Three scenarios for an armed conflict between Russia and NATO


Russia is forced to continue strengthening its western borders. The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation announced the creation of an additional two dozen new formations and units. All of this is happening in response to NATO exercises, the frequency and scope of which is growing from year to year. In the summer of 2021, Europe will host simultaneously exercises under the auspices of the United States, the largest since the end of the Cold War, and exercises along the lines of the alliance itself, aimed at practicing the transfer of military convoys from overseas to the Old World. All this looks like preparation for a war with Russia, but let's ask ourselves a question, why NATO should fight with us at all, and if an armed conflict does happen, what will it be?


The question is actually quite interesting. Despite the fact that informational messages from the western borders sound like in the early forties of the last century, as such, there are no special reasons for the war between Russia and the NATO bloc so far. There is no longer any fundamental competition between the two systems, capitalist and socialist. There are no two irreconcilable blocs, we are now the same as them (good or bad is a separate issue), and our so-called "elites" are trying with all their might to become part of the Western. Europe and the United States do not need to seize a new "living space", and the Kremlin itself is happy to sell any Russian resources to them. (For many years now we have been desperately fighting for the right to sell our gas to the EU). If you look at the leading domestic enterprises, they either belong to foreign investors (in whole or in part), or are registered in foreign offshores. So why should Europeans and Americans fight us in general?

This refers to a war in the style of the last century, with millions of troops, tank wedges and air armies. And let's not forget that Russia is the second-strongest nuclear power in the world, which in itself should discourage the desire to arrange another "drang nach osten". The war of destruction in today's reality has simply lost its meaning. But does this mean that an armed conflict between Russia and the NATO bloc is out of the question?

No, the conflict is quite possible, but it will (if, of course, be) limited, with clearly defined goals, and, most likely, will take place on the territory of third countries. Let's look at three areas where the Russian military can still clash with the soldiers of the North Atlantic Alliance.

At first, this is Kaliningrad. The strategic importance of this Russian region can hardly be overestimated, since from its territory our missiles cover the main objects of NATO's military infrastructure. The elimination of this exclave is the primary goal of the alliance, and all its military exercises are frankly worked out to capture the Kaliningrad region. A natural question arises, why are Brussels and Washington not afraid of a Russian "nuclear shield"?

We have no definite answer, but it can be assumed that NATO strategists believe that Moscow will not use its nuclear arsenal against Europe. Recall that Kaliningrad has a very special history of appearing as part of our country, and earlier it was called Konigsberg. For a long time, the West has been consistently working on the preparation of a justification for revising the results of the Second World War. If this ever happens, the pro-Western "fifth column" may try to raise the question of returning to Germany. If the security forces try to firmly restore order, then the NATO bloc can carry out a complete blockade of the Kaliningrad region and "humanitarian intervention" to protect the rights and freedoms of its inhabitants. That is, it is no longer a question of direct military aggression against the Russian region, and whether the Kremlin will consider it possible to use nuclear weapons against its business partners in Europe is an interesting question. It is clear that no one will simply surrender the exclave, therefore an armed conflict between the Russian Federation and NATO is still possible, local and, most likely, without the use of nuclear weapons.

Secondly, there is a non-zero likelihood of a collision between Russia and the North Atlantic Alliance over Belarus. We will remind that until recently in this country mass protests raged because of the ambiguous results of the summer elections. Subsequently, a conspiracy to assassinate President Lukashenko was exposed there. Abroad has its own "President of the World" Tikhanovskaya. If the pro-Western opposition nevertheless seizes power in Minsk, scenarios with the introduction of NATO troops at its request to "ensure human rights and freedoms" are quite possible, and there will certainly be those in the country who will support this. Will the Kremlin again jump on the "Ukrainian rake" and pretend that all this is a purely internal Belarusian affair, and everything is under control? Let's hope that some conclusions were drawn after 2014.

ThirdlyThis is directly Ukraine, where nothing has ended yet, but on the contrary, everything is just beginning. In response to Kiev's outspoken preparation for the violent seizure of the DPR and LPR, Moscow pulled over 100 military personnel to its western border. technique... Despite the fact that in the Kremlin all this is stubbornly called simple exercises, it is obvious that in this way it was supposed to "cover" the unrecognized republics in the event of a threat of their military defeat from the side of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. As a result, the "exercises" ended, most of the troops were withdrawn from the Ukrainian border, but the equipment remained at the training grounds not far from Nezalezhnaya. This was motivated by the need for her to participate in the upcoming exercises "West-2021". If necessary, our army men can be quickly deployed back.

What does NATO have to do with it? Moreover, the current large-scale military exercises in Europe are undoubtedly positioned as the West's response to the deployment of Russian troops along the borders of Ukraine. In the event of an attempt at a large-scale attack by the Ukrainian Armed Forces on the DPR and LPR, the Ukrainian army would have been defeated by a counterstrike from the RF Armed Forces, and then there would have been a great temptation to move further into the territory of Independence. And here the NATO force group deployed in Europe for exercises could act as a "roof" for Kiev. Having in hand a request from Kiev, the North Atlantic Alliance is able to transfer its forces to Independent in order to stop the offensive of the RF Ministry of Defense.

There are probably other scenarios in which the NATO bloc may collide with the RF Armed Forces, for example, in the Baltic states, but this cannot be called a full-scale war of destruction, but rather a redistribution of spheres of influence by force.
Ad
We are open to cooperation with authors in the news and analytical departments. A prerequisite is the ability to quickly analyze the text and check the facts, to write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. We offer flexible working hours and regular payments. Please send your responses with examples of work to [email protected]
41 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
    Bulanov (Vladimir) 1 June 2021 13: 25
    +2
    Recall that Kaliningrad has a very special history of appearing as part of our country,

    Warsaw also has a very special history as part of the Russian Empire ...

    As a result, the "exercises" ended, most of the troops were withdrawn from the Ukrainian border, but the equipment remained at the training grounds not far from Nezalezhnaya.

    But this is alarming. In 1941, too, a lot of equipment accumulated near the Western borders. then it was bombed by 3 European reichs.
    You have forgotten about Moldova ...
  2. Dust Offline Dust
    Dust (Sergei) 1 June 2021 13: 46
    +2
    Any even the slightest "slightest" war will quickly turn into a nuclear one. Russia in human and military resources is many times inferior to the West. The only thing holding back a Western attack is nuclear weapons. When the first missiles fly towards Russia, Russia will not understand whether they are nuclear or not. The answer will be immediate. And the reasoning about the scenario of the war is just "chatter" ... "walking on the coffee grounds"
    1. zenion Offline zenion
      zenion (zinovy) 2 June 2021 22: 46
      0
      Before Russia has time to turn around, Europe will surrender. If you wanted Siberia - get Siberia, if you want to drink oil, fill it up. But there was such an anecdote:

      Roosevelt came from the other world. The streets of Washington are clean and tidy everywhere. Goes into a shop and asks how much Coca-Cola costs? So 1.20. As Roosevelt says in my presence, and the seller corrects it - in rubles.

      Only everything in Europe and America will be only in history books. America was on that continent. And in Europe, there seemed to be some states, but which no one remembers anymore. No one will stomp their feet in Berlin, or ride tanks with rockets. Greetings. As before with Katyushas, ​​only big, forever. There will be nothing to write on.
  3. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 1 June 2021 15: 10
    +7
    There is no longer any fundamental competition between the two systems, capitalist and socialist. There are no two irreconcilable blocs, we are now the same as them (good or bad is a separate issue), and our so-called "elites" are trying with all their might to become part of the Western. Europe and the United States do not need to seize a new "living space", and the Kremlin itself is happy to sell any Russian resources to them.

    This is serious? Why then were there wars before 1917? Why did Germany attack the USSR if we were happy to sell them any resources? And as some individuals (especially gifted) on this site assure, there was no fundamental difference between Stalin and Hitler?
    1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 1 June 2021 19: 07
      -3
      The key word here is "Already". After the two world wars, it became clear to everyone that even for the winners, those naughty ones that victory brings do not pay off the costs of the war. Before 1917 it was different.
      1. Bakht Offline Bakht
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 1 June 2021 22: 21
        +2
        And until 1917, everything was exactly the same. And the exact same arguments were given

        In 1910, Norman Angel's new book, The Great Illusion, was published, arguing that war was impossible. With the help of impressive examples and undeniable arguments, Angell argued that with the existing interdependence of nations, the winner will suffer equally with the victim - therefore, war is not profitable, and no country would be so foolish to start it.

        Translated almost immediately into eleven languages, the "Great Illusion" turned into a kind of cult. At the universities of Manchester, Glasgow and other industrial cities, more than 40 groups of adherents appeared that promoted her dogma. Angell's most loyal student was a man who had a great influence on military policy, a close friend of the king and his adviser Viscount Asher, chairman of the Military Committee, created to reorganize the British army after the shock caused by its failures in the Boer War. Lord Escher lectured on The Great Illusion in Cambridge and Sorbonne, arguing that "new economic factors clearly prove the futility of aggressive wars." The war of the XNUMXth century will have such proportions, he declared, that its inevitable consequences in the form of a commercial collapse, a financial catastrophe and the suffering of people will so saturated with ideas of containment that they will make the war unthinkable. He said in a speech to the officers of the United Armed Forces Club in the presence of the Chief of the General Staff, Sir John French, who chaired the meeting, that due to the intertwining of the interests of nations, starting a war every day becomes more difficult and impossible.

        It all turned out to be the "Great Illusion"
        1. Bakht Offline Bakht
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 1 June 2021 22: 28
          +4
          Increasing tensions, the presence of bases near the borders, conducting maneuvers and provoking the enemy with reconnaissance flights, sooner or later will break the string and the war will be

          - In my opinion, Mr. Minister, all this is a doggie! Bogan barked from his dungeon in Omaha. - Look, I'm sitting here right on a hot stove, I have to read the readings of computers and try to figure out what they mean in practice. Don't fool yourself. The Russians will have three or four generals in key positions who react in the same way as I: attack is the best form of defense. They attack without even remembering what Marx or someone else said about it.
          1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
            Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 2 June 2021 02: 37
            -3
            Quote: Bakht
            Increasing tensions, the presence of bases near the borders, conducting maneuvers and provoking the enemy with reconnaissance flights, sooner or later will break the string and the war will be

            Are you talking about reconnaissance flights?
            https://lenta.ru/news/2020/11/29/perehvat/
            Increasing tensions are you talking about this?



            The American contingent in Europe is smaller by an order of magnitude during the Cold War and is clearly not sufficient for a large-scale war.
            If war wakes up, the Russian Federation will not survive it (as, for sure, the United States). Both sides understand this.
            1. Bakht Offline Bakht
              Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 2 June 2021 07: 17
              +3
              No, about it
              https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/5fd6ec909a794780b29fa18f
              What does the "American contingent" have to do with it? You are once again substituting concepts. Consider the NATO contingent. And don't forget to add the APU there. And also Sweden and Finland.
              K says "Russia is to blame for placing its territory close to our bases"

        2. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
          Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 2 June 2021 02: 12
          -2
          This is not to say that Norman Angell was wrong about the disadvantages of war. Generals and politicians were simply preparing for the past wars. Both world wars caused colossal material damage to the victors, which was not compensated by either indemnities or territorial gains. In addition, today's large-scale war could be the end of civilization. And 75 years without big frontal warriors confirms Angell's ideas. While until 1945, almost every generation fell on a major war, or even more than one.
          1. Bakht Offline Bakht
            Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 2 June 2021 07: 20
            +3
            Of course I was wrong. Like you. The West does not want to pay for resources. He wants to pick them up for free. This has not changed over the past 300-400 years.
            This is the nature of capitalism and the morality of Anglo-Saxon civilization.
            1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
              Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 2 June 2021 11: 37
              -2
              You say some slogans, but if I ask you to name at least one war that developed capitalist countries have fought to seize territory over the past 75 years, I am sure you will not be able to name one.
              1. Bakht Offline Bakht
                Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 2 June 2021 11: 43
                +3
                Did I talk about the seizure of territories? I was talking about economics. The First World War began specifically for economic reasons. Just the exact opposite of your statements. And Angela's claims.
                I've never used slogans. And I always tried to rely on facts.
                PS In Europe in the 20th century the borders were changed so many times that your attempts to challenge something are worthless. Germany 30s as an example for you. Poland 20's as an example to you.
                1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                  Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 2 June 2021 16: 26
                  -4
                  Quote: Bakht
                  Did I talk about the seizure of territories? I was talking about economics.

                  Hmm, what are you talking about? What is the point in wars of conquest for the sake of resources, if not to seize territory. And if we are discussing Norman Angell, he was just talking about the conquest of a part of another by one country.

                  Quote: Bakht
                  The First World War began specifically for economic reasons. Just the exact opposite of your statements. And Angela's claims.

                  Angell was just a little ahead of his time. Yes, WWI began for economic reasons, but it also confirmed Angell's thesis about the disadvantages of war. The winners spent incomparably more on the war than they received as a prize. This partly explains the behavior of Western countries in the period 38-39, the so-called policy of appeasement, did not want to fight. By the way, do you refer to the Russian Empire as a Russian civilization or an Anglo-Saxon one?

                  Quote: Bakht
                  I've never used slogans.

                  Your

                  Quote: Bakht
                  The West does not want to pay for resources. He wants to pick them up for free. This has not changed over the past 300-400 years.
                  This is the nature of capitalism and the morality of Anglo-Saxon civilization.

                  a slogan that you are unable to substantiate. In your opinion, all the Anglo-Saxons are immoral by definition?

                  Quote: Bakht
                  PS In Europe in the 20th century the borders were changed so many times that your attempts to challenge something are worthless. Germany 30s as an example for you. Poland 20's as an example to you.

                  How many times have borders changed in Europe by military means in the past 75 years? Two times? And how many times in the previous 75 years?
                  1. Bakht Offline Bakht
                    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 2 June 2021 16: 40
                    +3
                    Do you count only Europe? What kind of Eurocentrism? Borders have changed many times. And in the last century there have been a lot of wars with the redistribution of borders and the destruction of states. Italy - war in Libya and Ethiopia. USA - war with Spain. I have already cited Poland as an example. Germany too. France - you know how much they butted with Germany. Yugoslavia has been destroyed before our eyes. So is Czechoslovakia. But that doesn't count, of course. These are the right guys who bombed Belgrade.
                    Angell said that it was not profitable to wage a war and he was grossly mistaken. There were wars throughout the 20th century. They will be there now. This is nature.
                    Yes, I think the Anglo-Saxon world-building model is immoral by definition. Destruction of entire civilizations, robbery of the resources of the entire planet. In order not to go far - read the doctrine of the United States. This is not a slogan. This is a direct indication "the sphere of vital interests of the United States is the entire planet Earth and near-earth space." In the crown of the British Empire there is a "mountain of light" diamond. It was stolen from India. Nobody wants to return it?
                    Wars are fought in different ways. In the case of the Eastern Bloc, resources were captured without occupying territory. But what difference does that make? The West needs resources and it gets them now through price manipulation. But this feeder is running out. So there will be war. And it will be precisely for economic reasons. Anglo-Saxons do not want to live like the whole world. That is, be content with a reasonable limit. They need everything.
                    PS A good book was written by the Strugatskys "absolutely satisfied cadaver"
                    1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 3 June 2021 12: 18
                      -4
                      Quote: Bakht
                      Do you count only Europe? What kind of Eurocentrism? Borders have changed many times. And in the last century there have been a lot of wars with the redistribution of borders and the destruction of states. Italy - war in Libya and Ethiopia. USA - war with Spain. I have already cited Poland as an example. Germany too. France - you know how much they butted with Germany.

                      Once again, over the past 75 years, the war is an order of magnitude less than in the previous 75 years, and there are orders of magnitude fewer casualties in these wars. This is especially noticeable in Europe, but the same trend is observed throughout the rest of the world. And this is a fact that confirms Angell's correctness. Even you give examples outside of the last 75 years.

                      Quote: Bakht
                      Yugoslavia has been destroyed before our eyes. So is Czechoslovakia. But that doesn't count, of course.

                      Yugoslavia was destroyed primarily by its citizens. And what do you think is an example of a war of conquest? Why did you present Czechoslovakia here incomprehensibly, it was also destroyed by the evil Anglo-Saxons?

                      Quote: Bakht
                      But that doesn't count, of course. These are the right guys who bombed Belgrade.

                      If you have the right bombing raids for you, then yes, the right guys.

                      Quote: Bakht
                      Angell said that it was not profitable to wage a war and he was grossly mistaken. There were wars throughout the 20th century. They will be there now. This is nature.

                      You are mistaken, since wars were fought mainly in the first half of the twentieth century, it is foolish to deny it.
                      There is no such "nature" that states would arrange senseless wars.

                      Quote: Bakht
                      Yes, I think the Anglo-Saxon world-building model is immoral by definition. Destruction of entire civilizations, robbery of the resources of the entire planet.

                      And what should be done with the bearers of this wrong morality?
                      What did the Anglo-Saxons do that the representatives of the Russian "civilization" would not do?

                      Quote: Bakht
                      In order not to go far - read the doctrine of the United States. This is not a slogan. This is a direct indication "the sphere of vital interests of the United States is the entire planet Earth and near-earth space."

                      Didn't read, throw off the link? Is this different from "Russia's borders end with nowhere"? Is it different?

                      Quote: Bakht
                      It was stolen from India. Nobody wants to return it?

                      Where do the diamonds in the crown of the Russian empire come from? It is rather ridiculous to reproach the British Empire for colonialism while living in the heiress of the Russian Empire who pursued exactly such a policy.

                      Quote: Bakht
                      In the case of the Eastern Bloc, resources were captured without occupying territory. But what difference does that make?

                      Firstly, it was not a war, and secondly, what, now the "West" receives resources on these territories for free? Can you not be scattered, but give specific examples of warriors for resources for the sake of "getting them for free" over the past 75 years?

                      Quote: Bakht
                      The West needs resources and it gets them now through price manipulation. But this feeder is running out. So there will be war. And it will be precisely for economic reasons.

                      Well, it's just your faith, not based on any facts, and the fact of 75 years of relative peace suggests otherwise.

                      Quote: Bakht
                      Anglo-Saxons do not want to live like the whole world.

                      But, judging by the direction of migration, the rest of the world wants to live like the Anglo-Saxons.

                      Quote: Bakht
                      That is, be content with a reasonable limit.

                      Again your slogans.
                      1. isofat Offline isofat
                        isofat (isofat) 3 June 2021 13: 10
                        0
                        Oleg Rambover... Unlike your opponent, you are a fornication with words, but perhaps this is not a bad thing. Not bad for him, he will gain experience withstanding your verbiage.

                        PS I can support these statements, about your verbiage, with my own arguments, just hint. laughing
                      2. Bakht Offline Bakht
                        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 3 June 2021 14: 29
                        +3
                        I'll try again.
                        Angel wrote in 2010 that there can be no war for economic reasons. After 4 years, the war broke out precisely for economic reasons. You are still claiming that he is right. That is, there is no logic in your reasoning.
                        What happened in 1941 and now is one and the same. It's just that now there is no other means of reconnaissance and there is no need to fly directly over enemy territory. Electronic intelligence tools are now slightly different from the 40s of the last century. So I don’t see associative thinking.
                        This is not personalization. This is a simple statement of fact.

                        I do not read your entire message because it is not interesting to argue with you. The war for resources has never stopped and is taking place right now. That is, the war will be precisely for economic reasons.
                        US doctrine is an official document. As well as defense budget items. And "the borders of Russia do not end anywhere", this is an old joke of the border guards told to a child. Can you feel the difference?
                        I will not give links. There is a US defense budget for 2021. There is a new military space command. And there is a statement by Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell that the approved budget will cement America's "advantage at sea, on land, in the air, in cyberspace and in space."

                        One more thing. I do not even comment on your words about what I say with slogans. A person who feeds only on the yellow press is simply not interesting to me. And his opinion too. That is why I am not responding to some of your passages.
                      3. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 6 June 2021 16: 14
                        -2
                        Quote: Bakht
                        I'll try again.
                        Angel wrote in 2010 that there can be no war for economic reasons. After 4 years, the war broke out precisely for economic reasons. You are still claiming that he is right. That is, there is no logic in your reasoning.

                        Probably it’s me, I don’t explain well. Once again, Norman Angell was right that wars are not economically beneficial. The First World War clearly demonstrated this, since even for the victors, the economic losses far exceeded the gains as a result of the war. And for many countries and their elites, this war has become a natural disaster, for example, for Russia.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        What happened in 1941 and now is one and the same. It's just that now there is no other means of reconnaissance and there is no need to fly directly over enemy territory. Electronic intelligence tools are now slightly different from the 40s of the last century. So I don’t see associative thinking.
                        This is not personalization. This is a simple statement of fact.

                        Your imagination is too violent. You are comparing the multimillion army of the invasion of Nazi Germany with the Estonian army of less than a division. This is funny. I do not own the statistics of reconnaissance flights, but I am ready to argue that their number, if not an order of magnitude, then several times less than during the Cold War. The armies of NATO's European members are now about two times smaller than during the Cold War, despite the fact that these members have doubled in size. And the number of NATO troops is now less than in 2010. And of these, almost 1/3 is the Turkish army. Before the war, spending on the army in Germany and the USSR amounted to almost half of the budget, now the Americans cannot force the Europeans to spend at least 2% on defense. And electronic reconnaissance means can only be electronic means of the enemy. These are the facts, and you have nothing to oppose to them, except for your fantasies. So your fears are based on nothing.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        I do not read your entire message because it is not interesting to argue with you. The war for resources has never stopped and is taking place right now. That is, the war will be precisely for economic reasons.

                        I agree, I give you facts, and you give me some fantasies. So not interesting. Where is the resource war going on now? Syria? And that Russia or the United States are going to occupy this country and export resources for free? You don't have any facts, only fantasies. Earlier, you at least tried to substantiate your point of view.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        US doctrine is an official document. As well as defense budget items. And "the borders of Russia do not end anywhere", this is an old joke of the border guards told to a child. Can you feel the difference?

                        When the president of the country says this, I don't feel the difference.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        I will not give links.

                        Who would doubt that.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        There is a US defense budget for 2021. There is a new military space command. And there is a statement by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell that the approved budget will cement America's "advantage at sea, on land, in the air, in cyberspace and in space."

                        And on this site, almost through an article about zeroing the American potential, and our president is a fan of cartoons about the advantage of Russian weapons. What is the difference? Is it different again?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        One more thing. I do not even comment on your words about what I say with slogans. A person who feeds only on the yellow press is simply not interesting to me. And his opinion too. That is why I am not responding to some of your passages.

                        If these are not slogans, then they can be substantiated with facts, but for some reason you are not able to do this.
                        Where does your nonsense about "tomorrow's war" come from, not from the yellow press? Now can you give an example of my statement from the yellow press? Or, as always, you don't answer for your words?
            2. Bakht Offline Bakht
              Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 2 June 2021 11: 58
              +3
              You completely lack logical and associative thinking. I was convinced of this more than once. And a complete rejection of the facts.
              A small excursion into history. Stalin is accused of being blind and not seeing Germany's preparations for war. Reconnaissance flights of German aircraft. Stalin pays no attention. Concentration of German troops at the border. Stalin pays no attention. Intelligence data is nonsense. A fool, and nothing more.
              Over the past year, there have been 2000 reconnaissance flights by Western aircraft near the Russian border. In your opinion, this is not preparation for war. Creation of bases at the borders of Russia. In your opinion, this is not preparation for war. US withdrawal from all restrictive agreements. The size of the armies of the eastern limitrophes and the Armed Forces of Ukraine is, in your opinion, a reduction in the "American presence in Europe." Preparing infrastructure for US armored vehicles in the Baltics and Poland is nonsense. The Americans are not going to go to war with Russia. For this there are mongrels of Europe.
              By all the logic of Israeli foreign policy, Russia has every right to deliver a preemptive strike at the places of concentration of enemy troops. I was not wrong. Not just NATO troops, but enemy troops. Israel is pursuing just such a foreign policy. It was not in vain that I asked more than once whether Israel has the right to bomb the territory of Syria, Iraq or Iran. All my opponents from Israel told me that they had every right to launch preventive strikes.
              Therefore, the President of Russia said "There will be no repetition on June 22, 1941". Who understood - he understood, who did not understand - I am not guilty.
              1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 2 June 2021 17: 13
                -4
                Quote: Bakht
                You completely lack logical and associative thinking. I was convinced of this more than once. And a complete rejection of the facts.

                Do you have no arguments to defend your position, that you are constantly going over to the individual. You then have too violent imagination and a penchant for conspiracy theories based on nothing, but about the facts, whose cow would moan.

                Quote: Bakht
                A small excursion into history. Stalin is accused of being blind and not seeing Germany's preparations for war. Reconnaissance flights of German aircraft. Stalin pays no attention. Concentration of German troops at the border. Stalin pays no attention. Intelligence data is nonsense. A fool, and nothing more.

                This is different ... German planes flew OVER the territory of the USSR, and not along the borders. And to compare the 3,5 million group of Germans on the border of the USSR with the NATO group now on the "border" of the Russian Federation, which consists of the armed forces of the Baltic states and Poland and hardly exceeds 130 thousand people, this is ridiculous.

                Quote: Bakht
                Over the past year, there have been 2000 reconnaissance flights by Western aircraft near the Russian border.

                I read your link

                At the end of November, the commander-in-chief of the Military Space Forces (VKS), Lieutenant General Andrei Yudin, reported that Russian fighters took off more than 170 times a year and escorted more than 1,3 thousand reconnaissance aircraft of foreign states. No violations of the Russian airspace were recorded.

                What a cool air force we have, in one sortie they intercept almost 10 "enemy" planes.

                Quote: Bakht
                Creation of bases at the borders of Russia.

                Which ones? A missile defense base in Poland? Do you really believe that this base influences something?

                Quote: Bakht
                US withdrawal from all restrictive agreements.

                Of all of which? Open sky? Nobody forbids satellites to fly.

                Quote: Bakht
                The size of the armies of the eastern limitrophes and the Armed Forces of Ukraine is, in your opinion, a reduction in the "American presence in Europe."

                What does the APU have to do with it? Army of Estonia 6 thousand, Latvia 5 thousand, Lithuania 12 thousand. Is it really so bad in the Russian army that it is really threatened by forces in two incomplete divisions?

                Quote: Bakht
                Preparing infrastructure for US armored vehicles in the Baltics and Poland is nonsense. The Americans are not going to go to war with Russia.

                If not, what is the question.

                Quote: Bakht
                The Americans are not going to go to war with Russia. For this there are mongrels of Europe.

                What nonsense is this? Why do they need it?

                Quote: Bakht
                By all the logic of Israeli foreign policy, Russia has every right to deliver a preemptive strike at the places of concentration of enemy troops. I was not wrong. Not just NATO troops, but enemy troops. Israel is pursuing just such a foreign policy. It was not in vain that I asked more than once whether Israel has the right to bomb the territory of Syria, Iraq or Iran. All my opponents from Israel told me that they had every right to launch preventive strikes.
                Therefore, the President of Russia said "There will be no repetition on June 22, 1941". Who understood - he understood, who did not understand - I am not guilty.

                Oh eh ... I don't know how it is in Israel, but if the Russian Federation strikes at NATO forces, this will mean World War III and most likely the collapse of civilization. And the disappearance of Russia. I'm sure our president is not that crazy.
                1. Bakht Offline Bakht
                  Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 2 June 2021 17: 24
                  +4
                  I have said more than once that it is useless to discuss with you. You just believe that the West is white and fluffy. I don’t believe that. There are no such facts. There are other facts that the West has been waging a war against Russia for hundreds of years. And this war never stopped. Nobody canceled the crusade against schismatics.

                  Specifically, the missile defense base in Poland and Romania. Yes, they strongly affect the security of Russia. And it is critically strong. Everything else is not even worth discussing. I cannot explain to you, because we see the world in different ways.

                  For me, the Anglo-Saxons are evil. Moreover, a worldwide evil. And if the Russian president sees a threat, then (I really hope) he will strike a preemptive strike against NATO. And first of all, it is the ABM bases in Poland and Romania that will fall under the distribution. Are you listening to him badly? "Why do we need a world without Russia?" Of course these are just words. But I really hope that in this case his words will not diverge from his deeds. Only his words keep the world from a major war.

                  By the way, this is exactly what they say in Israel. Why do we need a world without Israel? And at a critical moment, they will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons. Just do not assure me that Israel does not have it.
                  1. Binder Offline Binder
                    Binder (Miron) 2 June 2021 21: 20
                    -2
                    Quote: Bakht
                    By the way, this is exactly what they say in Israel. Why do we need a world without Israel? And at a critical moment, they will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons. Just do not assure me that Israel does not have it.

                    And who in Israel has ever uttered such words? Congratulations, citizen, you lied! (C) And you are talking nonsense about the use of their nuclear weapons by the Israelis. All the activities of the relevant Israeli structures are aimed at ensuring that this critical moment never comes. Therefore, key figures in the Iranian nuclear industry are being liquidated, explosions are heard at certain Iranian enterprises, at the warehouses of Iranian proxies in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.

                    Quote: Bakht
                    All my opponents from Israel told me that they had every right to launch preventive strikes.

                    Israel is forced to resort to such methods, let me remind you that the Iranian leaders openly proclaim their goal - the destruction of the Jewish state. And who in the world today declares their intention to destroy Russia? Your fantasies about the "Englishwoman crap" are not supported by anything.
                    1. Bakht Offline Bakht
                      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 2 June 2021 22: 05
                      +2
                      I once told you not to splash saliva.
                      In the 1973 war, Israel was ready to use nuclear weapons. As you can see, I did not quote the phrase. That is, this is just a paraphrase of Putin's words. Israel is ready to use nuclear weapons if there is a threat to the country's existence.
                      As for the fact that Russia needs to be destroyed, you can find many quotes on the Internet, and this is not said by ordinary people, but by people in power.
                      As always, the phrase that has become a meme is "this is different."
                      It's not different. This is the readiness to use nuclear weapons and real preventive strikes against neighboring states. So which of us lied, let the readers decide.
                      My conclusions that the "Englishwoman crap" has so much evidence that people have already written books on this topic. But who does not want to hear, he does not hear.
                    2. Binder Offline Binder
                      Binder (Miron) 2 June 2021 22: 48
                      -4
                      Quote: Bakht
                      I once told you not to splash saliva.

                      Mil-man, in real life, after this phrase, you would have sprinkled with other liquids. angry I understand, there is essentially nothing to tell you, unfounded statements about the Israelis' readiness to use nuclear weapons in 1973. based on gossip. Statements about the destruction of Russia have never been made by any of the heads of state and government since A. Hitler. All you have to do is lie and slander - the favorite methods of Soviet agitprop. And the hatred of the British among Russians is in their genes, the British have always been luckier and more professional, hence the envy.
                      As for the topic of the article, possible scenarios of an armed confrontation between the Russian Federation and NATO, none of those described by Marzhetsky is real. Conflict may erupt in decomp. regions, it will take place without the use of weapons of mass destruction, when using conventional weapons, NATO will undoubtedly have an advantage and the Russians will be defeated. But through the efforts of the Kremlin's propagandists, the citizens of Russia will be convinced that in fact the victory is for the Russians, and some will even believe it, as in Shoigu's words that he liberated three times more Syrian territories from the Islamists than the entire area of ​​the SAR. lol
                    3. Bakht Offline Bakht
                      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 2 June 2021 23: 10
                      +3
                      Israel possesses nuclear weapons and was ready to use them in the 1973 war. The issue was discussed three times at the highest level. Nobody can submit any documents.
                      https://www.newsru.co.il/press/08oct2010/worst_secret_003.html
                      According to some reports, the missiles were loaded and ready to launch. F-4s with nuclear warheads were also ready.
                      You cannot prove to me that this is not true. For the simple reason that there are no official documents.

                      You can read the statements of Ukrainian politicians about Russia. Or Public Law 86-90 Signed by D. Eisenhower in 1959. It is also called the "law on the dismemberment of Russia"
                      Zbigniew Brzezinski: “Russia, called the Soviet Union, challenged the United States. She was defeated. Now there is no need to feed illusions about the great-power nature of Russia. You need to discourage this way of thinking. Russia will be fragmented and under guardianship. "


                      PS You can repeat that "this is different"
              2. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 3 June 2021 17: 18
                -2
                Quote: Bakht
                I have said more than once that it is useless to discuss with you.

                When arguments run out, it's common.

                Quote: Bakht
                You just believe that the West is white and fluffy.

                It is you who usually believe in something, I do not believe that the "West" is white and fluffy, just as I do not believe that he is a fiend. And the facts say that this so-called collective "West" (which by and large does not exist) did nothing that others, for example, "non-Western" Russia, would not do.

                Quote: Bakht
                There are no such facts. There are other facts that the West has been waging a war against Russia for hundreds of years.

                What does the fact of the American Relief Administration work in Russia in the 20s refer to? Is it different?
                Facts say that in all the major conflicts of the last century we have been allies.

                Quote: Bakht
                Nobody canceled the crusade against schismatics.

                Come on. Is this your faith?

                Quote: Bakht
                Specifically on the missile defense base in Poland and Romania. Yes, they strongly affect the security of Russia. And it is critically strong. Everything else is not even worth discussing.

                10 patriots with a probability of defeat of 0,5 critically affect the security of Russia? I think you are downplaying the capability of the RF missile forces.

                Quote: Bakht
                For me, the Anglo-Saxons are evil. Moreover, a worldwide evil.

                You have peculiar views, for you and Stalin is good.

                Quote: Bakht
                And if the Russian president sees a threat, then (I really hope) he will strike a preemptive strike against NATO.

                I am sure that President Putin wants to go down in history, but I strongly doubt that he sees himself in the role of the world Herostratus who overshadowed Hitler, so that he would be cursed for centuries (if there is anyone left to curse). Where did you get such suicidal tendencies?
                By the way, about the facts, do you know what nuclear parity is? When was it reached? Can you explain why the US did not take advantage of its advantage in the 50s?

                Quote: Bakht
                By the way, this is exactly what they say in Israel. Why do we need a world without Israel? And at a critical moment, they will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons. Just do not assure me that Israel does not have it.

                I do not know what happened to Israel, but the last politician who proclaimed his goal to destroy Russia was Hitler. All statements of this kind circulating on the Internet turn out to be a lie. You cited Bezhensky's statement there, I am almost 100% sure, this is another fake. Can you provide a link to the source?
                1. isofat Offline isofat
                  isofat (isofat) 3 June 2021 21: 31
                  +1
                  Quote: Oleg Rambover
                  You cited Bezhensky's statement there, I am almost 100% sure, this is another fake. Can you provide a link to the source?

                  Once the liberals were noisy, and even now the charges have not been dropped, that Stalin missed the war, did not prepare for it. Today you yourself urge us, taught by life, to show this carelessness. Do not blame me, but you have no faith.

                  Do you feel that your team of like-minded people is not long left? laughing
      2. Vladimir Sh. Offline Vladimir Sh.
        Vladimir Sh. (Vladimir Shashko) 2 June 2021 19: 11
        0
        The guy's point is not about resources ((there are many resources in the world, except for the Russian Federation)) but about ideology. Putin in 2010 in Munich openly DISCOVERED the entire ideology of the West ... naively believing that the West did not know this and he was so clever opened their eyes ... ((This is the starting point of the confrontation)). Moreover, you overestimate Putin's authority in the world ... In the world, humanity has other ideals ((strength, money and power, not justice and truth)) the ideals of communism and Orthodoxy (and communism repeats the ideals of Orthodoxy) are alien. And any other opinion is suppressed and will be nipped in the bud, and this is democratic on their part ...

        As Ford said:

        the car can be of any color ... but only black
        1. Bakht Offline Bakht
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 2 June 2021 22: 15
          +3
          The point, guy, is about resources. This is called the "general crisis of capitalism." And no 4th or 7th order will help. Capitalism can only develop in the context of expanding markets. This is an axiom. And it has not yet been refuted. Or demand expansion or revolutionary innovation. Let's say the transition from coal to oil, or the creation of a computer. Or the creation of new sources of energy (fusion to help us). There are no other sources of development. Or robbing enemies (you can also have friends). Almost 5 billion Volkswagen business. Who? Guess it at once. The states, of course.
          So it's about resources. And not only hydrocarbons. Air and water.
          But here we run into a vicious circle. An increase in demand is possible only by increasing the purchasing power of the population. The Martians don't buy anything from us for some reason. Dolphins or monkeys too. But the increase in the purchasing power of the population rests on the limited resources of the planet. "Bolivar can't stand two." So the excess will have to be disposed of. Leave a golden billion "and a couple more billions to service them. This is not a" conspiracy theory. "This is a harsh reality. 15 years ago, in a discussion with the Americans (not bad guys, I only dealt with hard workers), I said that the way out should be looked for in I was told that maybe I was right, but in America no one will go for it. And in the first place, these same hard workers will not go.
          And ideology has nothing to do with it. Tsar, Bolsheviks or Putinites. No difference. Russia is the enemy of the West. And vice versa.
          1. Bakht Offline Bakht
            Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 2 June 2021 22: 21
            +4
            Necessary clarification on Volkswagen. There, the numbers go around significantly. From 1 to 18 billion. Whoever likes which one, let him choose

            US judge Charles Breeru ruled on October 25 in a dispute between German auto giant Volkswagen, US officials and consumer representatives.

            According to this decision, Volkswagen will have to pay a $ 14,7 billion fine, DW reports citing Reuters.

            Most of that amount ($ 10 billion) will go to owners of two-liter diesel cars that were running software that mislead emissions tests.

            The rest will be directed to programs aimed at minimizing damage from excessive emissions and developing projects for "clean" transport.

            As a reminder, Volkswagen announced a ten percent cost cut in 2017.

            These are the consequences of the "diesel scandal". For the "diesel scandal" Volkswagen ended the fiscal year 2015 with losses of almost 1,6 billion euros.

            In July 2016, the chairman of the board of the company, Matthias Müller, announced that the concern would not pay compensation to European clients due to the threat of bankruptcy.

            So you can rob "your own" too.
  4. zenion Offline zenion
    zenion (zinovy) 2 June 2021 22: 52
    0
    Herr Hitler said before the attack on Poland - if only no reptile would fit in with the wishes of peace. The Poles were what was needed to start the war. It was such a pancy that even after everything was over with Poland, it did not reach them. They thought it was a mistake and therefore shouted to the Poles from abroad that they were still alive - do not open military action against the USSR, surrender and unite. They thought that Hitler or Stalin would continue to the bitter end. But at that moment it was not necessary, neither Germany, nor the USSR.
  • Tektor Offline Tektor
    Tektor (Tektor) 1 June 2021 17: 57
    0
    In the event of an attempt at a large-scale attack by the Ukrainian Armed Forces on the DPR and LPR, the Ukrainian army would have been defeated by a counterstrike from the RF Armed Forces, and then there would have been a great temptation to move further deeper into the territory of Independent.

    It may be necessary to defeat the Terbats, but moving inland is definitely not worth it: you need to wait until our units take control of the second-hand western border. It is possible to move into the second-hand only after the authorities of the regions adjacent to us make an official request for protection. And then, as it was with the LPNR: in the field of a referendum on independence and a request to join the RF ...
  • Digital error Offline Digital error
    Digital error (Eugene) 2 June 2021 09: 56
    0
    Quote: Bakht
    Russia is to blame for placing its territory close to our bases

    As in a fable - you are only to blame for the fact that I want to eat. A bad thought arose - what if Russia's adherence to the "IMF precepts" is nothing more than a policy of appeasing the collective West? We can only have repeaters on our quasi-patriotic sofas, there are no fools
  • Boa kaa Offline Boa kaa
    Boa kaa (Alexander) 2 June 2021 15: 57
    -1
    to stop offensive of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.

    Wo, blinn ... I didn't even know that Mr. Marzhetsky had invented a new form of warfare! belay
    It’s even scary to imagine: the RF Ministry of Defense, in full force with computers from the workstation at the ready, is launching an attack on the "soldaten von OTAN" who have fallen behind from what they have seen !!! fellow
  • Vladimir Sh. Offline Vladimir Sh.
    Vladimir Sh. (Vladimir Shashko) 2 June 2021 18: 35
    +1
    I would turn the pyramid ... first Ukraine, then Belarus and only then the Kaliningrad region ... After all, not only the United States is smart, but the Europeans too ... They are both cautious about fighting with Russia, realizing that it is unsafe. but for God's sake ... supplying Ukrainians with their weapons is the safest option. Weaken both of them and weld on supplies ...
    1. Ulysses Offline Ulysses
      Ulysses (Alexey) 2 June 2021 22: 55
      0
      But with someone else's hands, for God's sake ... to supply Ukrainians with their weapons is the most win-win option.

      The most disastrous option.
      The Ukrainian Armed Forces have no motivation, no weapons, no supplies.
      You can throw the National Battalion into a raid.
      But they scatter at the first serious clash.
  • Ulysses Offline Ulysses
    Ulysses (Alexey) 2 June 2021 22: 47
    0
    NATO can carry out a complete blockade of the Kaliningrad region and "humanitarian intervention" to protect the rights and freedoms of its inhabitants.

    The Russian army will pass Lithuania from its eastern border to the western one in a day.
    Bypassing small centers of accumulations of armed people in NATO uniform.
    There is no way of a complete blockade. request
  • zenion Offline zenion
    zenion (zinovy) 3 June 2021 21: 36
    +1
    Lenin said - imperialism cannot exist without war.
    1. Vladimir Sh. Offline Vladimir Sh.
      Vladimir Sh. (Vladimir Shashko) 5 June 2021 08: 08
      0
      "Each generation should have its own war" so it seems Hitler said ... and while the whole history of mankind is proof of this ... it is not clear only why Lenin said (imperialism), he actually started from the same ...
  • Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 6 June 2021 10: 46
    0
    Quote: Bakht
    Why did Germany attack the USSR if we were happy to sell them any resources?

    What about the struggle between the irreconcilable ideologies of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia? No need to play the fool. And after Hitler came to power, the military-technical cooperation begun under the Weimar Republic was continuously curtailed.