Media: The Pentagon has a plan for a combined air strike against Russia

67

The build-up of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border opens up the prospect of a large-scale ground war. But what could happen if the US and NATO decide to defend Ukraine from a Russian invasion? Ex-Pentagon employee, editor of the National Interest magazine Chris Osborne became interested in such a question.

The author called on the Western community not to allow the "concentration" of the Russian army to divert attention from the Black Sea. He clarified that Washington and the Alliance are already using F-35 fighters in the European theater of operations, and not far from Ukraine there are large forces of the United States and its allies. In his opinion, in the event of war, the fleet will play a serious, although not striking role, because the Pentagon already has a plan for a combined missile and air strike against Russia from the aforementioned water area.



Any clash with Russia in Ukraine will create an extremely important naval theater of operations, which is now and then overlooked.

- the author drew attention.

Ships of the non-Black Sea NATO countries regularly enter the Black Sea. Therefore, the competent use of the capabilities of the Navy opens up good prospects. The advancing ground units of the Russian troops will be easy prey for Tomahawk missiles launched from ships and submarines from the specified water area. These missiles can hit targets at a range of 1,5 km, and even the deepest regions of Ukraine and the Russian Federation will be open for a surprise attack from the sea.

F-35 European countries will play a key role in this war, but Europe may not have the necessary number of "invisible" to respond to the "offensive" of the Russians. The United States has its own F-35s in Europe to support the Alliance and other allies, but carrier support will not only not hurt them, but will expand their capabilities.

Can you imagine the prospect if these forces get the support of American F-35Cs from aircraft carriers or F-35Bs from landing ships? Such a scenario with the use of carrier-based aircraft in the skies over Ukraine could become a decisive factor in the possible war of interest to us here. After all, aviation in this case would become a powerful aid for ground combat operations against Russia.

- says the author, without specifying how the AUG will get into the Black Sea.

At the same time, a military expert and an employee of the American media came to the unequivocal conclusion that the conceived could be realized only with the complete domination of the West in the air. Only then will the "advancing" units of the RF Armed Forces be vulnerable to attacks from the sky.

And, finally, it is not clear why the option of conducting a powerful amphibious operation, in which Russian troops in Ukraine would be attacked from the Black Sea, is not being considered?

- the author is indignant.

He is confident that the US Navy will quickly take control of the Black Sea and can begin to land the Marines ashore, seizing bridgeheads. After that, the "Russian occupants" will have to fight on two fronts, while repelling attacks from Eastern Europe and attacks from the sea. As a result, it will become difficult for Moscow to keep in its hands the territorial gains that it will be able to achieve at the initial stage.
67 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    25 December 2021 09: 55
    Ex-Pentagon employee, editor of the National Interest magazine Chris Osborne became interested in such a question.

    And I was convinced that the National Interest is a pro-Russian resource.
    1. +5
      25 December 2021 12: 34
      He had never been like this! This is an American "Youth Technique" with a military focus.
      Articles are very superficial, weak. But this article is downright stupid;)
      To fight with Russia in the Black Sea ?! What could be worse ?! Attack Russia from the Black Sea ?! Well, complete nonsense! Firstly, it is very unclear how to gather forces for an attack there;) Well, okay, according to the Montreux convention, neither an aircraft carrier nor nuclear submarines, even the countries of the Black Sea basin, can lead-withdraw there! Therefore, the USSR made a TAVKR - not a nuclear one, and formally "not an aircraft carrier." Submarines in the Black Sea, in principle, cannot enter! Violation of the convention is already a war! And to start a local war without being able to at the local point of concentration of striking forces is just nonsense! Global, total war is another question, but the author does not discuss it!

      But let us imagine that the AUG, magically, together with the nuclear submarine got into the Black Sea! The concentration was created by magic!

      But then what? The NATO strike on the territory of Russia is not a local conflict, the doctrine of Russia provides for a response along the entire front, when attacking the territory of the Russian Federation, the strike of attacking means with the entire spectrum of weapons is legitimate, including and above all - TNW! According to which Russia has a multiple advantage, not just over NATO, but over the rest of the world put together! Russia has always DEADLY blocked any negotiations on tactical nuclear weapons for a reason! And a strike on military extraterritorial forces by means of tactical nuclear weapons is completely adequate, but the answer? To strike at the territory of Russia in response is already automatically the entry into the war of the Strategic Missile Forces.
      But even here, let’s assume that Russia, in violation of its own military doctrine, will not use TNW, will not deliver a preemptive strike at the AUG. But the entire Black Sea is shot from the shores of the Crimea like a shooting range! And in Crimea, 14 runways instead of one on an aircraft carrier! Okay, let them go three at once! And how much GDP is there in Taman, Krasnodar Territory ?! How long will AUG live in a small Black Sea puddle ?! When will it be hammered from 3 sides ?! Even old, ancient rockets, which are 40-50 years old ?! I'm not talking about X-22/32, Caliber, Daggers and Zircons ... In this case, the concentration of missiles can be maintained without problems! After all, all around is the territory of Russia!

      At the same time, we left out of brackets a bunch of questions - what will happen to NATO after such a strike ?! The inevitable defeat of these "magic" AUGs will overturn the entire world order. After that, nothing will save Durkainu!
      But the matter will not end for her. Russia will clean up everything around!
      1. +6
        25 December 2021 12: 49
        All articles and "analysts" of this kind are guilty of one essential gap. As well as the issues of the "blockade of Kaliningrad". This is the thesis of "limited war" or just a local operation.
        Any collision will very quickly turn into a global conflict. No naval component (neither in the Black Sea, nor in the Baltic) can conduct isolated hostilities. In the event of a conflict, the first target will be missile defense systems in Romania and Poland. This will be followed by the seizure of the Baltic states. And Ukraine too. As one British officer (the ship's commander) said, "my job is to drown the enemy. Let the diplomats understand the legal intricacies." And he was right.

        If NATO does not calm down, the conflict will become worldwide with a full-fledged exchange of nuclear strikes.

        At one time, I read the memoirs of the commander of the British strike force in the Falklands War. Vice Admiral Woodward. This is not an "analyst" but a practical admiral. Interesting to read. Especially about his Hamlet's torment about the safety of aircraft carriers. He had two "Hermes" and "Invincible". The loss of even one meant a complete abandonment of the landing in the Falklands. Therefore, he kept them away from the islands. Plus the opinion of the commander of the Hermes (Woodward's flagship). "The air group can be active for five days. Not more. Then the ship must be taken to rest."
        And here it is proposed to drive the AUG into the Black Sea, which is being shot through by the coastal complexes. Indefinitely. Admiral's diary entry (from memory) "Argentina has 5 Exocet missiles. Suppose one is faulty, two miss. There are two missiles left. That means I can lose two ships. The loss of an aircraft carrier is fatal. That means that Project 42 destroyers (Sheffields) will go to the near zone." I wonder how many missiles Russia has in the Black Sea?
        It is also interesting to read how Sheffield was drowned and how the Argentines attacked its ships. Ancient Skyhawks.
        Theory and practice very often do not coincide.
        1. +1
          25 December 2021 12: 53
          Just for information.

          http://militera.lib.ru/memo/english/woodward_s01/index.html
    2. -4
      25 December 2021 23: 48
      You're right. Alexey Pushkov is on the editorial board of the National Interest https://tass.ru/encyclopedia/person/pushkov-aleksey-konstantinovich.
      Dmitry Simes, publisher and chief executive officer of the National Interest magazine (together with the State Duma deputy from United Russia Vyacheslav Nikonov, he hosts the Big Game social and political talk show on Channel One).
      1. +2
        26 December 2021 00: 14
        We have already discussed this topic. This is an American resource and it is not pro-Russian. Who is the founder and who orders the articles can be found.
        The magazine positions itself as independent. On the basis of one or two personalities, it is absolutely wrong to draw a conclusion about the direction of the magazine. The magazine was founded by American politicians and is part of the Nixon Center. In any case, since 2005, the owner of the magazine is this very center located in Washington.
        There are a lot of anti-Russian articles in it. But he still tries to be objective and gives his platform for criticism of American foreign policy.

        What actually constitutes true realism is, of course, an appropriate source of controversy. And so, on both its website and in its print edition, The National Interest seeks to promote, as far as possible, a fresh debate about the course of American foreign policy by featuring a variety of leading authors from government, journalism, and academia, many of whom may at times disagree with each other. But it is only out of such disagreements that dogmas can be dispelled and clarity about America's proper aims achieved... By contributing a vital stimulus towards fashioning a new foreign policy consensus based on civil and enlightened contention, The National Interest seeks to serve this country's wider national interest.

        https://nationalinterest.org/about-the-national-interest
        The magazine serves the interests of the American state. Not Russian.
        1. -3
          26 December 2021 10: 30
          Quote: Bakht
          The magazine serves the interests of the American state. Not Russian.

          That is, Senator Pushkov and Deputy of the State Duma Nikonov serve the interests of the American state?
          1. +4
            26 December 2021 10: 46
            You have a kindergarten level. Dmitry Simes is a Jew (anti-Soviet with experience). The editor-in-chief of the magazine is a Jew. According to your logic, it is a pro-Israel magazine. And according to your logic, the owner of the magazine (the Nixon Center is a pro-Russian organization).
            Again. Personalities don't matter. The magazine provides a platform for the expression of various opinions. Do you understand? Various. As it is written in the annotation - only a dispute from different points of view will help to clarify the situation.
            There are no pro-Russian articles in the journal. Pushkov and Nikonov try to convey to the opponents the point of view of the Russian state. And they are opposed from the point of view of the American state.
            It is in kindergarten that they take offense at personalities. I try to find pro-Russian articles in the magazine and cannot find them. By the way, D. Simes is a supporter of improving relations between Russia and the United States. And against confrontation.

            There is one more controversial point in your point of view. If some publication speaks from the point of view of Russian interests, then it does not deserve attention? If you think so, then you have nothing to do on Russian sites. Go to Israeli or American.
            1. -1
              27 December 2021 00: 35
              Quote: Bakht
              You have a kindergarten level. Dmitry Simes is a Jew (anti-Soviet with experience). The editor-in-chief of the magazine is a Jew. According to your logic, it is a pro-Israel magazine.

              This is not my logic, in your statement there is no logic at all.
              Of course, I don't know much about journalistic cuisine, but doesn't the editorial board determine the editorial policy of the publication? What then is a member of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation and just a citizen of the Russian Federation Pushkov doing there? And if Simes is a Russophobe, why was he invited to host a propaganda show (anti-American by the way) on Channel One.

              Quote: Bakht
              Pushkov and Nikonov try to convey to the opponents the point of view of the Russian state.

              Quote: Bakht
              I try to find pro-Russian articles in the magazine and cannot find them.

              Can't you find some kind of contradiction here? How is Pushkov trying to convey if there are no pro-Russian articles of his?

              Quote: Bakht
              It is in kindergarten that they take offense at personalities.

              You know better, the Jews were dragged here for some reason.

              Quote: Bakht
              By the way, D. Simes is a supporter of improving relations between Russia and the United States. And against confrontation.

              What a coincidence, me too.

              Quote: Bakht
              There is one more controversial point in your point of view. If some publication speaks from the point of view of Russian interests, then it does not deserve attention? If you think so, then you have nothing to do on Russian sites. Go to Israeli or American.

              This is rather strange, they just proved to me that this National Interest is an anti-Russian publication, and it speaks to a friend from the point of view of Russian interests. You will decide. And no need to invent for me.
              PS Do you have a fad on the Jews?
              1. +1
                27 December 2021 08: 12
                I did not write that the magazine is anti-Russian. I affirm that the magazine positions itself as an independent publication and expresses different points of view. The owner defines the policy for the journal. And for some reason I do not see either Nikonov or Pushkov among the authors. I see articles there, mainly on military-technical topics and on US foreign policy.
                I have no point about Jews. Just following your logic (founder of the magazine and editor-in-chief), I will call this magazine pro-Israel.
                About the presence of some personalities. Ukrainian political scientists are often invited in Russian political programs. And express their point of view. Does this mean that these programs are pro-Ukrainian? The opposite point of view must be present in the discussions, otherwise it is not a discussion.
                So, you consider the magazine pro-Russian only because there are two Russians present there. You are not interested in the content of the journal itself and the meaning of its articles. This is what I call kindergarten.
                1. -2
                  28 December 2021 01: 13
                  Quote: Bakht
                  Just following your logic (founder of the magazine and editor-in-chief) I will call this magazine pro-Israel.

                  Even curious, where did you get the idea that this is my logic?

                  Quote: Bakht
                  In Russian political programs, Ukrainian political scientists are often invited. And express their point of view. Does this mean that these programs are pro-Ukrainian?

                  Russian political talk shows invite special whipping boys for a small share, who portray political scientists from Ukraine, flow from program to program, which gives the impression that this is their main activity. There used to be times when strong opponents (Shivchenko, Weller) were invited to such shows and heated discussions were obtained. And then such shows were not for everybody, but now these are low-quality staged programs like a house2 with scream, shoving and desperate amateurism on all sides of the discussion.
                  And this example is incorrect. As I understand it, Simes is the co-host and co-author of this show.

                  Quote: Bakht
                  So, you consider the magazine pro-Russian only because there are two Russians present there. You are not interested in the content of the journal itself and the meaning of its articles.

                  I must apologize, I read your first comment to the floor as "I am convinced that the National Interest is a pro-Russian resource." Kind of sarcasm. It seems like the articles (on the level of the respected Necropny) of this publication add water to the mills of Russian propaganda. Now I read it carefully and realized my mistake.
                  I don’t know whether it’s a pro-Russian magazine or not, but I know that Simes receives a lot of money from the Russian state (at least for participating in the show "Big Game") and Senator Pushkov is on the editorial board of the magazine. And regularly in the Russian media with reference to this publication (as, for example, in this article), to resent the insidious plans of the United States (although what relation Chris Osborne has to the Pentagon is not clear). It's just that this edition does not inspire confidence in me, although Fukuyama once published his famous article in it.
                  1. +1
                    28 December 2021 07: 04
                    Have you already found at least one pro-Russian article in the magazine? You draw a conclusion based on the composition of the editorial board, regardless of the focus of the journal.
                    This is your logic.
                    1. -2
                      29 December 2021 03: 42
                      Yeah. If Dmitry Simes and the editor-in-chief were citizens of Israel, at which he was a member of a party like United Russia (I don’t know if there is a similar one) and would conduct anti-American propaganda, but at the same time participate in the release of the pro-American National Interest. Then yes, that would be my logic. And by calling this magazine pro-Israel you follow your own logic (or lack thereof). What is a Russian propagandist, statesman, pro-proponent, a member of the United Russia Party, a member of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation (and of course a lover of expensive vacations in Europe, expensive European cars, what is a patriot without this) doing in the editorial board of an anti-Russian magazine?
                      1. +2
                        29 December 2021 07: 52
                        He is nominally a member of the editorial board. Have you found any pro-Russian articles? I said, "It's not interesting to communicate at the kindergarten level." I left this age a long time ago.
                      2. -3
                        30 December 2021 15: 27
                        At the kindergarten level, to argue that the magazine is pro-Israel because there are ethnic Jews working there. I just indicated that the director of the publication will receive money from the Russian first channel for conducting an anti-American propaganda program and that the editorial board is a Russian propagandist and a senator (nominally, not nominally, what difference does it make what he does there at all)
                      3. +2
                        30 December 2021 15: 40
                        Is the director conducting anti-American propaganda? The first time I've heard. Receives money from Russian Channel One? This is how anyone who participates in a political show gets paid. Including Ukrainian political scientists.
                        You said that the magazine is pro-Russian. Confirm this with articles and links. I see that the magazine is pro-American.

                        I give a standing ovation to Soviet intelligence. Introducing a Russian agent into the advisors of the US president is a masterpiece. And some replicate this nonsense.
                      4. -2
                        5 January 2022 14: 30
                        Quote: Bakht
                        Is the director conducting anti-American propaganda? The first time I've heard.

                        Well, rightly so, watching the "big game" at first is bad for your mental health. It is written that he is a co-author and co-host of this program.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Including Ukrainian political scientists.

                        Not Ukrainian political scientists, but actors portraying Ukrainian political scientists.
                        At least for the most part.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        You said that the magazine is pro-Russian.

                        Where did I say this? Find the article "Bear and elephant". It seems that there was also an article by Putin.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        I give a standing ovation to Soviet intelligence. Introducing a Russian agent into the advisors of the US president is a masterpiece. And some replicate this nonsense.

                        And why are you replicating it? Dmitry Simes came out as they say in circulation. He ceased to be interesting as a specialist in the USSR in the United States. And I decided to earn some money in the field of propaganda. Business, nothing personal. This is how I see it myself.
              2. +1
                27 December 2021 13: 51
                Quote: Oleg Rambover
                Of course, I don't know much about journalistic cuisine, but doesn't the editorial board determine the editorial policy of the publication?

                Oleg! Policy, editorial, is determined by the owner of the journal. laughing

                Olegwhy are you lying again?
          2. +2
            26 December 2021 13: 48
            Oleg, here is a list of resources that match your level.
            https://kids.kaspersky.ru ... you don't have to thank.
  2. +9
    25 December 2021 10: 12
    Russia is not going to fight on either two, or three, or four fronts, and if it has to fight all the European armory, then everything that is in our nuclear arsenal will be released on all European NATO states and throughout the United States. After all, everyone understands perfectly well that if all this European-American scum comes to an agreement with Japan, Turkey and China, and they begin to tear Russia apart from all sides, we will have only one way out - everything to dust, and this is what our "Guarantor" needs. from the rostrum of the extraordinary emergency session of the UN to warn all this Euro-US scum, and then let them figure out how it will all turn out for them.
    1. 0
      26 December 2021 14: 22
      Valentine, do not exaggerate. We do not need "everything to dust". We must not do the stupid things that you are pushing us to. Yes
      1. 0
        26 December 2021 17: 53
        Quote: isofat
        We need to not do stupid things

        Gorbachev and Yeltsin did it for us - they sold and drank the USSR, and if it weren't for these scum, now we wouldn't be running on all fours in front of the EuroUSA, but they would have fawned over and fawned over us.

        Quote: isofat
        to which you nudge us.

        Well, yes, it was Russia that surrounded the United States with its troops on all sides, and is now sending an entire armada of nuclear submarines with nuclear warheads to the Potomac, to the White House ... than to play like that on the psyche of all the inhabitants of the earth.
        1. 0
          26 December 2021 18: 33
          Valentine, are you calling for war again? So you are a provocateur. We don't need war. We are doing well. Let's start fighting, who will provide and develop the country?

          The losing side today needs a war in order to somehow slow down Russia. They have exhausted their peaceful development opportunities. They went bankrupt. Yes
          1. -1
            27 December 2021 08: 16
            Quote: isofat
            War is needed by the losing side today

            And who is the losing side today? While, before Gorbachev and Borka the alcoholic, there was our powerful USSR with all our Warsaw satellites, we were the most powerful country militarily, and now, when these two scum have sold and drunk everything, and our Warsaw "brothers" have deserted to our enemies, our opportunities for some kind of counteraction of the "collective West" have significantly decreased, and we, with our 160 million, together with Belarus, will not pull against a billion of the entire EU and the United States, plus Japan and Turkey, so like it or not, but the military There will be a conflict, and our Guarantor also indirectly said about this. I do not call for war, but it will still be, in varying degrees of intensity, and only a fool can not see this.
            1. 0
              27 December 2021 13: 25
              Valyaand who is the losing side today? laughing
              1. -1
                27 December 2021 15: 48
                Quote: isofat
                and who is the losing side today?

                45 years ago, since the time of Gorbachev, and then Yeltsin, the losing side was, of course, we, with him and our USSR began to collapse, and 30 years ago it collapsed, but ... no matter how someone mocked and mocked the heir drunkard Yeltsin, but it was Putin who collected parts from the ruins of the country, but only one Russia, and created the second most powerful army in the world, otherwise we would have already run to bow to the White House and kissed the hands of Obama, Trump, Biden, but only after Ukraine, and it is high time for us to understand. that if about us all of Europe and the United States goes to shit in their tantrums, then we are doing everything right.
  3. +2
    25 December 2021 10: 24
    The US Navy will be sunk in BOSFOR ... by the Syrian aviation ... and those who break through into the sea will not come out of there ... and the launcher in Romania has long been at gunpoint from the Crimea ... so there can be only a second gain over the sea. . and then all .. kayuk. With 400 will destroy everything sho fly .. plus aviation from the Crimea and the Caucasus. Arrange them BLACK Thursday Korea .. because there went one against three. even though in SYRIA THERE ARE MIG 31 WITH HYPER ROCKETS ..
  4. +11
    25 December 2021 10: 49
    I have a feeling that all these European military experts consider themselves immortal. They think that only they will shoot and bomb, at one gate, and they will get nothing for it. Well tell me how you can be so dumb. Or Zadornov was right!
    1. +2
      25 December 2021 12: 51
      Zadornov is definitely right about the command of the US Armed Forces!)
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. +3
    25 December 2021 11: 13
    All our nuclear weapons must be maintained in the highest combat readiness for use, so that this whole flock of NATO jackals can see and clearly understand that they are not being joked with and that if they decide to attack Russia, this will be the last day of their existence !!!
  7. 0
    25 December 2021 11: 26
    It is necessary to resume atmospheric nuclear tests, and to carry them out near the western borders, so that it can be seen and heard from afar, otherwise some have already completely forgotten something ...
  8. +8
    25 December 2021 11: 49
    As soon as the American Navy begins to take control of the Black Sea, the "Ball" will begin on the "Bastions"
  9. +4
    25 December 2021 12: 35
    Yes ... the US and NATO will fight for Ukraine!))) He forgot to ask the US and NATO servicemen if they want to DIE for Kiev!))) The Russian Armed Forces are not Papuans from Guinea!)
  10. +1
    25 December 2021 12: 48
    Stupid calculations ... Even if the kneading with Ukrainians begins, NOBODY will officially fit in for this rag-tag ...
  11. +1
    25 December 2021 14: 07
    Of course, before striking a real blow, you can frolic to sink NATO ships in the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic. Arrange, so to speak, field tests in order to pick up statistics.
  12. -6
    25 December 2021 14: 54
    Quote: sH, arK
    At the same time, we left out of brackets a bunch of questions - what will happen to NATO after such a strike ?! The inevitable defeat of these "magic" AUGs will overturn the entire world order. After that, nothing will save Durkainu!
    But the matter will not end for her. Russia will clean up everything around!

    - Has it ever occurred to you what will happen to Russia after a full-scale nuclear missile war with the United States? Especially in winter? Russian cities without heat at a temperature of minus 30 ° C? How many TEN MILLION additional people will die in a week?
    Stretch your fantasy?
    1. +5
      25 December 2021 15: 24
      What will happen to Europe? Or America? Unleash your imagination.

    2. +2
      25 December 2021 21: 27
      Michael, Russians are no stranger to living in the cold after Gorbachev and Yeltsin's "friendship" with the United States, but the end will surely come to Americans and Europeans, as evidenced by the rolling accidents at power plants in the United States and panic in cities. This happened in a warm period, and in winter the states are like a skiff.
    3. 0
      26 December 2021 02: 27
      The issue of warmth after a nuclear war will not even be secondary. If you survived and there is clean water and food, then there will always be a dugout. The greatest danger will be presented by its own population, which in a peaceful period is ready to point the barrel at each other, and even more so in an emergency mode.
  13. +1
    25 December 2021 15: 04
    I immediately recall the lines from the poem by Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy -

    Cleanly written in paper, but they forgot about the ravines ...
  14. -3
    25 December 2021 16: 29
    Quote: Bakht
    What will happen to Europe? Or America? Unleash your imagination.


    - And you yourself probably live in Australia ?! feel Russia - to dust, Europe - to trash, USA - to rags ... Are you prospering in Australia with a kangaroo? Or do you live in New Zealand? And you don't care what happens to the countries mentioned above ?! wink belay
    1. +6
      25 December 2021 17: 01
      You have an alternative.
      Give up and not get too nervous. Gas to Europe for free, Crimea to Ukraine, repent and kiss the Stars and Stripes.
      There is always an alternative.
      1. -6
        25 December 2021 17: 04
        - Bakhtiyar, you never said: where are you personally going to sit out from the American missiles with nuclear warheads?
        Tell all of Russia how you are going to save yourself? Or you "you will go to Paradise, and they will die"? laughing lol
        1. +2
          25 December 2021 17: 07
          Michael, you never said why only Russia should be afraid of a nuclear war?
          I answer in detail. I am against war. And so that it does not have to be ready for it. Read the title. "The Pentagon has a plan for a combined strike against Russia." Have you read it? Now tell me, how are you personally going to respond to this blow?
          1. -3
            25 December 2021 17: 13
            Mikhail, you never said why only Russia should be afraid of a nuclear war?

            - I have already repeated many times: both Russia and the United States should be afraid of a nuclear war between Russia and the United States! For the most elementary reason: after the exchange of nuclear strikes between them, China will come and put both in a bag. He will become the hegemon on Earth. And the USA and Russia are his slaves. Therefore, any chatter about a nuclear war between the United States and Russia is completely absurd..

            I answer in detail. I am against war. And so that it does not have to be ready for it. Read the title. "The Pentagon has a plan for a combined strike against Russia." Have you read it?

            - I read it. Smiled. They burst out laughing. Delirium is doggy.

            Now tell me, how are you personally going to respond to this blow?

            - I live in Israel and I'm only interested in Iranian missiles with nuclear warheads.
            1. +2
              25 December 2021 17: 19
              And I thought that the Jewish brothers left this site. And why are you interested in Iranian missiles? Only by the fact that it is necessary to inflict a preventive blow on them, as I understood from previous statements. Well, according to this logic, Russia also needs to inflict a preemptive strike on missile defense bases in Poland and Romania.

              Everything that you wrote above is completely absurd. The States are considering a limited nuclear war. For this, the tools are being prepared. Armaments and plans. So, I do not consider the option of a nuclear war as impossible.
              I have heard about the Chinese horror story many times. So far, the threat to Russia (direct and immediate) comes only from the United States. But not from China.
              And further. If you live in Israel, then you shouldn't be worried about the problems of Russia either. I changed my homeland and be happy. I, unlike you, live next to Russia. And strongly associated with her. So Russia must be ready for war.
              By the way, everyone is not listening very attentively to the President of Russia. He once said, "There won't be a second June 22 anymore." So let the West think carefully. I also do not exclude the same preemptive strike. Following the example of Israel.
    2. 0
      25 December 2021 19: 11
      you are wrong, if the Russian Federation destroys Poland, the Americans do not even vyakut - all their colonies, the Americans initially wrote off for slaughter)) so that the Russians did not decide to immediately shoot at the United States, for this the Americans prepared targets closer to give the Russians the opportunity to release "nuclear steam", and then sit down at the negotiating table as usual
    3. 0
      25 December 2021 21: 29
      No-eh, he writes from Ukraine to chi from Poland - works out American silver coins
    4. 0
      26 December 2021 21: 08
      It is not the Russian Federation that is deploying its missiles near the borders of the United States ... so let the United States think about whether they are ready to die for the stupidity and impudence of their politicians who climb onto the borders of the Russian Federation like typhoid lice.
  15. -4
    25 December 2021 17: 52
    Quote: Bakht
    And I thought that the Jewish brothers left this site.

    - Who should stay? Brothers Tatars? wink

    And why are you interested in Iranian missiles?

    - The fact that the top military and political leaders of Iran have been yelling for years about the need to destroy Israel.

    Only by the fact that it is necessary to inflict a preventive blow on them, as I understood from previous statements.

    - No, we have to wait until Iranian missiles with nuclear warheads begin to fall on the cities of Israel.

    Well, according to this logic, Russia also needs to inflict a preemptive strike on missile defense bases in Poland and Romania.

    - ?? What does ABM have to do with it? I'm talking about ballistic missiles means of attack, not about missiles!

    Everything that you wrote above is completely absurd.

    - In principle, I never write absurdity ... I'm ashamed ... lol

    The States are considering a limited nuclear war. For this, the tools are being prepared. Armaments and plans. So, I do not consider the option of a nuclear war as impossible.

    - Where did they call you from that a limited nuclear war will not develop into a full-scale war ?! From the Kremlin, or from Washington?

    I have heard about the Chinese horror story many times.

    - This is not a horror story. This is UZHOS-UZHOS! It's just so terrible that the citizens of Russia are not told about it.... Soon an agreement will be concluded with China on the lease of vast Russian territories by China - for 99 years - where China will do whatever it pleases. It is called "throw a bone to the predator"... But THIS WILL NOT HELP.

    So far, the threat to Russia (direct and immediate) comes only from the United States. But not from China.

    - Throw in your brains: WHAT CAN THE Americans TAKE in Russia ?? Can they capture it - and master its vast millions of square kilometers?
    NO. CAN NOT.
    Can the Chinese do it?
    JUST!

    And further. If you live in Israel, then you shouldn't be worried about the problems of Russia either. I changed my homeland and be happy.

    - I have friends there (obviously, unlike you). I feel sorry for them. I was born in Kemerovo - I don't want my native Siberia to belong to the Chinese ...

    I, unlike you, live next to Russia. And strongly associated with her. So Russia must be ready for war.

    - And the world's second nuclear potential is really not enough for it to stop any possible aggression ?!

    By the way, everyone is not listening very attentively to the President of Russia. He once said, "There won't be a second June 22 anymore." So let the West think carefully. I also do not exclude the same preemptive strike. Following the example of Israel.

    - Do you really think that Russia is capable of delivering a disarming thermonuclear strike against the United States ?! Not even funny. And the fact that Putin is saying exactly this - he says what is expected of him.
    I don't know if you know, but Comrade Stalin also said: "We will beat the enemy on his territory! With little blood!"
    So shta .....
    1. 0
      26 December 2021 07: 22
      Why did you run away from Siberia? Would you build factories and cities there and not let the Chinese go? The development of Siberia and the Far East is troublesome. I do not think that the Chinese will develop something there? They need resources and they exchange everything with our oligarchs for "Busses" (smartphones, TVs, etc.). And the common people have no time for war! Vaughn Agafya ("Old Believers") lives in the taiga alone and believes only in his own faith!
  16. +1
    25 December 2021 18: 43
    Hysteria in the Western media, speaks only of the powerlessness and cowardice of the West in front of the inevitable military operation of the Russian Federation, they have nothing to do but scare the Russian Federation on the internet through a journalist and various pennies of retired experts - "like you Russians do not free your Russian Little Russia from our Zion puppets, because there is such and such a plan of the Pentagon ", while the Pentagon itself is afraid to threaten and understands that it is pointless
    1. -3
      25 December 2021 19: 18
      - You yourself will personally go with a gun at the ready to liberate Novorossia from the w / Bandera? wink Are you among the volunteers?! lol

      1. +1
        25 December 2021 19: 20
        we will all go (through Alaska) to Washington, and a handful of Banderas will be destroyed by special forces and high-precision missiles, and the local population will tear them apart
        1. -4
          25 December 2021 19: 22
          - Answer directly: you, personally, volunteered ?!
          1. +1
            25 December 2021 19: 24
            and this is asked by people, in whose country men pray Torah, and women serve in the army, guarding men))
            1. -4
              25 December 2021 19: 30
              “Don’t shirk! It's clear - YOU DIDN'T SIGN UP A VOLUNTEER! am
              1. +1
                25 December 2021 19: 37
                here the Americans will twitch, then after the nuclear strike by Yars Topols we will all put on the OZK and go to Washington
                1. The comment was deleted.
              2. +1
                25 December 2021 21: 35
                Do not pretend to be an American democrat ... It is clear that about a third of the age population of Russia will gladly wash their boots in a pond near the memorial in Fashington
  17. -4
    26 December 2021 10: 08
    Quote: Bakht
    Ex-Pentagon employee, editor of the National Interest magazine Chris Osborne became interested in such a question.

    And I was convinced that the National Interest is a pro-Russian resource.

    - It's not just pro-Russian, it's Russian resource... Sponsored by Russia, and its owner is the sent, still Soviet, "Cossack", Dima Simes:
    It is high time to know "who is hu" in this world ... laughing lol
    1. +3
      27 December 2021 09: 31
      It is high time to learn to read the magazine itself, and not gossip from the gateway. When you find one pro-Russian article in the magazine - give a link.
  18. +1
    26 December 2021 18: 31
    A fence ... While they smoked Afghan, they seemed to be more adequate. And the tapericha seem to be sitting on synthetics ... The waste from him is heavy laughing laughing
  19. +3
    27 December 2021 09: 30
    I searched the internet for a similar article by Chris Osborne. But I couldn't find it. A simple wish is to provide a link. The only article that seems to fit this description is here

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/don%E2%80%99t-let-russias-troop-buildup-ukraine-distract-black-sea-198498

    But the article does not say anything about the fact that the Pentagon has a plan for a possible strike against Russia. It's just that the author offers his own plan for waging a war with Russia. Tomahawk strike from the sea and landing.

    Surely a pro-Russian agent writing for a pro-Russian magazine.
  20. 0
    28 December 2021 01: 43
    Well, very interesting ... chukhnya. I recommend Osborne to re-read the doctrine of the Russian Federation. After the first launches of tomahawks, not even on the territory of the Russian Federation, but on its troops, a nuclear strike will be delivered to the United States. And then everyone will have no time for the Black Sea.
  21. 0
    28 December 2021 06: 09
    No, well, with such powerful military strategists, NATO members are not afraid, they will win everyone!))
  22. 0
    29 December 2021 14: 52
    Quote: Valentine

    Gorbachev and Yeltsin did it for us - they sold and drank the USSR, and if it weren't for these scum, now we wouldn't be running on all fours in front of the EuroUSA, but they would have fawned over and fawned over us.

    And who is currying favor with the United States today and fawning over them? You are apolitical, comrade!
  23. 0
    29 December 2021 15: 07
    Quote: Bakht
    I searched the internet for a similar article by Chris Osborne. But I couldn't find it. A simple wish is to provide a link. The only article that seems to fit this description is here

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/don%E2%80%99t-let-russias-troop-buildup-ukraine-distract-black-sea-198498

    But the article does not say anything about the fact that the Pentagon has a plan for a possible strike against Russia. It's just that the author offers his own plan for waging a war with Russia. Tomahawk strike from the sea and landing.

    Surely a pro-Russian agent writing for a pro-Russian magazine.

    This is a stupid plan. It was definitely written by a pro-Russian agent for a pro-Russian magazine. You have to think about it - stop the Russian tank wedges with tomahawks and the landing of troops from the sea! What is the sea on the Russian-Belarusian border? lol And the Tomahawks, though old, but each worth about a million, they should only be allowed in tank columns. Explicitly wrote a pro-Russian agent for the Pentagon generals. laughing Russian tanks need to be stopped by operating the F-15E and F-15EX from extremely low altitudes with one-time cluster bombs, like this: http://airwar.ru/weapon/ab/cbu97.html




    Against infantry and light vehicles:



    And from the air to cover the troops of w / Bandera with F-22 and F-35 aircraft.
    ....................
    And the Tomahawks and the "landing from the sea" are nonsense ... smile