As everyone knows, at the moment there is only one superpower in the world - the USA. shows that all powerful powers tried to expand their possessions (or, as they now say, their sphere of interests) as much as possible. This was the case with the Roman, British and Russian empires. America is no exception: those in power are well aware that stopping the expansion of the sphere of influence in the world means the imminent demise of a superpower.
The difference between the United States and other empires lies in the fact that, firstly, the Americans have a huge nuclear stockpile, and also in the fact that the government still retained firm power within the country, and, most importantly, the foreign policy appetite that has always been inherent in our overseas "partners".
Meanwhile, two other powerful countries are rising to their feet - Russia and China, which do not want to sacrifice their national interests one iota. Like two thunderstorm fronts or two tectonic plates, a clash of interests between the great powers of our time is coming. No matter how intelligent a person is and no matter what brain centers work on both sides of the front, man is not yet able to overcome his old natural instincts. To understand this, it is enough to look at what is happening in the world.
Why will a disaster happen in the near future? Let's look first at the financial markets, which, like the tides, rise and fall. Such cyclicality is inherent in markets, but not only. Similarly, we observe a cyclical pattern in wars: a crisis is followed by a war, after which a period of formation begins. And so on. The same thing happens with earthquakes in seismically unstable areas. Considering that for quite a long time, humanity as a whole lived without major wars or upheavals, it is logical to assume that we have come just to the very cliff when a rapid decline begins. In financial terms, the market has hit a resistance level, which in most cases means a downward rebound. And the stronger the growth, the faster the fall will be.
So, there are historical, natural and even financial signals that a catastrophe is coming. But why, if nuclear war was avoided during the Cuban Missile Crisis, will this not happen now? Paradoxically, the answer lies in the progress of technology and the knowledge that has accumulated since then. The fact is that both the Americans and the Russians realized one simple thing: a nuclear war does not always mean the complete disappearance of humanity or the destruction of the planet. Radiation damage or the consequences of nuclear strikes are overestimated due to the fact that this area is unknown to humanity. And everything unknown is overgrown with myths and horror stories.
Proof of this is the Chernobyl disaster or the bombing of Japanese cities with nuclear bombs in 1945. Few people know that as a result of the Chernobyl accident, only 31 people died in the first 3 months, and up to 100 more within a year. These were the heroes who visited the epicenter of a radioactive fire. And, for example, life returned to Hiroshima and Nagasaki quite quickly, and now about 1.6 million people live there with an average life expectancy of 80 years.
In addition to these facts, we must not forget that a certain part of the ballistic missiles or warheads will be shot down. Warning of the missile launch will be given in advance, and most residents will be able to take shelter underground. If we consider the territories of two potential adversaries - the United States and the Russian Federation, then it is also easy to come to the conclusion that after the strikes there will be a place where it will be possible to start a new life. In addition, now there are quite effective methods for disinfecting territories after nuclear strikes, after which you can safely return back like the same Japanese.
Both the military and politicians know all this, so the line between the outbreak of a nuclear war has become more vague than before. They are ready to step over the red line more readily. And if the western tectonic plate continues its systematic movement to the east, then an earthquake with nuclear fallout will definitely not be avoided. Which, based on my observations, will happen in the next couple of years.
People who think about defense policy and national security for a living like things to fit into neat boxes, the kind that can be shown on PowerPoint slides. If you are unlucky enough to find yourself sitting next to two Pentagon-speaking officials at a reception, you will notice that their speech is full of acronyms for obscure projects and arcane government departments, and that they regularly refer to strategic concepts and systems, in including the venerable “triad” of nuclear deterrence.
The "triad" concept states that when a country has land-, air-, and sea-launched nuclear weapons, it significantly increases its chances of retaliating after a nuclear attack. For example, as for the United States and the USSR during the Cold War, if one of the sides delivered a first strike, which destroyed the enemy’s ground and air-based systems, they were left with submarines capable of delivering a crushing second strike. The prospect of nuclear war was so terrible that it was long called the absolute and universal deterrent, which made a real armed conflict between NATO and the Warsaw Pact unthinkable.
With the end of the Cold War in 1991, the chances of a nuclear conflict seemed to diminish even further, although the proliferation of nuclear weapons continued. But no one expected the level of hostility towards Russia that is now completely obvious. And today all the talk in the Pentagon is again about how to win the war against a clearly strengthening Moscow. Russian President Vladimir Putin, for his part, withdrew from the nuclear security treaty this week, citing "hostile actions" by the United States.
Context
Refusing the possibility of a first strike is nonsense
The National Interest 08/05/2016US: revive nuclear deterrence strategy
American Thinker 03/11/2016How dangerous is “plutonium blackmail”?
Ukrainian Truth 05.10.2016Is Poland in danger of a nuclear attack?
Rzeczpospolita 08/24/2016Of course, much of the Pentagon's hostility toward Moscow is due to budgetary reasons. Generals and admirals need a more powerful and formidable enemy than “international terrorism” in order to justify increasing the role of their branches of the armed forces and branches of the armed forces. Recent claims by staff officers that the Russian military is superior to the American army are credible only if you count the tanks, not the planes and helicopters of the opposing forces. The alarm raised by former general and self-promoting new politician Wesley Clark, who claimed that Russia had built an “invulnerable” tank, was met with ridicule. Many of the statements regarding Russia's modern weapons systems come from the Ukrainian authorities, who clearly need reasons to ask the United States for advanced offensive weapons and military assistance.
The reality is that, apart from its nuclear arsenal, Russia is like the proverbial mouse that growled. Its struggling economy produces a gross national product roughly equal to Italy's, and it spends seven times less on defense than the United States. Russia has one aircraft carrier versus 10 American ones, six times fewer helicopters, three times fewer fighter jets, and more than two times fewer active-duty personnel. It has no effective military allies, while the US allies are almost all the countries of Eastern and Western Europe that are members of NATO.
Official American policy is that NATO provides conventional deterrence to such an extent that Russia has no desire to enter into conflict with members of the alliance, since it could be defeated in the shortest possible time. But Russia will have certain advantages if it attacks without warning, relying on internal communications and deploying superior forces in some areas. And the reliability of a coordinated response by the North Atlantic Alliance can be doubted, since the basis for NATO's existence is becoming increasingly less, although the alliance is expanding its ranks, and recently included Montenegro. One American army officer recently remarked to journalist Mark Perry: “How many British soldiers do you think are willing to die for Estonia?”
The problem with organizing a credible conventional defense is that there is a second level of deterrence: the nuclear umbrella extended over Europe by the United States, Britain and France. American leaders had previously assumed that Washington and NATO would not be the first to use nuclear weapons in the event of a conflict, but this could never be called a real policy. And last month, reports emerged that President Obama wanted to endorse a no-first-use pledge, but his own Cabinet rejected the proposal, with Defense Secretary Ash Carter calling the pledge a "sign of weakness." Two liberal congressmen then introduced a bill to prohibit the United States from launching a nuclear first strike, but it has little support and appears likely to die in committee.
Carter, who calls nuclear weapons a "strong foundation" and a "guarantee" of American security, recently spoke at several U.S. bases that house Minuteman missiles. He said the United States and its European allies are now “refreshing” American strategy by integrating conventional and nuclear weapons systems to “discourage Russia from thinking that it would gain an advantage by using nuclear weapons in a conflict with NATO.” Carter explained that Moscow does not want to comply with "multiple years of agreements on the use of nuclear weapons" and this raises serious doubts that it is exercising "the same extreme caution in the use of nuclear weapons as Cold War leaders."
Ash Carter also noted: “If deterrence fails, you must present to the President options for achieving the goals of the United States and its allies... to reduce the risk of using nuclear weapons in the first place.” He emphasized America's "willingness and ability" to act. It should be noted that Carter did not say that the United States would not be the first to use nuclear weapons. He made it clear that such weapons are part of the arsenal of tools to respond to what he believes is a growing Russian threat.
By all accounts, Carter is an anti-Russian hawk. And by training he is a physicist, and to a certain extent an expert on the use of nuclear weapons. Some of the changes he has made to our nuclear deterrence policy were recently featured on CBS's 60 Minutes, which aired a series on the state of America's nuclear arsenal. Officers aboard the Ohio-class nuclear-powered submarine have openly talked about how combat readiness has been raised to Cold War levels since Russia's invasion of Crimea. The film also discusses a relatively new tactic called "escalate to de-escalate," which involves disrupting a conventional offensive with a show-stopping nuclear strike. Such a strike should be a warning that more will follow if the offensive continues.
The concept of launching a nuclear strike as a warning is not new. America considered the option of using nuclear weapons acceptable during the two Iraq wars, reserving it in case Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and demonstrated readiness to use them. Nuclear strikes were to be included in the combat plan in the event of a war between the United States and Iran. But all the calculations have changed, because the weapons themselves have become more modern and sophisticated.
New tactical nuclear weapons, such as the latest version of the US B61 bomb, are small and easily transportable. A nuclear charge can be dropped from an aircraft, delivered to a target by a cruise missile, or even from a ground facility or vehicle. Next, the operator can “tune” the power of the explosion by setting it on the bomb itself. This means that a demonstrative nuclear strike could be essentially a nuclear strike, but with limited impact to reduce military and civilian casualties. According to some generals and politicians, this selectivity makes the bomb an effective means of preventing rather than escalating hostilities—and making the weapon much more acceptable and usable as a result.
Of course, the Russians also have such weapons, and according to some sources, their arsenal is now more modern than the American one. The principles of Russian military doctrine were recently clearly explained by Putin. According to him, Moscow retains the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of a threat to Russia's existence. This could be interpreted as Putin acknowledging that Russian conventional forces would not survive a direct confrontation with American forces, and as a warning that Russia may be forced to launch a nuclear strike first in self-defense early in the conflict.
Therefore, it must be concluded that both sides opposing each other in Eastern Europe may, under certain circumstances, use nuclear weapons. No one asks the opinion of the Poles and Slovaks, whose land could become a target for such a demonstration, but the governments of these countries officially agree with NATO's strategy to contain Russia. But Germany is seriously nervous about such saber rattling, since memories of the Red Army are still fresh there.
Articles on the topic
Lethal nuclear arsenal personnel
The National Interest 10/05/2016“What time is Buratin” to evaluate Hillary’s self-promotion
The Washington Post 10/05/2016 Die Welt 10/04/2016Is Russia preparing for war?
The National Interest 09/15/2016Are there any scary signs that some high-ranking army officers may be making a mess of themselves, confident that the war against Russia can be won? Wesley Clark, who, as is known, tried to provoke a confrontation with Russian peacekeepers in Kosovo in 1999, can be called such an insane source of increased danger. An even more reckless General Philip Breedlove (who retired this year), as NATO's commander in chief in Europe, persistently sought to drag the Alliance and the United States into a proxy war over Ukraine. Among the leaked information is an email suggesting that Breedlove, together with the UN Secretary General, develop “a NATO strategy to persuade, cajole or compel the United States to respond to the Russian threat.” Breedlove found the idea "very promising." The general, who systematically lied about the extent of the Russian presence in Ukraine, hysterically called Moscow “a long-term existential threat to the United States and our European allies.” Breedlove also maintained ties to Under Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, who helped organize the coup to overthrow the Ukrainian government in 2014.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton calls Putin the new Hitler, and the New York Times writes in its editorials about “the illegal state of Vladimir Putin.” The real threat here is that the Russian people are watching this demonstration with concern and may at some point believe that an implacable enemy is trying to back them into a corner. Putin has warned several times about Russia's growing sense of being encircled and in grave danger due to NATO's ongoing expansion and threats made against it over Russian actions in Syria. Public opinion polls show that the average Russian today expects war with the West.
The insistence of numerous Western representatives that Putin must be confronted, using force if necessary, is based on a gross exaggeration of the degree of threat emanating from Moscow. That nuclear weapons are now clearly included in NATO's deterrence plans, as well as in Russian defense plans, should be a dire warning to all those who care about what happens next.
Philip Geraldi is a former CIA officer who now works as director of the non-governmental organization Council for the National Interest.
InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.
The worsening situation in Syria and the increased degree of tension in the presidential election campaign taking place in America have raised a new wave of talk about a possible nuclear war between Russia and the United States. The sharp speeches of representatives of the American political and military elite helped to achieve this wave of contradictions the size of a tsunami.
At one of the seminars held in early October at the Pentagon, the head of the US Army, Mark Milley, said that the likelihood of a military clash between the two nuclear powers is very high. His words that this was guaranteed in the near future sounded especially frightening. Milley openly told the world community that the gap between Russia and the United States is no longer at the door, but on the threshold, and it only needs to take one step to be in everyone’s home.
Never before has World War III come so close to humanity with the use of . American General William Hicks managed to scare the world even more than Millie. He made a statement that a deadly and rapid attack between countries could happen in the very near future. China did not stand aside either. The eastern power, which has nuclear weapons in its arsenal, is not excluded by the Americans from the list of potential adversaries who could find themselves on the same side as Russia in .
Expert opinions on a possible nuclear conflict between the Russian Federation and America
A nuclear war between Russia and the United States benefits no one. This opinion can be heard from many experts. Their opinion is no different from the thoughts of ordinary people. Experts from around the world believe that World War III is possible. Among them are such authoritative Russian military experts as Alexander Sharavin, Leonid Ivashov, Viktor Esin, as well as Alexander Vladimirov. All of them are heads of institutes dealing with security issues and. Back in 2007, they expressed this version of possible events in the media.
During this period, they shared their assessments of the situation in an interview with Komsomolskaya Pravda correspondent Viktor Barants. In their opinion, the Americans will definitely provoke a military conflict that will lead to a direct clash between the largest countries. This is dangerous for all humanity, because they have nuclear weapons in a state of full combat readiness.
The world has crossed the threshold when a nuclear war between Russia and the United States is already accepted as a given and disputes are conducted only about the timing of its start. Some say that it will not begin until after the presidential elections in America, while others believe that it will begin in a matter of weeks. Against the backdrop of these reflections, Mrs. Merkel declares the need to introduce tough new sanctions against Russia for its actions in Syria, Holland accuses the Russians of war crimes in the Middle East, and Putin, having conducted civil defense exercises throughout the country and ordered the inspection of all bomb shelters, signs a during the visit to Turkey, an agreement with it on the previously planned construction of a gas pipeline.
The opinion of experts that a large-scale Third World War could begin as early as 2016 is based on an analysis of the situation in the United States. It seems that in the near future all that will remain of the external prosperity that the Russian liberal public loves to sing its praises will be a sign. The aggressive actions of the American military hide the beginning of the collapse of the US economy.
The population of the planet listens with great attention to the optimistic forecasts of experts. In an interview with the Izvestia newspaper, Richard Weitz, director of the Hudson Center for Military and Political Studies, shared his opinion that World War III between the United States and Russia is unlikely. Despite their belligerent rhetoric, the leadership of these countries is well aware of the danger of a nuclear conflict. The nuclear weapons accumulated by these states are capable of destroying life on the planet within a very short time, after which the planet will no longer be suitable for life and will resemble a parched desert, like Mars.
Syria or Ukraine - where the Third World War will begin
It is the factor that forces countries competing with each other to look for platforms for confrontation away from their own territories. The most likely areas of direct conflict would be Syria and Ukraine. In his recent interview with Deutsche Welle TV channel, Foreign Minister Pavel Klimkin stated openly that Ukraine will not comply with the Minsk agreements.
Despite all efforts, the escalation of the military confrontation in Donbass is not decreasing. According to rumors, American snipers arrived at the line of contact between the parties. The current situation in Syria is much more acute. Experts do not rule out the possibility that the United States could use nuclear weapons in this area. But they consider this option the last step of despair and powerlessness of the Americans in front of the Russian armed forces.
At present, the United States is not ready to launch full-scale military operations in either Syria or Ukraine. In Syria, the coastline of the state is controlled by the Russian Navy. At a meeting of the US Senate Military Committee held on September 22, 2016, General Joseph Dunford said that closing the skies to flights over Syria can only be done by declaring war on this country and Russia, which he is not ready to do.
It is quite possible that before the end of this year active military operations will begin in the Donbass. The fires of war may be kindled in Asia. An early meeting of the leaders of Russia and China on the sidelines of the BRICS summit can change a lot in the balance of power. The latter has already stated the need to create a joint military bloc. This may dampen the American desire to fight the Russians. The list of US enemies is constantly growing. Now, in addition to Russia, it also includes China, Iran and North Korea.
The Americans' desire to start World War III with Russia could be cooled by the latter's placement of military bases in Egypt, Vietnam, and Cuba. Russian Navy ships will now be permanently based in Tartus. This will significantly strengthen the Russian protective belt outside the country.
In the last one and a half to two years, the global geopolitical situation has worsened significantly. Russia's relations with Ukraine, Georgia, the EU, the USA, Japan, Canada, Australia and other countries have deteriorated. The countries exchanged mutual sanctions. The military confrontation between the United States and Russia has also intensified, and normal relations between Russia and Ukraine have been practically destroyed.
The US is testing new types of weapons. Recently, a new modernized atomic bomb was tested. Russia is also constantly testing promising types of weapons. Military aircraft and ships of NATO and Russia periodically collide and display unfriendly behavior. Against this background, Ukraine continues to passive-aggressively destroy the east of its own country. The whole thing looks very alarming.
WILL THERE BE WAR IN RUSSIA IN 2016?
In general, people are afraid of two scenarios. This is the war between Russia and Ukraine in 2016. Which is scary. But even worse is the possible war between Russia and the United States in 2016. However, both scenarios look almost impossible.
If in Ukraine the adequacy of the top leadership raises questions, then in Russia the main people in the country think soberly and will never allow a war with Ukraine. Such a scenario could lead to conflict with NATO countries.
The conflict between Russia and NATO is also very dangerous, given that NATO member countries have nuclear weapons and a large number of powerful cruise missiles and other non-nuclear weapons. The war between Russia and the United States also extremely frightens people, because an exchange of nuclear strikes will lead to the fact that there will be no winners.
The United States is developing a lightning strike strategy, which provides for the rapid destruction of all the most important components of Russia's infrastructure, and the missile defense (missile defense) system should protect against a retaliatory strike from Russia.
However, no one knows how the missile defense system will work against Russian missiles. In addition, Russia is developing promising hypersonic missiles that are almost impossible to shoot down. Russia also has a nuclear triad - nuclear-armed submarines, static nuclear silos, and nuclear-armed air forces. Also, no one knows whether the “Perimeter, Dead Hand” system, a system of automatic retaliation from Russia if it is seriously hit, is currently working. No US leader in his right mind would attack Russia. Rather, in the United States they are escalating the situation with their rhetoric, focusing on the domestic voter.
However, recently the United States named Russia one of the main threats to the world and specifically to the United States. But it is obvious that Russia does not threaten the States, Europe or anyone else.
IN THE DRY RESIDUE
Of course, there will be no large-scale war in Russia in 2016. You don't need to be a military analyst or psychic to do this. Our country suffered so much war in the 20th century that now the country's population could be twice as large as it is. And we still feel the demographic waves that remained with us after World Wars 1 and 2. And considering that Russia is spending astronomical amounts of money on rearming its army with the most modern equipment, no one will dare to attack us.
Recently, the previously forgotten threat of a third world war is again a topic of general discussion. A week ago, US and Russian military vehicles almost collided in Syria. NATO is increasing its military potential on the border with our country and is not going to give up hostile rhetoric. What are the scenarios for a possible military conflict? We need to think about this in order to prevent the not entirely adequate actions of our “Western partners,” who have long since turned back into “probable adversaries.”
Military analyst Valentin Vasilescu from Romania, a country at the forefront of NATO's anti-Russian front, is trying to answer this question based on the tactics and characteristics of the weapons used in recent US military operations. On the pages of the English-language analytical center "Katekhon" he argues that aggression by the United States and its allies against Russia is not an excluded scenario. The United States is obliged to stop Russia at any cost, which, through its actions in Syria, and before that in Crimea and Ukraine, is changing the American-centric status quo. In order to maintain hegemony, the Americans are heading towards a big war.
Main direction of impact
According to Vasilescu, the main direction where we can expect a US strike is the west. "The United States is not planning a landing in the Russian Far East; instead, like Napoleon and Hitler, the United States will seek to occupy the strategically important capital of the country - Moscow", he sums up. According to him, the goal of Euromaidan was initially to create a convenient springboard for aggression against Russia. Lugansk, the analyst notes, is located only 600 kilometers from Moscow. However, the plan of American aggression was preventively thwarted after the reunification of Russia with Crimea and the creation of people's republics in the East of Ukraine.
After this, the plan of American aggression was revised, and the Baltic direction was chosen as the new zone of aggression. From the Latvian border to Moscow is the same 600 kilometers, and to St. Petersburg it’s even closer. To ensure that the local population did not resent the fact that their countries would soon be turned into a springboard for aggression, the American and local media and generals began to talk in unison about the fact that the Baltic and Northern European countries were in danger of attack from Russia. Norway even launched a series about the future Russian occupation.
In addition, the United States increased pressure on Sweden and Finland. They are not joining NATO yet, but they have already deployed American troops. Moreover, in May 2016, the northern quintet - a meeting of the foreign ministers of Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and Iceland - announced that it was urgent to neutralize the Russian threat. Defense cooperation between Swedish-Finnish neutrals and NATO members was proposed as a way out.
According to Valentin Vasilescu, NATO's main task is to inflict a quick defeat on Russia, which will force the country's political system to collapse. Pro-American agents of influence will overthrow Vladimir Putin, and the war can be considered won. Therefore, the United States will act according to Hitler’s logic, relying on blitzkrieg tactics. In the event of Russia's defeat, NATO will occupy territories up to the line St. Petersburg - Veliky Novgorod - Kaluga - Tver and Volgograd.
At the same time, as the expert notes, due to the rapid modernization of the Chinese army, which will pose a serious danger to the United States in the Pacific theater of operations, the Pentagon will not be able to throw all the necessary forces and means against Russia. At least a third of all US armed forces will have to be concentrated in the Pacific region, anticipating a possible attack from China, now allied with Russia.
Probable time of impact
According to a military analyst, the US only has a chance of success if it invades before 2018. After 2018, the chances of success will decrease significantly, since after the completion of the rearmament of the Russian army begun under Sergei Shoigu, the Pentagon will lose its technological advantage in conventional weapons. And in order to win the war, you will have to resort to nuclear weapons - and this is a step towards mutual nuclear destruction.
War in the air - colossal losses
The main targets of the first wave of air raids will be Russian airfields and air defense systems. Russia is armed with high-quality fighters and mobile anti-aircraft systems capable of detecting and destroying even a fifth-generation American aircraft. Therefore, even with the support of NATO allies, the US military will not be able to achieve air superiority. With great effort, they can achieve temporary air superiority in some areas along the Russian border, 300 kilometers deep. In order to secure flights in those areas where Russian air defense systems are actively operating, the Americans will be forced to throw at least 220 aircraft into the first wave of attack (including 15 B-2 bombers, 160 F-22A and 45 F-35). The B-2 can carry 16 GBU-31 laser-guided bombs (900 kg), 36 GBU-87 cluster bombs (430 kg), or 80 GBU-38 bombs (200 kg). The F-22A can carry 2 JDAM bombs (450 kg) or 8 bombs of 110 kg each.
A serious obstacle for the Americans will be the fact that the AGM-88E missiles, designed to combat air defense systems with a range of 160 kilometers, are too large to be loaded inside the F-22A and F-35s (4.1 m long and 1 m high). If they are installed on pylons, the vaunted “invisibility” of these aircraft will suffer. Previously, this problem did not arise, since in the last 20 years the United States has waged wars exclusively against opponents with outdated air defense systems.
F-22A
As for the F-22A, they will mostly be shot down. As the expert notes, Pentagon reports indicate that the US military was satisfied with the results of using the F-117 (the first fifth-generation aircraft in the US Air Force) in Kuwait and Yugoslavia and intended to replace outdated models with new aircraft. The Pentagon planned to order 750 F-22As to replace the F-16 aircraft. However, Russia has developed the 96L6E radar capable of detecting American stealth systems. As a result, the Pentagon reduced the order to 339 F-22A aircraft. While the Americans were developing and testing these aircraft, Russia acquired S-400 systems capable of detecting these aircraft. As a result, only 187 F-22A aircraft entered the US Air Force.
In order to complicate the task of Russian air defense systems, the United States will fire more than 500-800 cruise missiles from ships and submarines in the Baltic Sea. Russian aircraft, primarily MiG-31 fighters, and air defense systems will be able to neutralize most of these missiles, the expert is sure, but that is not all that the Americans can use.
At the same time, F-18, F-15E, B-52 and B-1B aircraft, being at a safe distance from the Russian border and not entering the range of the S-400 systems, will strike with AGM-154 mini-cruise missiles or AGM-158, whose range is up to 1000 kilometers. They can hit ships of the Russian Baltic Fleet and missile batteries of the Iskander and Tochka complexes. If successful, the Americans will be able to neutralize 30 percent of the Russian radar network, 30 percent of the S-300 and S-400 battalions stationed between Moscow and the Baltic countries, and 40 percent of the components of the automated reconnaissance, control, communications and target designation system, in addition, airfields will be affected. The departure of more than 200 planes and helicopters will be blocked.
"Iskander-M"
However, the expected losses of the Americans and their allies will be 60-70 percent of the aircraft and cruise missiles that will enter Russian airspace during the first wave of air raids and strikes.
But what will be the most important obstacle to NATO forces gaining air supremacy? According to the expert, these are effective means of electronic warfare.
We are talking about the Krasukha-4 complexes of the SIGINT and COMINT types. These systems can effectively conduct electronic warfare against US LaCrosse and Onyx tracking satellites, ground-based and air-based radars (AWACS), including those located on RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft and Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk drones.
According to the expert, the electronic warfare systems in service with the Russian troops can effectively interfere with American bombs and missiles with laser, infrared and GPS guidance.
Russia can also create two zones on the border with the Baltic countries in the areas of St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad that are impenetrable to enemy aircraft, combining air defense systems (S-400, Tor-M2 and Pantsir-2M) and electronic warfare.
Currently, 8 S-400 battalions protect the skies around the Russian capital, one is in Syria. In total, the Russian armed forces have 20-25 S-400 battalions. Some of them could be redeployed to the western border along with 130 S-300 battalions, which could be upgraded and equipped with the 96L6E radar, which effectively detects NATO stealth systems. Currently, an even more advanced air defense system, the S-500, is being tested, which is expected to enter service with the troops in 2017.
The author is confident that due to Russia's advantage in electronic warfare, NATO will not be able to achieve an advantage in electronic warfare. As a result, in the first wave of attacks against Russia, NATO forces will strike decoy targets in 60-70 percent of cases. Due to the high losses in the first wave of airstrikes and the inability to achieve air superiority, NATO air forces will suffer high losses. The American group of 5,000 aircraft will be joined by their allies. But they will not be able to provide more than 1,500 aircraft.
War at sea
At sea, the Pentagon can deploy up to 8 aircraft carriers, 8 helicopter carriers, several dozen landing craft, missile carriers, destroyers and submarines. These forces could be joined by two Italian aircraft carriers and one each from Spain and France. Russian anti-ship defense systems - cruise missiles Kh-101 and NK Kalibr - move at subsonic speed and can be neutralized at the initial stage of approach. It will be more difficult for NATO to cope with the P-800 Onyx and P-500 Basalt missiles. And finally, in 2018, the Russian fleet will receive the “aircraft carrier killer” - the 3M22 Zircon missile, capable of traveling at hypersonic speeds at low altitudes. “The United States will not be able to oppose anything to this weapon.”, - the expert concludes.
"Caliber"
Superiority in armored vehicles
The armored vehicles currently in service with the Russian army - the T-90 and T-80 tanks and modernized versions of the T-72 tanks, Vasilescu notes, correspond to their NATO counterparts. According to the expert, only the BMP-2 and BMP-3 are inferior to the American M-2 Bradley.
However, the new T-14 Armata Tank has no analogues in the world. In all respects, it surpasses the German Leopard 2, the American M1A2 Abrams, the French AMX 56 Leclerc, and the British Challenger 2. The same can be said about the T-15 and Kurganets-25 infantry fighting vehicles and the new VPK-7829 Boomerang amphibious armored personnel carrier. After 2018, Russia will have the most modern armored vehicles, which will radically change the balance of forces on the battlefield.
"Leopard-2"
During the Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United States used mobile teams of tanks, vehicles, armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles to breach enemy defenses. The actions of these groups in Russia will need to be supported by massive airborne operations. And here an unpleasant surprise awaits them. If against the Russian Pantsir and Tunguska air defense systems, as well as against the Igla and Strela MANPADS, American combat helicopters and aircraft can use the AN/ALQ-144/147/157 electronic warfare system, then against the 9K333 MANPADS "Verba", entering service with Russian troops in 2016, this equipment is powerless.
Verba's homing sensors are capable of operating simultaneously at three frequencies in the visible and infrared spectra. "Verba" can work in conjunction with the "Barnaul-T" system, responsible for electronic reconnaissance, electronic warfare and automatic control of landing forces. "Barnaul-T" neutralizes the radar of enemy aircraft and interferes with the operation of laser guidance systems for enemy missiles and bombs.
As can be seen from the above analysis, even now a war using conventional weapons can be costly to our Western adversaries. The rearmament of the Russian army, which will take place by 2018, will completely eliminate the technological advantage of the West in the military sphere. The more ready, powerful and equipped our Armed Forces are, the less likely it will be that the West will decide on open war against Russia.