Female infidelity is a rather complex phenomenon. First, with the social ...
It is unreasonable to attack without first mastering the pace of the opponent's movements and the position of his hands.
Thus, a good fighter uses all the means at his disposal to calculate and direct a counter strike that will block the opponent's arm or leg and give him the opportunity to control him.
A second intent attack or preemptive strike is a pre-planned move, usually used against a fighter who has a habit of constantly striking back blows or who attacks during your attack, that is, one who attacks as soon as his opponent makes an attacking move.
A preemptive strike is a move in which the opponent is forced or provoked to attack at the same time as us, by taking possession of his defending hand or deflecting it and carrying out the next attack or retaliatory strike (parrying strike). It is not so much about managing the counter strike as a correctly timed parry that deflects it. In this case, it is necessary to determine the speed of the enemy's reactions and unravel his cadence.
The success of a preemptive strike largely depends on the ability to hide their intentions and force the enemy to make a counter movement so that he has no opportunity to change anything when he is parried before a retaliatory strike.
The counter strike of the enemy can be controlled in the following ways:
# By invitation (as if under attack).
# Deliberately open feints.
# Fake attacks with half-lunge or just ostentatious steps forward.
It may be useful to retaliate against the counter - by fending off the oncoming attack of the enemy, or moving away from him with a simultaneous attack (that is, using an indirect attack from different positions).
Watch out for his false counter strikes or how he parries your counter strike with a simultaneous counter strike (he can challenge you to preempt, clearly showing his intent to counter strike).
Attacks and retaliatory strikes, however well conceived, will generally fail until they are delivered at the right moment (timing) and at the correct speed (cadence). A simple example the right choice time is given by the escape attack. From a normal holding position, this attack can be parried with a lateral movement of the arm, as it only needs to travel a few inches, while the opponent's arm must travel several feet to reach the target. Under these conditions, the fastest attack is parried with a smooth and slow defensive movement. This discrepancy in time is further exacerbated if the attack is directed in the same direction where the defender's hand is already moving.
Obviously, the attack should be calculated in such a way as to go towards that part of the target where the opponent's hand is moving, that is, more into the open line than into the closed line. This is the best chance to overcome the unfavorable position for such a case, both in time and in distance.
Likewise, a great moment to attack is when the opponent prepares the attack himself. His thoughts and hand movements will then be concentrated more on attack than defense.
Preparing attacks are often effective against opponents who are neat and difficult to reach, as they maintain a safe distance regardless of the timing of the attack. In this case, you can attack after you have involved him in the preparations for the attack, and he started them, taking a short step back.
The cook attack should not be confused with the attack during the attack. The first is carried out during preparation for the start of an enemy attack, while an attack during an attack is a counter-attack action.
A very precise choice of distance and timing is required if the attack during preparation must get ahead of the enemy's attack.
All rights belong to Alexander Shulman (c) 2017 © 2017 by Alexander Shulman. All rights reserved
Use of the material without the written permission of the author is prohibited.
Any violations are punishable by copyright law in force in Israel.
Alexander Shulman
The right to preemptive strike
These days Israel celebrates the 44th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War. The anniversary of the Yom Kippur War once again continued a long-standing public debate about whether this war could have been prevented or won with minimal losses. This topic remains relevant today, when wars are raging along the borders of Israel in neighboring Arab countries, and a hostile Iran is closer than ever to possessing nuclear weapons.
Chief of the IDF General Staff, Lieutenant General G. Aizenkot, in his recent report at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Research, warns: "At any moment, a war may flare up. Moreover, both on one and several fronts. And we must be ready for this."
Once again, Israel faces the problem of a preemptive strike - can the Jewish state, in order to protect its independence and its own citizens, be the first to strike at an enemy who openly proclaims war as its goal.
Speaking at a meeting dedicated to the 40th anniversary of the start of the Yom Kippur War, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated in the light of the Iranian threat: “Never underestimate the enemy. we will not do that. " He also noted that "the decision to launch a preemptive strike is one of the most difficult decisions a government must make, because you can never prove what would have happened if it had not been."
Over the course of the history of the Jewish state, circumstances have more than once developed that the government faced a difficult dilemma - whether or not to strike a preemptive strike against the enemy. The adoption of such a decision in 1967 ensured a brilliant victory in the Six Day War, the rejection of it led to the severe and bloody Yom Kippur War in 1973.
Each time before deciding on a preemptive strike, Israel found itself in complete international isolation - friendly countries reneged on previously assumed obligations and, despite direct threats to the existence of the Jewish state, demanded restraint from it and, in fact, surrender to the enemy.
The Six Day War of 1967 was preceded by a dramatic series of events, as a result of which Israel found itself face to face with the enemy, despite the previously given international guarantees of its security.
After leaving Sinai in March 1957, Israel received from the US administration a firm and public recognition of its right to self-defense and guarantees to prevent Egypt's intentions to establish a blockade of the Tirana Strait. Israel's right to freedom of navigation has been confirmed by the UN, which has deployed its troops in the Sharm al-Sheikh area and on the Egyptian coast of the Tirana Strait.
However, on May 16, 1967, Egypt ordered UN forces to leave the Sinai Peninsula. UN Secretary General U Thant, fearing pressure from the Arabs, immediately yielded to Egyptian demands and withdrew UN forces from the Gaza Strip, after which the Egyptian army withdrew to the Israeli border.
There was a real threat to Israel's existence, but the US government made it clear that it was not going to come to Israel's aid and fulfill the previously given guarantees. The United States refused to supply Israel with combat aircraft.
Realizing the weakness of the American reaction, Egypt continued to build up its troops in the Sinai. Meanwhile, Arab leaders whipped up militarism. Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad said the Syrian army "has a finger on the trigger and is looking forward to the outbreak of hostilities."
May 21, 1967 Israeli Prime Minister L. Eshkol told cabinet members: "I believe the Egyptians are planning to stop the navigation of Israeli ships in the port of Eilat or bomb the nuclear reactor at Dimona. A large-scale military operation will follow."
Conciliatory moves by Israeli leaders aimed at pacifying the Arabs had the opposite effect: on May 22, Egypt announced a blockade of the Tirana Strait for Israeli shipping. The USSR also issued threats against Israel. It became clear that the international security guarantees of Israel received earlier from the United States, Great Britain and France are in fact invalid.
1967 Six Day War. Israel attacks
The situation along the Israeli border continued to heat up, and Israel's strategic position deteriorated further. The UN ceased all attempts at a peaceful settlement of the conflict. Due to the ongoing blockade, Israel began to feel an acute shortage of oil and food. Mobilization has been announced in Sudan, Iraq and Kuwait; Syrian troops were ready to invade Galilee.
When asked about the fate of the Israelis in the event of a possible victory of the Arabs in the upcoming war, the head of the PLO, Ahmad Shukeiri, replied: "Those who survive will remain in Palestine, but according to my estimates, none of them will survive."
The Iraqi President was no less categorical: "The existence of Israel is a mistake that must be corrected. It is an opportunity to wash away the shame that has been lying on us since 1948. Our goal is clear - to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. And we, if we will. Allah's will, let's meet in Tel Aviv and Haifa. "
May 30, 1967 King Hussein of Jordan signed a bilateral military pact with Egypt. Israel now faces a three-front war. The size and equipment of the Arab armies were several times greater than the Israeli army, and this at the very moment when Israel's international isolation was almost complete.
The existence of the entire nation of Israel is in question. In Israel, there are calls to rely only on their own forces; one cannot count on the military support of other countries.
"We will fight against Egypt and Syria on our own," Chief of the General Staff I. Rabin said to the Prime Minister. As an Israeli response to the current situation, Rabin proposed to strike at Egypt. Delay will cost Israel tens of thousands of deaths.
Israel's fateful cabinet meeting began on Sunday June 4 at 8:15 am. Supervisor military intelligence A. Yariv said that from the data obtained by military intelligence, it irrefutably follows that the Egyptian army is moving from a defensive deployment to an attacking one with the clear intention of occupying Eilat. After seven hours of discussion, the government voted unanimously to instruct the troops "to launch a military operation to free Israel from the siege and prevent an impending attack by the united Arab forces."
At 8:00 am the next day, Israeli planes bombed Egyptian airfields. The war began and was brilliantly won by Israel in less than a week.
Events developed differently in 1973, on the eve of the Yom Kippur War. Six months before the start of the war, Israeli military intelligence AMAN was well aware of the plans of Egypt and Syria to attack Israel. However, the chief of military intelligence, General Eli Zeira, convinced the country's leadership that such an attack was unlikely until Egypt received MiG-23 aircraft and Scud missiles from the USSR.
Earlier, in May 1973. Israel has already mobilized reservists in response to clear warnings from intelligence about the possibility of a war unleashed by the Arabs. However, each time the Arab attack was postponed, which noticeably weakened the vigilance of the Israelis. Egyptian President Sadat seemed to be teetering on the brink of war, his frequent threats to Israel were simply ignored.
At the same time, intelligence about the impending attack on Israel snowballs.
King Hussein of Jordan secretly visited Israel on September 25. He was returning after a meeting with the leadership of Egypt and Syria and considered it his duty to warn the Israeli leadership of the war on the threshold.
On October 1, 1973, the AMAN analyst officer, Lieutenant Binyamin Siman-Tov, presented an extremely gloomy assessment of the situation. He argued that the Egyptian troops were fully prepared to cross the Suez Canal and there were literally hours left before the start of the war.
Yom Kippur War 1973. Israeli tank crews before entering the battle in the Golan Heights
On October 4-5, Mossad chief Zvi Zamir reported on new signs of an impending war: the evacuation of the families of Soviet officers from Egypt and Syria began, a high concentration of Egyptian and Syrian tanks and anti-aircraft missile systems was noted in the immediate vicinity of the separation lines with Israel.
The issue of delivering a preemptive strike against the enemy was brought up for discussion at a meeting with Prime Minister Golda Meir. The military pushed for a preemptive strike, but Prime Minister Golda Meir relied more on guarantees from the United States.
Earlier, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger firmly demanded that Israel not deliver a preemptive strike. Golda Meir argued that Israel will need American help, and for this it is extremely important that the Jewish state cannot be accused of starting the war. "If we hit first, we won't get help from anyone," Golda said.
At 10:15 am on October 6, Golda Meir met with US Ambassador Kenneth Keating to inform the United States that Israel does not intend to start a preemptive war, and asks the US to make efforts to prevent war.
For refusing a preemptive strike, Israel had to pay a high price - at 14:00 on October 6, 1973, on the sacred Judgment Day for the Jews, Israel was attacked on all fronts by the armies of Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Sudan, Algeria, Tunisia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia , Morocco, Jordan, Cuba, North Korea. The aggression against the Jewish state was led by the USSR - the Arab armies were under the control of thousands of Soviet officers and were armed with Soviet weapons worth tens of billions of dollars.
At that time, the largest tank battle in world history unfolded in the expanses from Sinai to the Golan, in which more than 1 million 500 thousand troops and 7 thousand tanks fought on both sides.
Yom Kippur War 1973. Israeli forces cross the Suez Canal
It would seem that everything was on the side of the aggressor: the factor of surprise, colossal superiority in tanks, aircraft and manpower. On the basis of hatred of Israel, Islamic fanaticism merged with Soviet anti-Semitism.
However, the enemy did not take into account the steadfastness and professionalism of the Israeli soldier, who managed not only to stop the enemy armada rushing to the Israeli cities, but also to inflict a crushing defeat on the enemy. For the victory, Israel had to pay the highest price - about 2.5 thousand Israelis died in the battles of this bloody war.
Today, Israel is once again facing fateful decisions. Iran is rapidly approaching the creation of its own nuclear weapons. Western countries at the head of the United States, despite Israeli warnings about the growing Iranian nuclear threat, signed a deal with the Islamic regime in Tehran and lifted previously imposed sanctions.
Benjamin Netanyahu warns: "It would be a historic mistake to give Iran discounts and weaken the sanctions regime even before this country dismantled its nuclear potential. Iran is now on its shoulder and it is necessary to strengthen the sanctions regime with all its might to achieve the desired result."
Netanyahu added that he calls on the international community to do this, and he hopes that the international community will do it.
In the face of the Iranian nuclear threat, Israel again finds itself in international isolation, as it was in 1967 and 1973. Once again, the Israeli leadership faces the dilemma of a preventive war ...
In Russia's military circles, concern is growing over the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty. For example, a retired Strategic Missile Forces general noted that the possible deployment of American medium-range missiles in Europe could render the famous Perimeter system (aka Dead Hand) useless. But this is not the main point: changes may even affect the military doctrine of Russia. Colonel-General Viktor Yesin, former chief of the Strategic Missile Forces General Staff (1994-1996), lamented that after the US withdrawn from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Short-Range Missiles (INF Treaty), Russia's Perimeter automatic retaliatory nuclear strike system may be useless. The Perimeter system was developed and put on alert back in the days of the USSR (although sometimes doubts are expressed that it exists at all). This system automatically detects signs of a nuclear strike in the event of a surprise enemy attack. And if at the same time the military-political leadership of the country is eliminated, then the "Perimeter" launches a "command" missile, activating the rest of the Russian nuclear forces, which strike back at the enemy. This system once became a very unpleasant surprise for the West, and it was immediately nicknamed "The Dead Hand". “When it works, we will have little money left - we will be able to launch only those missiles that will survive the first attack of the aggressor,” Yesin explained in an interview with the Zvezda newspaper. According to him, by deploying medium-range ballistic missiles in Europe (just those that are prohibited under the INF Treaty), the United States will be able to destroy the bulk of Russian missile weapons in the European part, and intercept the rest on the flight path through missile defense. Recall that in October, US President Donald Trump announced his withdrawal from the INF Treaty. This treaty, signed by the USSR and the United States in 1987, prohibits the parties from possessing ground-based ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of 500 to 5500 km. Breaking this agreement breaks the entire system of nuclear and missile security and will inevitably entail retaliatory actions on the part of Russia. The fact is that by withdrawing from the INF Treaty, the Americans actually free their hands on the creation and deployment of short- and medium-range missiles, including, for example, in Europe. The danger of such missiles in a critically short flight time, which makes it possible to inflict instant disarming nuclear strikes on a friend. Apparently, based on all this, Colonel-General Viktor Yesin and thought about the effectiveness of the "Dead Hand". And about whether, in general, the Russian concept of a retaliatory - and not a preventive - nuclear strike is effective. The American military doctrine provides for a preemptive nuclear strike. Aleksey Leonkov, editor of the magazine Arsenal of the Fatherland, explained that the first disarming strike is not always even delivered by nuclear weapons. “According to the American strategy of instant strike, it can be delivered by non-nuclear means to eliminate the positional areas of our ballistic missiles and mobile missile systems. And everything that remains will be finished off with the help of missile defense systems, ”he said. However, the vice president Russian Academy missile and artillery sciences, Doctor of Military Sciences Konstantin Sivkov does not agree that the US withdrawal from the treaty could make the "Perimeter" ineffective. “In the conditions of the withdrawal of the Americans from the INF Treaty, this system is especially needed, it needs to be improved and modernized,” Sivkov said. All nuclear weapons cannot be destroyed at once, in principle, which means that the "Perimeter" will not lose its effectiveness, the expert explained. “Missile submarines in positions at sea are unlikely to be destroyed. In addition, under the conditions of the threatened period, strategic bombers with cruise missiles on board will be launched into the air, and they, too, cannot be destroyed, ”the source explained. The coefficient of the final probability of destruction, according to Sivkov, lies within 0.8, that is, even with the most unfavorable development of events, at least 20% of the nuclear potential for a retaliatory strike will remain with Russia. “The strike by medium-range missiles will not be instantaneous, it will obviously be prolonged. And this duration may be enough to ensure a retaliatory strike either by the Perimeter or from the command post, ”he added. “When the Americans were calculating the possibilities of our retaliatory strike after their first disarming strike, they came to the conclusion that 60% of our missiles would survive, and irreparable damage would be inflicted on the retaliatory ones. For almost 70 years now, we have been living virtually under nuclear weapons, and the presence of nuclear weapons in our country allows us to maintain a restraining balance. If the Americans had the opportunity to strike at Russia, which would not be followed by an answer, they would have already taken advantage of it over the years, ”stressed Alexei Leonkov. Nevertheless, the military still believes that Russia needs to take additional steps in the event that the United States deploy short- and medium-range missiles in Europe. According to Yesin, Russia needs to accelerate the launch of its medium-range missiles, as well as focus on the development of hypersonic weapons, the answers to which in the West are not yet available. “To be frank, we do not yet have an effective response to American medium-range missiles in Europe,” the general noted with concern. “In order to provide protection against American medium-range missiles, should they be deployed in Europe, Russia can equip its medium-range missiles with conventional charges so that, in the context of non-nuclear warfare, it can strike with conventional weapons at American command posts and their air defense systems. ", - stressed Konstantin Sivkov. He also believes that it is necessary to increase the mobile component of strategic nuclear forces, namely: to deploy railway missile systems, to increase the number of Yars mobile missile systems, ballistic missile submarines, strategic aircraft and airfields for them. Alexey Leonkov, in turn, noted that today the creation of a new aerospace defense system of the country, which includes air defense systems and missile launch warning systems, has been almost completed. automated system management. That is, in addition to the "Dead Hand", a more "live" rapid response system is being created. In addition, Colonel-General Viktor Yesin noted that if the United States begins to deploy its missiles in Europe, we will have no choice but to abandon the doctrine of a retaliatory strike and switch to the doctrine of a preemptive strike. Konstantin Sivkov is also confident that the Russian Federation needs to change its military doctrine and include the possibility of a preemptive strike. Nevertheless, he is confident that this does not replace the need to modernize the Perimeter system. Leonkov agrees that if an American nuclear arsenal is deployed in Europe in the form of medium-range missiles, the existing Russian counter-strike doctrine will most likely be revised. Nikita Kovalenko
Strike the strategic balance: Putin's preemptive response
I think that it was not by chance that Vladimir Putin in Valdai spoke about the increased danger of nuclear war, repeated the axiom about Russia's readiness to take the whole world with it, and discussed the existence of the right to a preemptive strike.
On the last question, experts immediately launched a discussion whether the Russian president had in mind a nuclear preemptive strike and, if so, how this fits in with his own statement that he would not launch a nuclear strike first.
We will answer briefly.
First, it fits, since a preemptive strike is considered by international law as response to the already inevitable aggression... You, however, need to prove that aggression was inevitable. But hardly anyone after a nuclear war will be interested in evidence. The one who survives will win, and only a few will survive (if they survive). And these will be individuals and / or communities, not states or international organizations. So, if the Russian leadership receives information about the inevitability of a massive nuclear strike on Russia in the coming hours, it has the right (and even obliged) to deliver a preemptive nuclear strike, and this will not be the first use of nuclear weapons.
Secondly, it does not matter at all, because even if a preemptive strike is delivered with conventional precision weapons, it will be directed against the positional areas in which threatening Russia carriers of nuclear weapons and missile defense systems. From the point of view of the military doctrines of both the USSR and Russia, a massive attack on strategic nuclear facilities by non-nuclear forces was equated with the start of a nuclear war and gave the right to a nuclear response. Americans approach this issue in exactly the same way.
So, in principle, it makes no sense to discuss whether he meant Vladimir Putin a preventive or exclusively retaliatory nuclear or non-nuclear strike from Russia. He quite clearly drew attention to the sharply increased danger of nuclear confrontation.... And this is the main point. Because "who started it first" will not matter, and no one will know about it.
So the question we are interested in should sound like this: “Why did the Russian president speak about the threat of a nuclear catastrophe right now, when we are not experiencing the deepest exacerbations of the Syrian and Ukrainian crises, but on the Korean peninsula, Seoul and Pyongyang do demonstrate an unprecedented level of friendliness, seriously discussing denuclearization of the peninsula in the framework of the development of inter-Korean dialogue and economic cooperation between North and South? "
I am sure that it was a proactive response on the announced a day later the decision of the United States to withdraw from the INF Treaty (medium and short-range missiles).
Why did this decision provoke such a strong reaction? After all, the INF Treaty signed in Washington Gorbachev and Reagan December 8, 1987, entered into force in June 1988, and by June 1991 it had already been completed. That is, all the complexes that fell under the ban were destroyed by both Russia and the United States. Moreover, the development of military equipment over the past 30 years allows the tasks that were solved by the complexes destroyed under the Treaty to be assigned to other systems, which, without formally violating the Treaty, are even more effective.
Missile complex "Pioneer" in the exposition of the museum of missile forces in the city of Znamensk
The treaty bans the production and deployment of ground-based missiles with a range of 500 to 5,000 kilometers. But today, Russia is armed with the complexes " Iskaner"(Up to 500 km), cruise missiles deployed" Caliber»Air and sea-based (do not fall under the restrictions of the Treaty, on which the Americans themselves insisted at one time). The declared range of these missiles against ground targets can reach 1,500 kilometers. At the same time, some sources say about 2000-2500 kilometers. The range of the complex " Dagger"(Including the range of the carrier), placed on the Tu-22M3, reaches 3000 kilometers. But this, if we bear in mind the combat radius of the aircraft at supersonic, in the mixed mode, the combat radius of the aircraft increases from 1500 to 2500 kilometers, respectively, the range of the complex together with the missile can reach 4000 thousand kilometers.
That is, without a formal violation of the treaty, Russia is able, with the help of the latest developments, to solve problems that in the last century were available only to medium-range missiles. Moreover, the latest developments, which should enter the troops in the next 10-12 years, generally have arbitrary range, that is, for them, in principle no inaccessible targets on planet earth.
Let me also remind you that Russia at one time announced the possibility of its withdrawal from the INF Treaty in response to the withdrawal of the Americans from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. I think that the withdrawal was not realized because it turned out to be more effective to develop and put into service new high-precision weapons, which allow not to violate the Treaty and, at the same time, not to be particularly connected with it from a strategic point of view.
For thirty years Russia has simply turned the situation upside down. At the conclusion of the INF Treaty, the United States had an overwhelming advantage in non-nuclear high-precision weapons capable of hitting the then Soviet (and later Russian) strategic carriers as part of the first disarming massive non-nuclear strike. The USSR opposed these classes of American missiles (including " Tomahawks»Air and sea-based) its medium-range missiles, in the production of which it had a technological advantage. The United States withdrew sea and air-launched cruise missiles from the Treaty (promising that they would be in service exclusively in non-nuclear weapons), but at the same time completely deprived the USSR / Russia of an entire class of strategic weapons in exchange for the elimination of their similar INF for them are not important.
That is, at that moment, the United States could solve strategic issues without medium-range missiles, but Russia could not, and therefore It was beneficial for Washington to destroy these missiles... Now, much to the chagrin of the Americans, it turned out that in terms of high-precision weapons (including cruise and ballistic missiles), Russia has seriously surpassed them, and in the near future it will increase this superiority. Moreover, Moscow can do this, formally without breaking INF Treaty.
Thus, the restoration of the medium-range missile class in service was necessary for Washington solely so that its technological lag behind Moscow does not turn into a factor of its strategic helplessness. After all, you and I understand that a T-90 tank can destroy a T-34 tank without even coming within the target range of its gun (not to mention effective hits). With rockets too. It is not just the rocket that is important, but its tactical and technical data.
But in the same way that an outdated tank can destroy its supermodern sibling if it gets close enough to effectively defeat it, the shortcomings of a missile weapon can be compensated for by the proximity of its placement.
This is where the danger lies. If the United States has not yet lost the technology for the production of those medium-range missiles that were in service with them in the 1980s, then they can relatively quickly stamp hundreds of the same " Pershing-2". The next question is: where will they be placed? From the territory of the United States, they will not finish off Russia. There are three options: Europe, Japan and South Korea... It is not a fact that Seoul will agree to participate in a new round of the arms race, given its honeymoon with Pyongyang and outright fears of being exposed by the United States to a retaliatory strike from North Korean or Chinese missiles. And you can shoot from the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese Islands only at Far East, where the targets for these missiles, frankly, are few and they are well covered.
American Pershing II medium-range missiles
Last time, the main positioning areas of medium-range missiles were located by the United States in Western Europe (in Germany, UK, Italy, Denmark). Then the flight time of "Pershing" to Smolensk was 6 minutes, to Moscow - up to 10 minutes. This drastically reduced the time to make a decision in crisis situation and increased the likelihood of an accidental conflict. That is why then the Soviet leadership, as now the Russian, warned that the United States began dangerous game, fraught with a breakdown into an uncontrollable conflict that could instantly escalate into a full-scale nuclear war.
Now it is far from certain that the Americans will be able to deploy missiles in the same countries as in the last century. So far only United Kingdom unequivocally supported the United States, stating that it no longer considers itself bound by the INF Treaty. Germany and Italy will clearly not be delighted if they receive such an offer. Besides Trump launched an economic war against the EU, directed with its edge just against Old Europe.
But there is New Europe. Who can guarantee that Poland, Baltics and joined them Ukraine will hesitate for a long time after receiving an offer from the United States to place Pershing (or something similar) on their territory? But then the flight time of missiles to Moscow will be no more than 3-4 minutes, and to St. Petersburg and at all minute and a half.
This is the situation in which any accident can provoke a preemptive strike. Moreover, in a situation where it is applied to the launching positions of American nuclear missiles, it is possible, without further ado, to immediately launch intercontinental missiles at Washington as well. Anyway, breaking the conflict into a full-scale nuclear one will be a matter of several minutes, at best, several hours.
This is what Putin spoke about in Valdai, when he promised the aggressors that we would go to heaven, and they would simply die.
The system of international treaties designed to ensure nuclear stability was based on the treaties on the MTCR (non-proliferation of missile technologies), the NPT (non-proliferation of nuclear weapons), ABM (missile defense), SALT-1 and SALT-2 (on the limitation of strategic offensive arms), START- 1, START-2, SNP, START-3 and RIAC.
The MTCR and NPT treaties have practically become meaningless pieces of paper. Spit on them, got nuclear weapons India and Pakistan... Informally a nuclear power and Israel, the capabilities of which are estimated at 100-200 tactical nuclear warheads, but the "civilized world" pretends not to be aware of the violation of the treaty by a permanently belligerent country. Well, after the DPRK was not only able to implement its nuclear program, but also with the help of received from Ukraine technologies to create all missile classes, including intercontinental ones, there is no need to talk about the effectiveness of the MTCR and NPT treaties. What has managed Kim Chen In, anyone whose international weight is even slightly larger than that of Swaziland or Lesotho can.
As you know, the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty.
The SALT I Treaty limited strategic arsenals at levels reached by the end of 1972 (which is tens of thousands of carriers). The SALT II Treaty did not enter into force, since the US Senate blocked its ratification in connection with the introduction of Soviet troops into Afghanistan. The START-1 and SORT treaties are not relevant, since they were replaced by the START-3 Treaty, which slightly reduced the total number of deployed carriers compared to the SORT. The START II Treaty (which prohibited the equipping of missiles with MIRVs) was signed in 1993, ratified by the State Duma in 2000, and already in 2002 Russia withdrew due to the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.
Thus, today, after the announced withdrawal of the United States from the RMSD from the entire system of international treaties regulating the system of strategic potentials, only the START-3 Treaty is actually in effect but it means little in the unfolding arms race.
Perhaps the United States wants to repeat the successful attempt at blackmail of the 1980s, which forced the USSR to make concessions and ultimately contributed to its final collapse. But the situation is fundamentally different. First, Russia has relevant experience and knows that “Gentlemen” cannot be trusted at their word, and the treaties they sign - too... Secondly, if Russia is still moving along an ascending line both in politics and in the economy, then in the United States, at best, we can talk about stagnation. However, Trump prefers to talk about the crisis that he wants to overcome and "make America great again." Thirdly, in terms of military technology in the last century, the USSR was catching up, and now the United States is catching up. Fourthly, the stories with the 5th generation fighters, the latest destroyers and littoral ships show blatant inefficiency of the US military-industrial complex when the funds are mastered gigantic, and the result is absent. Fifth, in the last century, all world centers of power (USA, EU, China, Japan) were against the USSR, which was forced to stretch its meager military, political, financial, economic and diplomatic resources to confront everyone. Now even Japan does not quite unconditionally support the United States. In Europe, they were left with Great Britain, torn apart by internal contradictions, and part of the poor young Europeans. They are in a tougher confrontation with China than with us, and now they are also talking about imposing sanctions against India.
In general, if we proceed from the actions of the United States as from an attempt at blackmail, then it is doomed to failure. But this does not negate the military danger of such games. If you fry kebabs on a barrel of gunpowder, sooner or later it will explode. So new system international treaties aimed at limiting, reducing, and ideally eliminating nuclear arsenals will have to be developed. But first, it is necessary for the United States to realize its place in the new world and come to terms with it.
Arms Race 2.0: What could the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty lead to?
More detailed and a variety of information about the events taking place in Russia, Ukraine and other countries of our beautiful planet, can be obtained at Internet Conferences, constantly held on the website "Keys of Knowledge". All Conferences are open and completely free... We invite all those waking up and interested ...
You constantly read articles in the world media in which well-known Western journalists and analysts talk about a preventive strike by the United States and the West on Russia with the subtext: will it endure, or maybe not, and is it time? As a kind of self-evident opportunity. After all, Russia, the Western media shout, is so "aggressive", so the West seems to have the right to do so.
The Italian Il Giornale writes about the Kaliningrad region of the Russian Federation: “Being isolated from Russia, apart from the sea routes, Kaliningrad has always been viewed as a weak link in the new Russian strategy but it was strong enough to inflict maximum damage in the event of a preemptive NATO strike. " According to the American General Frank Gorenk, "this is an extremely dangerous situation."
Italian journalists and American generals came to the conclusion that a preemptive strike on Kaliningrad will not bring the desired results, is it too well protected, unfortunately? The recent meeting between Nuland and Surkov in the same Kaliningrad was deciphered by the Western media as a warning to Nuland about an "imminent attack" by NATO on Russia.
Recently, the BBC again distinguished itself: it shot a kind of "documentary", using video footage of the war in Donbass, the film "The Third World War: at the command post ". This is, so to speak, a warning film, with the arguments of well-known British ex-politicians, about how the "aggression" of Russia against Latvia, with the use of an atomic one against an English warship, might (or will?) Look like. And in Sweden, nuclear strikes are simulated in the exercises Russian aviation, says the whole NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg in pursuit, but without proof ...
Strictly speaking, this is called the preparation of the Western man in the street for a sudden "disarming" NATO attack on Russia, and its justification. Especially considering the insults and defamation the Russian president already by US and British government officials.
And at this time, analysts of "aggressive Russia" are like water in their mouths, and are afraid to say the word in its characteristic "aggressive manner." Let's break this vicious tradition.
On the one hand, we repeat, we see the preparation of not only the Western, but also the world public opinion to a preemptive US nuclear strike against Russia, supposedly "disarming" and therefore almost "humane". If Russia did not have atomic weapons, the US atomic attack on Russia-USSR took place long ago, according to the already declassified American Dropshot plan, or an attack on Russia took place according to the Yugoslav scenario, which many Western high-ranking political analysts openly dream about. The nuclear forces of Russia prevent the Yugoslav-Russian scenario from being realized, but the information aggression of the West has already begun ...
I understand this danger, given the increasing propaganda aggression in the Western media against Russia, which is actually a preparation for a military attack (this is how Hitlerite Germany acted before its blitzkriegs), maybe Russia should also speculate about a preventive humane "disarming" strike against the West, from USA to Europe? Why not, if the West publicly discusses such strategies?
Our "Stratfor" could say in response that in Big game There are no coincidences, and the West's propaganda attack on Russia is a harbinger of a sudden and treacherous military attack. Russia is trying to warn the West about the consequences, and therefore the military operation of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria is being carried out - this is a demonstration of the military capabilities of Russia. That, for example, what can happen in Ukraine if Russia has to conduct a peacekeeping operation there to disarm Bandera's neo-Nazi formations. In order not to have to use the aerospace forces in Ukraine, Russia is conducting demonstration combat exercises in Syria.
By the way, Bandera's incantations about the imminent disintegration of Russia, thanks to which Banderia will flourish, suggest that the imminent attack of the West on Russia is considered by the Bandera propagandists to be a done deal. After all, Banderia herself is part of the plan of attack on Russia, a springboard for this. Some American generals in the summer of 2015 said bluntly that American missiles and Bandera bayonets would defeat Russia. And the Kiev Hitlers painted on billboards the entrance of the ukrovermacht to Moscow.
It is not clear what they think at the same time, since in the event of the Great War, Ukraine will become the main field of this war, and what it will turn into is difficult even to imagine. While Russia can count on preserving its eastern regions and Siberia. However, what to say about the Galician raguli, when the European sages set up US bases on their territory.
Therefore, Russia may demand an immediate end to the propaganda aggression in the Western media, and the disavowal of already published provocative materials, such as the war in the Baltic states from the BBC. And the denazification of the Bandera regime. If this does not happen, Russia can take this information war seriously as a preparation for a sudden military attack on it, that a war with the West is inevitable ...
In a situation of propaganda aggression, the "human factor" may be superimposed on a failure in the computer networks of the RF Ministry of Defense, or some other accident, and the West itself may receive the first "disarming" humane blow. Yes, then Russia will compensate for the damage caused, within reasonable limits and from a position of strength. After all, in the end, the West itself is to blame: with its plans of preventive strikes and its propaganda campaign, it provoked a "global humane" strike by Russia, and it also began to consider it possible.
At the same time, most likely, there will be no Russian invasion of either the Baltics, Georgia, Europe or America, which Stratfor and the BBC broadcast about. What for? Whom we need to get, we will get it anyway! - President Putin has already answered this question. There is no operational need for this.
In general, Russia has nothing to lose today. Russia-USSR surrendered the Warsaw Pact to the West, surrendered its union republics, so what? Were we left alone? The groveling in front of the West of our liberal column speaks of what the "civilized" West Russia will be like. In the humane opinion of our liberals, Russia must endure and defend itself, but so as not to harm the West and the progress of its gay-like values. And why do we need such values and liberal groveling?
For some reason, our liberal column is sure that the military and economic might of the United States is forever, that it is a kind of constant, not subject to the influence of time, crises and disasters. We'll see, let's not rush. Let's preserve the sovereignty of Russia, and there, you see, the United States will fall apart like the USSR. Freedom for the enslaved peoples of America and Europe!
The task of our liberals is to generate pro-Western, decadent sentiments in Russia, and to justify the need for Russia to retreat to the West, to surrender positions further and further. Stanislav Belkovsky, who talked about Putin's wealth on the BBC, said honestly on the air of Echo of Moscow that he usually does not like it: “Russia needs the West to push it.” And we answer him: the West needs Russia to calibrate it. And our liberal column also really needs it ...
