -1
        
        16 February 2021 06: 59
        
        Quote: Cyril
        It just took more time and effort. The result is one.
        
        It took 200 years and the loss of state independence. Well, yes, this is such a trifle ...
        
        The military machine of the Mongols in that era could not be resisted by ANYONE from the word ALL. Moreover, dozens of fragmented principalities with tiny squads from 150 to 400 horsemen.
        When three tumens arrive, which have passed all of Asia before, the result is predictable.
        
        Cyril
        
        -3
        
        16 February 2021 07: 32
        
        The military machine of the Mongols in that era could not resist ANYONE from the word AT ALL.
        
        So no one argues. It's just that he's trying to convince me that Russia is crushing everyone, always and everywhere. The Tatars showed that this is not so.
        
        Ser sash
        
        0
        
        16 February 2021 11: 02
        
        The Mongols were beaten more than once by the Arabs and Lithuanians and Teutons.
    2. boriz
      
      +2
      
      16 February 2021 11: 35
      
      There was no invasion of "Mongoloid nomads".
      The then empire had two organizational lines, civil (territorial, under the control of princes) and military under the control of khans. In some cases, one person could combine two positions. That "tribute" that was collected - the tax on the maintenance of the army. Collected no more than 10%. Compared to current taxes, it's ridiculous.
      And, most importantly, modern studies of the genotype of the population of the European part of Russia showed a complete absence of Mongoloid haplogroups. That is, there was no invasion of Mongoloid nomads. And the campaigns of the Golden Horde were "sanctions" against tax evaders.
      The history before the Great Troubles is distorted beyond recognition.
      1. Cyril
        
        -4
        
        17 February 2021 10: 38
        
        There was no invasion of "Mongoloid nomads".
        
        Fomenko, re-login.
        
        The then empire had two organizational lines, civil (territorial, under the control of princes) and military under the control of khans. In some cases, one person could combine two positions. That "tribute" that was collected - the tax on the maintenance of the army. Collected no more than 10%. Compared to current taxes, it's ridiculous.
        
        Burned Ryazan, Vladimir, Kozelsk, Moscow and a bunch, a bunch, a bunch of other Russian cities say that there was just an occupation, a seizure, violence against the disobedient. It was a full-fledged war in which the Russian principalities lost.
        
        And, most importantly, modern studies of the genotype of the population of the European part of Russia have shown the complete absence of Mongoloid haplogroups. That is, there was no invasion of Mongoloid nomads.
        
        Oh, couch genetics began.
        
        The history before the Great Troubles is distorted beyond recognition.
        
        Yes, all sorts of "alternatives" have tried.
2. Marzhecki
  
  -1
  
  16 February 2021 06: 48
  
  Quote: Cyril
  Why suddenly such conclusions? Britain had been at war with Germany for a year before the latter attacked the USSR.
  
  I have not formulated quite correctly. your thought. I did not mean the situation of 1941, of course, when the war was already going on between Germany and Britain, but somewhat earlier.
  The remark was correct. The day yesterday was very stressful for me, I had to write a little differently.
Oleg Rambover

0

16 February 2021 01: 02

What nonsense, I did not expect from Marzhetsky. To begin with, the United States must increase its contingent in Europe by orders of magnitude, now it is at a historic low since WWII. And NATO countries must mobilize. In short, NATO is going to attack the Russian Federation in the near future, nonsense worthy of nightingale droppings, scarecrows for pensioners. And the main thing is not clear why to attack? Everything is sucked out of the finger.
And historical analogies like:

With an extremely high degree of probability, Great Britain would side with Germany, and then the whole world history would then follow a different scenario, unfavorable for the Soviet Union.

generally crap.
1. Cyril
  
  -2
  
  16 February 2021 01: 41
  
  I agree, Sergei has entered the Neukropny field here.
2. Marzhecki
  
  -1
  
  16 February 2021 06: 54
  
  Quote: Oleg Rambover
  And historical analogies like:
  With an extremely high degree of probability, Great Britain would side with Germany, and then the whole world history would then follow a different scenario, unfavorable for the Soviet Union.
  
  generally crap.
  
  No bastard. This is an alternative history genre. As for England, I have already explained to other commentators what I had in mind. Take a look so I don't duplicate it here again.
  
  In short, NATO is going to attack the Russian Federation in the near future, nonsense worthy of nightingale droppings, scarecrows for pensioners.
  
  Damn, I didn't write that. Assumption was taken as a basis to suggest possible answers.
  1. Oleg Rambover
    
    -2
    
    16 February 2021 16: 51
    
    Quote: Marzhetsky
    Damn, I didn't write that. Assumption was taken as a basis to suggest possible answers.
    
    Ahhh ... so you just fire up. So they would write that these are your fantasies, otherwise it is not clear from the article.
    
    Quote: Marzhetsky
    Their purpose is not particularly hidden: the military personnel of the North Atlantic Alliance will practice maneuvers and attack schemes on our country, to counter which this "defensive" bloc was created.
    
    Where did you get it, that attack? The name of the exercise "Defender of Europe"?
    
    There is a kind of "Barbarossa-2 plan".
    
    Where did you get this idea that there is some kind of "Barbarossa-2 plan"?
    
    Hypothetically, something like this can only work if a large military grouping of the North Atlantic Alliance is concentrated near our borders under some plausible pretext, such as large-scale exercises, and a sudden massive strike "without announcement" at 4.00 am. In principle, we have already gone through something similar, and it ended badly for the aggressor.
    
    The exercise will take part as many as 31 thousand NATO troops, and scattered across Europe, this is what a force. As many as 2 divisions. The Russian army, with its 900 thousand, simply has nothing to oppose to such a force.
    
    Quote: Marzhetsky
    No bastard. This is an alternative history genre. As for England, I have already explained to other commentators what I had in mind. Take a look so I don't duplicate it here again.
    
    Ahh ... Fantasies again. But this is again not clear from the article.
    On what basis did you decide that
    
    Quote: Marzhetsky
    With an extremely high degree of probability, Great Britain would side with Germany,
  2. isofat
    
    -1
    
    16 February 2021 17: 41
    
    Marzhetsky (Sergey), I think we can congratulate you. Your opponent has not found convincing arguments.
    
    Agree that the phrases - "Ahhh ... these are your fantasies"Or"Ahh ... fantasy again", they are not an argument. And the attempt to convince everyone that there is no threat, just because the exercise is called" Defender of Europe ", is puzzling.
    
    Further, your opponent mumbled something about the insufficient number of participants in the exercises. Not enough to kill our entire army. Agree that this is not required.
    
    PS After what happened in their elections, I came to believe in the inadequacy of the United States. You can expect ANYTHING from them.
Marzhecki

-1

16 February 2021 07: 01

Quote: Ulysses
Or he doubts the determination of the Russian leadership to use nuclear weapons in the event of a real danger of military defeat for the Russian Federation.

It was about a preventive strike by the Russian Federation.
1. Dear sofa expert.
  
  +2
  
  17 February 2021 13: 38
  
  In short, NATO is going to attack the Russian Federation in the near future, nonsense worthy of nightingale droppings, scarecrows for pensioners.
  
  Damn, I didn't write that. Assumption was taken as a basis to suggest possible answers.
  
  Sergei, I don't understand why you need to make excuses before these "champions of demagoguery."
  
  The very message of your article is quite understandable, and the fact that Russia has launched a preemptive strike has objectively, quite serious reasons.
  
  Fundamentally, such a strike is not only strategically justified, but tactically quite feasible.
  
  The very fact of any attack implies the mandatory concentration of sufficient impact potential. For a war against such an adversary as Russia, this potential must not only be great, it must be gigantic.
  It will definitely not work "to shoot from the hip" across Russia. This will require the deployment of an incredibly large amount of equipment in combat positions, the appropriate "personnel" are involved. All this is associated with simply gigantic logistic movements, and most importantly, all this takes time.
  
  In order to continuously bomb Yugoslavia in 72 for 1999 days, just for preparation, NATO members took more than three months (!). Ships were driven up and placed in battle formations, the planes were ferried, deployed along the "jump" airfields, brought up the "material", plus the ground army (which in the end never reached), etc.
  
  And then the Yugoslavs had no choice but to helplessly watch all these "preparations" and wait for the "execution" to begin.
  
  But here we are not talking about the Yugoslavs.
  The combat capabilities of the Yugoslavs and Russia are simply incomparable.
  For such a military operation against Russia, NATO would need a grouping tens of times superior in power to the “Yugoslavian” one. But the numbers there are also oh, how impressive!
  
  It is practically impossible to quickly and imperceptibly gather such a military potential, sufficient to deliver a "global disarming strike" against Russia.
  
  And as a participant in the Shambhala discussion correctly noted:
  
  .. Now the weapons are very expensive. It will take a lot of time and resources to restore offensive potential.
  
  ..therefore, for the second time, it is hardly possible to quickly assemble such an armada to deliver a second strike.
  In this case, the stake would be placed on the primary and only, and necessarily (!) 100% effective, global disarming strike.
  Because in the event of a "misfire", a retaliatory strike would mean very "unacceptable losses" for the aggressor.
  In fact, for NATO, a good, if not the only, opportunity really could be a large-scale exercise, under the guise of which it would be possible to launch such a "global disarming strike."
  
  Well, if so, then, if Russia has enough indications to evaluate such an event as preparation for an imminent attack, then a preemptive strike aimed at destroying, or at least a functional incapacitation of this "battle formation", quite justified, and therefore quite real, if not inevitable. Moreover, even without any use of strategic nuclear weapons (tactical maximum).
  
  And the strategic nuclear weapons, as it were, will remain - a deterrent factor from the possible transition of this preemptive strike into the phase of a global war, into which all "this", of course, will not eventually result, since starting a regular war against a nuclear power there are no willing ones.
  1. Alexander Veniaminovich
    
    -1
    
    18 February 2021 23: 06
    
    In 1941, they also considered a sudden blow of huge forces to be impossible. But it took place huge masses of troops and equipment were concentrated and the blow was just sudden. Stalin and most of the officers and soldiers were simply dumbfounded by the news of the war, they also considered the war to be nonsense.
    And modern technologies and capabilities, if NATO is really needed, then I am sure one hundred percent a blow will be dealt a huge number of people and equipment will be involved and it will be just sudden and crushing, no matter how the country is preparing for it.
    Putin will not even have time to get scared as to go to heaven. Neither planes nor missiles will fly anywhere, everything will be destroyed immediately and everywhere.
    1. Dear sofa expert.
      
      +2
      
      18 February 2021 23: 17
      
      In 1941, a sudden blow of huge forces was also considered impossible. But it took place concentrated .... ,,,.
      
      Try to stay in today's reality. If you try very hard, you will succeed.
      To make it easier for you, your titanic efforts, let me remind you that in 1941 there were neither weapons of mass destruction, nor similar, in terms of destructive effectiveness, "targets" that would turn our whole world into a glass house.
Igor Berg

-2

16 February 2021 10: 44

Quote: Sergey Latyshev
Money does not smell ... Trade with Ukraine proves it.

Russia is selling to NATO countries. Gas, oil, titanium, aluminum, retired ministers and oligarchs, etc.
Will strike, suddenly, to whom will the gas be sold?

one hundred%. RF without dollars and euros is no longer ... well, you know ...
Danila46

-3

16 February 2021 10: 45

the author is clearly on a urapatriotic wave ...
Tektor

0

16 February 2021 11: 28

Well, we also have something to show. For example, there are more than 120 pieces of Su-24, capable of carrying 2 pieces of X-35. 130 pieces of Su-34 can take 2 pieces of X-31. By the way, I do not exclude that the Su-25, of which more than 140 units can take 2 X-35s, as well as the Yak-130, of which more than 110 units can be taken up to 2 X-35s. That in aggregate can make a salvo of 1000 missiles with a range of more than 250 km, i.e. from safe zones in terms of air defense zones. Those. when using only strike aircraft, without using the strike capabilities of cover fighters, you can cover 1000 targets at a distance of 200 km from our borders at a time.
And then there are other MiGs and Sushki, BRK Ball.
1. Alexzn
  
  0
  
  16 February 2021 13: 11
  
  You should play computer strategies ...
  1. Igor Berg
    
    0
    
    16 February 2021 13: 17
    
    That here is the majority of such articles, or horror stories, or neighing ...
    1. Tektor
      
      0
      
      17 February 2021 11: 10
      
      In dogon, so to speak. Do you know how many combat MiG-29s we have, including those mothballed at storage bases? ... about 340 pcs. And each of them is capable of taking on the wing 2 pieces of X-31 ... This is an opportunity to concentrate a strike on 680 missiles with an flight time of up to 5 minutes at a distance of up to 300 km. Su-27/30/35 can serve as a cover for this huge strike force.
boriz

+2

16 February 2021 15: 11

As for the attack on the RF, this is a bluff. Simply, before the conclusion of a future big deal, the West wants to knock out the maximum concessions from the Russian Federation. And the Russian Federation, just, sharply marked the rigidity of the position.
fenugreek

+3

16 February 2021 16: 15

The Red Army struck a preemptive strike against Wehrmacht units on the eve of the Battle of Kursk (the Third Reich is practically the entire industrial and human potential of Europe). This battle became a turning point in the Second World War. The warlike Prussian spirit was lost. The fascists could no longer conduct offensive operations against the Red Army. They only retreated all the way to Berlin. Armaments are very expensive now. Rebuilding offensive capabilities will take a lot of time and resources - and NATO has neither. In addition to material damage, the "sky" coalition will receive unacceptable human losses and an irreparable loss of the fighting spirit of the "blue warriors - transformers". In such an environment, we can conclude new beneficial agreements with Western countries on the division of spheres of influence in the world on our terms.

What is the strength of the American? Power is in the truth !
Restless Sagittarius

+2

17 February 2021 23: 47

Great Britain entered the war with Hitler before his attack on the USSR, so the author is delusional, believing that because of the preemptive strike by the USSR on the Nazis, England would oppose the USSR on the side of her enemy who bombed London ... In addition, the author deliberately, but rather deliberately keeps silent about missiles such as Kh-55, Kh-55SM, Kh-102 and the like. The Russian Federation received 55 Kh-2500 missiles with a range of 55 km and a nuclear warhead of 2500 kilotons only from Kh-200 missiles and only from Ukraine as payment of debts for gas.
Alexander Veniaminovich

0

18 February 2021 22: 47

If you hit first, you need to hit so that nothing remains of the opponent. In the case of NATO, it is necessary to use its entire arsenal, even the bacteriological chemical Proton. In short, everything. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure the complete surprise of the strike. But even by using everything, we will not destroy NATO, only we will inflict great damage on it. We have too few weapons left for total destruction of what the Soviet Union had.
The conclusion is simple, even if we strike first, we lose the war and disappear from the face of the planet.
And if NATO strikes first, we lose to anyone, only the majority of the population will survive and fall into the occupation and further into the digital concentration camp. But perhaps the descendants of the Russians will survive.
Another option and it is the only correct unification of all Russian lands under a single central strong power and the creation of new types of weapons in such numbers and in such a degree of readiness that within a few minutes it would be possible to destroy the entire population of the planet and all armies then no one will definitely attack us and will give us the opportunity to live in peace. The main thing after that is not to expand, not to have territorial claims to anyone and not to try to integrate into either Western, or Eastern, or Islamic projects. Do prom. the development of the solar system and the exit into large space.
Barmaley_2

0

21 February 2021 14: 56

As far as I understand, for the author of the article to be considered "bad guys" is much more terrible than in general to have the country wiped off the face of the earth. Well, as it were, the Russian Federation is so considered in the West a "bad guy". What then does she have to lose? "in a square or a cube. As anyone is comfortable. But in general, the GDP somehow said that if a fight is inevitable, then you have to hit first.