Not Aggression, But Defense: Why A Modern Aircraft Carrier Is A Universal Weapon

13 September 2021 44

In this publication, we will continue to debunk a number of dangerous misconceptions regarding modern approaches to the construction of the navy. One of the most widespread and stupid myths is: "an aircraft carrier is a weapon of aggression", and, alas, it is fundamentally wrong. In fact, an aircraft carrier can also be a purely defensive weapon.

In the previous articlededicated to why Russia, the world's greatest land power, needs its aircraft carriers, we tried to explain that the main threat to our country may come from the depths of the sea, where strategic submarines with intercontinental nuclear missiles of the US and UK navies are hiding. (By the way, the United Kingdom has 5 such nuclear submarines with American Trident-2 ICBMs on board). Anti-submarine warfare is the most important component of Russia's national security, and, unfortunately, this is still not great. Our anti-submarine aviation is small and outdated, one cannot do with PLO corvettes. The Russian Navy must be able to go out and operate freely in the far sea zone (DMZ), but, as we have already described in detail told, this can be a big problem in the event of an armed conflict. Naval exercises in the Hawaii region are a demonstration for peacetime, but in the event of real hostilities against the US Navy's AUG, our Pacific Fleet will not survive without reconnaissance and air cover from its own aircraft carrier. Without the ability to receive target designation data from a carrier-based AWACS aircraft, hypersonic "Zircons" and cruise missiles "Caliber" will not be able to fully reveal their destructive potential.

So, we can make an intermediate conclusion that the aircraft carrier is not only an "aggressor against the Papuans", but also the main scout in the DMZ and the gunner of missile weapons and air strikes, as well as a "bodyguard" for the ship group, which is covered by its carrier-based aircraft. But what gives us reason to consider it a defensive weapon? Yes, the fact that the aircraft carrier is the best platform for the fight against enemy submarines. Let's look at the experience of our competitors and the path that the USSR Navy has already gone through.

USA

Everyone has heard of the US Navy's Aircraft Carrier Strike Groups (AUG) that the Pentagon sends around the world to "spread democracy." However, not everyone knows about such a variety of them as anti-submarine search and strike groups. From the name it is already clear that their goal is not strikes on the coast, but the search and destruction of (our) submarines equipped with missile weapons. Their core is an anti-submarine aircraft carrier. What is this thing?

Yes, all the same aircraft carrier, which simply changed the composition of the air group. In the sixties of the last century, in connection with the development of the Soviet submarine fleet, the United States was forced to retrain 21 aircraft carriers of the CV-9 Essex type and the aircraft carrier CV-6 Enterprise of the Yorktown type as anti-submarine aircraft. Instead of fighters and attack aircraft, they were deployed from 20 to 40 anti-submarine aircraft S-2 "Tracker", from 16 to 20 anti-submarine helicopters SH-3 "Sea King" or HSS-1N "Sibet", from 4 to 5 aircraft AWACS and a transport aircraft ... Accordingly, the composition of the escort group has also changed. If in the AUG format a missile cruiser, several destroyers and URO frigates, as well as nuclear submarines are attached to the aircraft carrier, then the search and strike group was formed from 6-8 anti-submarine destroyers.

As you can see, the aircraft carrier is an extremely convenient platform for naval carrier-based aircraft, which can be used for various purposes, both "aggressive" and strictly defensive. But the United States stands apart in this matter. Let's take a look at how their allies from poorer countries are solving this problem.

NATO bloc

Great Britain, Italy and France followed the path of building helicopter-carrying cruisers and their subsequent evolution.

We can recall, for example, the Jeanne d'Arc helicopter carrier, which used the hull of the air defense cruiser Colbert. In the seventies, the French were developing a project for a universal cruiser-helicopter carrier PH 75, which, depending on the air group, was to be used for anti-submarine warfare or as an amphibious assault ship. In addition to deck helicopters, it was assumed that vertical take-off and landing aircraft (VTOL) would be based. As a result, Paris came to the conclusion about the need to build a full-fledged aircraft carrier with horizontal take-off and landing aircraft "Charles de Gaulle". Currently, France is working on a project for a larger and more powerful nuclear aircraft carrier to replace it.

The Italian Navy also began by re-equipping its missile destroyers, which turned into helicopter-carrying cruisers of the Andrea Doria class. Then the larger ship Vittorio Veneto was built, capable of carrying more helicopters. Finally, in Rome, they decided to build a light aircraft carrier "Giuseppe Garibaldi", carrying 18 helicopters or 16 VTOL "Harrier". It is classified as an aircraft carrier. The flagship of the Italian fleet today is the aircraft carrier Cavour with a total displacement of 35 thousand tons, which can also carry troops and a significant amount of armored vehicles.

Even more interesting is the transformation of the United Kingdom's aircraft carrier fleet. In the seventies of the last century, the British built a series of three Invincible anti-submarine aircraft carriers at once. Initially, they were designed as helicopter-carrying cruisers, but with the appearance of the Harrier SVVR on the deck, it was decided to place the aircraft as well. It was assumed that these ships will be used for anti-submarine warfare (against Soviet submarines), but London was forced to actively use them in the Falklands War. The need to conduct hostilities in another part of the world led the British command to the decision to replace the obsolete Invincible type with the Queen Elizabeth type. The capabilities of the carrier-based aircraft wing of the two new large aircraft carriers have increased significantly, but are still inferior to the American ones due to the lack of the possibility of taking off fighters using a catapult.

the USSR

The need to combat the nuclear submarines of the North Atlantic Alliance forced the Soviet command to develop the first Project 1123 anti-submarine cruiser-helicopter carrier. Two Condors were built, carrying 14 Ka-25 anti-submarine helicopters on board, and they quite successfully performed their tasks around the world. They even practiced the operation of the first domestic VTOL aircraft Yak-36. However, these ships had a number of design flaws, so Project 1134 Krechet appeared to replace the Condors. A total of 4 cruisers of this project were built (Kiev, Minsk, Novorossiysk and Baku), capable of carrying not only missile weapons, but also up to 35 aircraft - Ka-25 anti-submarine helicopters and Yak-38 VTOL helicopters. They can already be considered the first Soviet aircraft carriers that could perform the widest range of tasks: air cover, search and destruction of enemy submarines, support for amphibious assault forces, etc.

Our last TAVRK in the Russian Navy, "Admiral Kuznetsov", is a further modernization of this project under the index 1143.5. Sold to the Chinese "Varyag" - project 1143.6. The high point in the evolution of the domestic aircraft-carrying fleet was to be the Ulyanovsk heavy nuclear-powered aircraft-carrying cruiser (project 1143.7), of which 4 were going to be built in the USSR.

Conclusions

What do we see? All leading powers have built and continue to build aircraft carriers. In its genesis, ships of this class have gone from narrow anti-submarine specialization to maximum versatility, from the use of helicopters and VTOL aircraft to deck aviation of the widest range. Depending on the task, the composition of the air wing may change, and from a "weapon of aggression against the Papuans" a modern aircraft carrier turns into one of the most important lines of anti-missile defense and its naval stronghold. I would like to hope that henceforth the groundless thesis about the "aggressiveness" and "uselessness" of this class of ships will no longer be used indiscriminately. In the future, we will talk about how our country can and should go in building its own navy so that it has chances against the AUG of a potential adversary.

Information

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

Dmitry S.

+2

13 September 2021 11: 42

Now, some people have "dimples" on their cheeks - some have only one, and most live without them. The question is: how many aircraft carriers does South Africa need to feel secure? And their coastline is extensive.
1. Marzhecki
  
  0
  
  16 September 2021 09: 10
  
  And who aimed nuclear missiles at this country?
2. Marzhecki
  
  0
  
  16 September 2021 16: 50
  
  Are you a journalist or demagogue?
Dart2027

+2

13 September 2021 11: 45

The very formulation of the question is, in principle, meaningless. Weapons are just weapons and can be used for any purpose.
1. guleg
  
  -2
  
  13 September 2021 21: 04
  
  Quote: Dart2027
  The very formulation of the question is, in principle, meaningless. Weapons are just weapons and can be used for any purpose.
  
  Don't tell. An anti-tank gun, an air defense missile system or a minesweeper, of course, can also be used as an offensive weapon, the question is: how effective?
  There are types of weapons that are universal (the same machine gun, for example - and even then a machine gun is better in defense), but most still have a pronounced tendency - offensive or defensive.
  1. Dart2027
    
    0
    
    14 September 2021 11: 32
    
    Quote: Phantom
    An anti-tank gun, an air defense missile system or a minesweeper, of course, can also be used as an offensive weapon, the question is: how effective?
    
    Very effective. Why? Because they do not act on their own, but as part of a single mechanism (army) and carry out their tasks.
    The minesweeper cannot butt with the frigate in direct confrontation, but he will clear the road from mines for both frigates and landing ships. The air defense missile system will cover the advancing troops from the enemy's attempts to counterattack with the help of aircraft or missiles. The anti-tank gun will do the same for tanks.
    1. guleg
      
      -2
      
      14 September 2021 12: 02
      
      Quote: Dart2027
      The air defense missile system will cover the advancing troops from the enemy's attempts to counterattack with the help of aircraft or missiles. The anti-tank gun will do the same for tanks.
      
      the key word is cover. That is, they carry out a defensive function against the attacking actions of the enemy.
      If you look at the composition of the weapons of various armies, it becomes clear which strategy - offensive or defensive - they will use. For example, the presence of a strong bomber aircraft with weak interceptors (for example, the United States) clearly indicates that such formations are preparing for an offensive. The same for the fleet, in which attack ships, submarines, and a small coastal defense fleet and mine-sweeping forces have the advantage (yes, this is the USA again). It follows from this that some weapons have a more pronounced offensive focus, while the other are defensive. It is very difficult with the help of mines, for example, to conduct active offensive operations.
      
      Turning to history, this is clearly seen in the example of the Wehrmacht during the blitzkrieg. They did not burden themselves with defensive weapons, such as serious anti-tank weapons. But with might and main put together shock fists from parts of the Panzerwaffe and Luftwaffe.
      1. Dart2027
        
        0
        
        14 September 2021 12: 06
        
        Quote: Phantom
        That is, they carry out a defensive function against the attacking actions of the enemy.
        
        Yes, but they will do this when their troops are advancing, that is, when they are participating in the attack.
        
        Quote: Phantom
        some weapons have a more pronounced offensive focus, while others are defensive
        
        The focus may be, but I was talking about the purpose of the application ("can be used for any purpose").
        
        guleg
        
        -3
        
        14 September 2021 12: 10
        
        Quote: Dart2027
        Yes, but they will do this when their troops are advancing, that is, when they are participating in the attack.
        
        is not a fact. It could be pure defense. An example for you - the actions of the air defense system
        
        Quote: Dart2027
        The focus may be, but I was talking about the purpose of the application ("can be used for any purpose").
        
        here again, and very acutely, the question of efficiency arises. Of course, you can storm the columns of motorized infantry with the help of strategic bombers, and strike at strategic targets with stormtroopers. Anti-tank cannon ("blanks") to destroy the bunker or "mow" the infantry, and from the howitzer try to shoot at the advancing tanks. How effectively would they want it? Rhetorical question
        
        Dart2027
        
        -1
        
        14 September 2021 17: 26
        
        Quote: Phantom
        It could be pure defense
        
        Of course it can. It all depends on the goals that are being set.
        
        Quote: Phantom
        Of course, you can storm the columns of motorized infantry with the help of strategic bombers, and strike at strategic targets with stormtroopers.
        
        No need to juggle. Again
        
        Quote: Dart2027
        Because they do not act on their own, but as part of a single mechanism (army) and carry out their tasks.
        
        I do not suggest using the same air defense systems instead of Grads, but this does not mean that they are not needed when attacking. Any weapon can be used by the army both in defense and in attack - this is a fact.
        
        guleg
        
        -2
        
        14 September 2021 17: 38
        
        Quote: Dart2027
        I do not suggest using the same air defense systems instead of Grads, but this does not mean that they are not needed when attacking.
        
        this does not make the air defense system an offensive weapon. Remember how the dispute began.
        
        Quote: Dart2027
        Any weapon can be used by the army both in defense and in attack - this is a fact.
        
        naturally, with varying efficiency. Even with tending to zero.
        
        Dart2027
        
        -1
        
        14 September 2021 18: 41
        
        Quote: Phantom
        Remember how the dispute began.
        
        Quote: Dart2027
        Weapons are just weapons and can be used for any purpose.
        
        Quote: Phantom
        this does not make the air defense system offensive weapons
        
        That is, the advancing army should refuse to use it?
        
        Quote: Phantom
        Even with tending to zero.
        
        Examples?
        
        guleg
        
        -2
        
        14 September 2021 19: 43
        
        Quote: Dart2027
        That is, the advancing army should refuse to use it?
        
        and who spoke here
        
        Quote: Dart2027
        No need to juggle
        
        ??
        
        How did the dispute begin? From this one:
        
        Quote: Dart2027
        Weapons are just weapons and can be used for any purpose.
        
        Quote: Phantom
        Don't tell. An anti-tank gun, an air defense missile system or a minesweeper, of course, can also be used as an offensive weapon, the question is: how effective?
        There are types of weapons that are universal (the same machine gun, for example - and even then a machine gun is better in defense), but most still have a pronounced tendency - offensive or defensive.
        
        As mentioned above. With examples.
        
        Dart2027
        
        0
        
        15 September 2021 07: 18
        
        Quote: Phantom
        As mentioned above. With examples.
        
        Where are examples of their unsuccessful use in life?
        
        Quote: Phantom
        and who spoke here
        
        I follow your own logic. The attackers don't need purely defensive weapons, right?
        
        guleg
        
        -1
        
        15 September 2021 08: 33
        
        Quote: Dart2027
        The attackers don't need purely defensive weapons, right?
        
        no, of course you do. Where did it sound differently? So you yourself spoke - defensive weapons. What you were told from the very beginning - that there are weapons with a more pronounced offensive orientation, there are - with a pronounced defensive orientation. And with what you began to argue so hard from the very beginning.
        
        Quote: Dart2027
        I follow your logic
        
        again no, you do not follow it, my logical constructions are all right. You are already on your wave.
        
        Dart2027
        
        -1
        
        15 September 2021 18: 47
        
        Quote: Phantom
        So you yourself spoke - defensive weapons. What you were told from the very beginning - that there are weapons with a more pronounced offensive orientation, there are - with a pronounced defensive orientation.
        
        From the very beginning it was said that
        
        "An aircraft carrier is a weapon of aggression"
        
        which you obviously did not read.
        Also, you have been chewed more than once that
        
        Quote: Dart2027
        The focus may be, but I was talking about the purpose of the application ("can be used for any purpose").
        
        Quote: Phantom
        again no, you do not follow it, my logical constructions are all right
        
        Your logic is that the attackers do not need a purely defensive weapon.
        
        guleg
        
        0
        
        15 September 2021 19: 50
        
        Quote: Dart2027
        Your logic is that a purely defensive weapon is not needed by the attackers
        
        do not distort my words. I didn’t say that, you know that, and you will not be able to quote. Therefore, I recommend that you calm down and consider the dispute over (because it is pointless to waste time on empty conversation with you).
        
        For the future, so as not to consider you a gibberish (or an individual with a more sonorous but obscene term), do not pervert the words of the interlocutor and do not attribute to him what he did not say
        
        Dart2027
        
        -1
        
        17 September 2021 10: 45
        
        Quote: Phantom
        do not distort my words. I didn’t say that, you know that, and you will not be able to quote.
        
        What is this?
        
        Quote: Phantom
        Any weapon can be used by the army both in defense and in attack - this is a fact.
        
        naturally, with varying efficiency. Even with tending to zero.
        
        It has been chewed on you several times that any weapon can be used in both defensive and offensive DBs, but no one suggests setting them technically impossible tasks.
Bakht

+4

13 September 2021 12: 16

How can the Russian AUG operate, say, in the Atlantic? If we say that the American AUG is a target, then the Russian aircraft carrier should be considered in the same way.
Recently, the Americans considered the hypothetical actions of the AUG against Iran. In the Arabian Sea, it can still operate, but in the Gulf of Hormuz and even more so in the Persian Gulfs, the life of an aircraft carrier is measured only by the flight time of missiles.
There is one more thing. According to modern views, the sea power of a state is determined by the presence of a strong navy, a large merchant fleet and a sufficient number of bases, at least on the main trade routes. Which of the following does the Russian Federation have? Can the Russian fleet control bottlenecks? Is it Gibraltar, the English Channel, the Straits of Hormuz and Malacca, the Suez or Panama Canals? How can even a dozen AUG be looking for strategic missile-carrying submarines in the World Ocean without basing bases?
For example, one base in Tartous controls the entire Eastern Mediterranean.
And the last thing. To solve this problem, it is necessary to rewrite the entire military-political doctrine of Russia, revise funding and find funds.
Since I like to look for examples in history, then if the Kaiser had not succumbed to the influence of Tirpitz and built 5-6 dreadnoughts less, and instead built a couple of thousand trucks (even if they were low-powered by the realities of that time), then he could have won war. Mistakes in the planning stage are nearly impossible to correct in a war.
sgrabik

+1

13 September 2021 13: 01

The issue is very controversial, we certainly need helicopter ships, which cannot be said about large full-fledged aircraft carriers, which are primarily weapons for expansion and military pressure on other countries, we are not going to attack anyone first, but if the need arises, then we will without aircraft carriers, we will be able to reason with and put in place any presumptuous "partner" who will try to dictate their terms to us with the help of military force.
1. guleg
  
  -2
  
  13 September 2021 21: 07
  
  Is an airplane a weapon of aggression or a defensive weapon?
2. guleg
  
  -2
  
  13 September 2021 21: 08
  
  Quote: sgrabik
  we absolutely need helicopter ships
  
  for what purpose?
3. Bakht
  
  0
  
  14 September 2021 01: 27
  
  Rather, BDK is needed. They can also serve as helicopter carriers. From this point of view, the order of the Mistrals was necessary. Another thing is that the Mistral project itself is hardly suitable for Russian realities.
  Perhaps ships of the Tarawa type are needed. They already differ little from small aircraft carriers.
  1. guleg
    
    -2
    
    15 September 2021 08: 44
    
    Quote: Bakht
    Rather, BDK is needed. They can also serve as helicopter carriers. From this point of view, the order of the Mistrals was necessary
    
    Mistral is a UDC, not a BDK. You are confusing completely different classes of ships. The BDK has a bow ramp (in some ways it is the heir of tank landing ships), and can land troops directly on the shore. But - he can land troops only in the forehead, straight to the PDO, and himself substituting himself under enemy fire.
    The UDC does not come close to the coast, the landing is carried out over the horizon, with the help of helicopters and high-speed landing vehicles (boats, SVP). Due to the relatively large air group, the landing is possible with depth coverage, to the nearest rear of the PDO, and not directly to it, under the artillery barrels.
    
    Quote: Bakht
    the Mistral project is hardly suitable for Russian realities
    
    The project was modified to meet the requirements of the RF Ministry of Defense.
    
    Quote: Bakht
    need ships like Tarawa
    
    need UDC like "Wasp" or "America"
    1. Bakht
      
      0
      
      15 September 2021 13: 04
      
      I know the difference between UDC and BDC. But I'm a civilian and I don't care what the ship is called. The Russian Navy has a clear lack of transport capabilities. What the name of the ship will be to me is absolutely all the same. But in order to decide which ship is needed, one must have a doctrine. For the Syrian express, BDK was assembled from three fleets. UDC or BDK will deliver equipment and people to Syria completely for the second time.
      The Japanese used destroyers for the Tokyo Express.
      1. guleg
        
        -1
        
        15 September 2021 13: 09
        
        Quote: Bakht
        I know the difference between UDC and BDC
        
        it follows from your words that you have absolutely no idea. If you know, express your thoughts appropriately.
        
        Quote: Bakht
        But I'm a civilian and I don't care what the ship is called
        
        Quote: Bakht
        UDC or BDK will deliver equipment and people to Syria completely for the second time
        
        for the "Syrian Express" (for example) - yes. In the case of a real amphibious operation with a real enemy - no.
        
        Bakht
        
        0
        
        15 September 2021 13: 30
        
        The fact of the matter is that there is no real amphibious operation with a real enemy in the Russian military doctrine.
        I always remembered the statement of Kozma Prutkov
        
        The specialist is like a gumboil. Its completeness is one-sided.
        
        Read my first post carefully. I wrote that I needed a BDK. They can also serve as helicopter carriers. "Ships of the Tarawa type have a Marine Corps battalion as an assault force. And what it will be called UDC or BDK, except for" specialists ", is not important to anyone.
        
        guleg
        
        -1
        
        15 September 2021 13: 34
        
        Quote: Bakht
        I wrote
        
        you wrote nonsense
        
        Quote: Bakht
        "We need large landing ships. They can also serve as helicopter carriers." Tarawa-class ships have a Marine battalion as an assault force. And how it will be called UDC or BDK, except for "specialists", no one cares.
        
        BDK and UDC differ in the method of landing. If you think this is not important, then there is nothing to talk to you about.
        Once you write about something, write it correctly. Didn't you urge to express your thoughts clearly and clearly? We have interesting people, advice from right to left to please a lot, but how to follow them yourself - no, it's not about me! Hope you understand everything.
        
        All the best
        
        Bakht
        
        -1
        
        15 September 2021 13: 38
        
        Apart from the difference in the method of disembarkation, you did not see anything else? My opponents are also quite interesting people. They can cling to details and show their nonsense. And they never see the meaning. Again. Especially for you. I wrote about the need to have the transport capabilities of the Navy. There are no direct landing operations in the Russian military doctrine. And the lack of transport is obvious. Think about it.
        
        All the best.
        
        guleg
        
        -2
        
        15 September 2021 13: 42
        
        Quote: Bakht
        There are no direct landing operations in the Russian military doctrine.
        
        reread the doctrine
        
        Quote: Bakht
        And the lack of transport is obvious.
        
        no one argues with that. For the transportation of goods, by the way, special supply vessels are used, and the merchant fleet is also involved (I am sure that I am aware of how the Anadyr operation was carried out). Chasing warships as transports is a waste and out of hopelessness (from the lack of a specialized fleet).
        I'm not talking about peacetime transportation, but about military operations. If you just bring the cargo to the same Syria, there is not much difference, the UDC or a large paratrooper will drag it, then when a real landing force is disembarked, the difference is very big. And therefore, to say "there is no difference" is at least silly. The Navy acquires ships not to carry cargo to Syria, but as combat units.
        
        Bakht
        
        0
        
        15 September 2021 13: 48
        
        So re-read it. It says about defense. There is not a word about the landing. The planning of operations at the operational and tactical level has never been spelled out in doctrine. We're talking about the Doctrine. It clearly says - DEFENSE.
        Have I ever written about "fighting"? I wrote about the delivery of goods. You wrote about the hostilities and attributed to me what I did not say.
        In the same place (in the first post) I wrote that helicopter carriers (let them be UDC) are not much different from small aircraft carriers. Why did I write about Tarawa? yes there are great amphibious capabilities. The ability to transport both personnel and equipment.
        
        For God's sake. Keep improving your NARROW SPECIALIZATION.
Sergey Latyshev

+1

13 September 2021 16: 10

And, again, aircraft carriers, again ...
Still, everyone does not seem to mind having aircraft carriers, so who will give it.
Netyn

-4

13 September 2021 17: 08

Quote: Sergey Latyshev
Still, everyone does not seem to mind having aircraft carriers, so who will give it.

Here, let the aircraft carriers be handed out better to pensioners
1. Old Skeptic
  
  +2
  
  13 September 2021 22: 11
  
  Better two destroyers with anti-ship missiles than one aircraft carrier.
  1. Marzhecki
    
    0
    
    16 September 2021 16: 53
    
    Better for what?
    1. Old Skeptic
      
      -2
      
      16 September 2021 20: 36
      
      Just better
cobra45

+2

14 September 2021 05: 03

I wonder on what basis the author, who does not have a military education and, as far as we know, has not even worked as a war correspondent for a day, draws conclusions about the capabilities of the newest secret missiles of the Russian Federation to which he naturally does not have any admission ...
1. Marzhecki
  
  +1
  
  16 September 2021 09: 17
  
  I express my personal opinion and give reasons for it. In return, do you want to discuss my article or my person?
Valery Vinokurov

+1

14 September 2021 05: 58

A modern aircraft carrier is a floating, comfortable coffin for several thousand people at once
Also incredibly expensive
Like a modern tank
But a tank coffin for at least a few people is only relatively budgetary))
1. Marzhecki
  
  +1
  
  16 September 2021 09: 18
  
  It makes no sense to explain something to people like you.
Volga073

0

14 September 2021 06: 18

Stuff the Kuzyu with rockets and park in Cuba.
Volga073

+1

14 September 2021 06: 22

It is necessary to build space "aircraft carriers", and not hang out in salt water! A movie in space is cool, but a combat post is more reliable.
Jacques sekavar

0

15 September 2021 09: 46

Unlike many state formations, the Russian Federation has a modern combat-ready army that, if it does not win, will inflict unacceptable losses on any enemy.
The main threat is internal, the origins of which are in the economy. Even V. I. Lenin warned that the economic defeat is much more serious and dangerous.
The history of the USSR apparently teaches nothing, otherwise one cannot explain the discussions about the destruction of the foundation of the economy - state monopolies, under the plausible pretext of their inefficiency.
German Oskarovich and members of the RSPP party initially spoke out and are opposed to state participation in the management of the economy, and if the state, after the departure of Vladimir Putin, follows their lead, it will be tantamount to a coup d'etat.
Then the preconditions for war will inevitably arise as a means of achieving economic and political goals, strengthening domination and seizing territories, and for this the avanos are ideally suited.
1. Marzhecki
  
  0
  
  16 September 2021 16: 54
  
  Ek you bent,