What will happen in the event of a NATO war? What could be the scenario for a war between Russia and NATO? Scary predictions that are already coming true

As is known, in terms of the number of troops and material capabilities, NATO countries are far superior to Russia. Especially in the field of conventional weapons - here only the presence of Russia's nuclear deterrent forces equalizes the chances of the parties. However, it is not enough to have many troops. The main thing is to be able to quickly transfer them to the right place. The ability to maneuver and quickly transfer troops over long distances is the main condition for victory in any war. If such a possibility is difficult or absent, the army, no matter how large it may be, is vulnerable and weak in front of a mobile and agile enemy. It was mobility that at all times decided the outcome of conjugations in the absence of parity of forces between the parties.

It is precisely the problem of troop mobility throughout the history of NATO that has been solved by their unified command and cannot be solved in any way. NATO is a conglomerate of different states, where transport communications, different in standards and structure, built for the movement of vehicles, taking into account military specifics, have poor transport connectivity. Yes, the road network in Europe is dense, but troops move not only along highways. They use a combination of roads, country roads, railways, air and water delivery methods.

Since different countries have their own communications management bodies and their own standards for their operation, the problem of compatibility of a huge number of technical and operational norms and standards naturally arises in NATO. Europe was never initially built as a single theater of military operations, and therefore transport communications there arose spontaneously, historically focusing on trade rather than military purposes and needs.

Everyone remembers the problem of American tanks that were transferred across Poland. Without any war, they got stuck on Polish roads and bridges. In Poland, the roads do not in any way resemble the roads of Russia or Ukraine, but they also became an impassable obstacle for the Abrams group, which was moving under its own power along a given route from the place of delivery to the place of deployment. It's not about off-roading. US tanks are stuck on the asphalt. The roads were not suitable in size, pavement requirements, width, load capacity and bridge passability.

The tanks moved so slowly, with such a subsequent increasing slowdown, that in the event of war many times they would have been destroyed on the march by any means of destruction. And this problem exists not only in relation to Poland. Throughout Western Europe, the inconsistency of technical and legal aspects in the field of different parameters of transport systems and rules of their operation is a real problem. The vast majority of NATO exercises in Europe are aimed at developing coordinated troop transfers. And since the bodies of military and civilian leadership in Europe do not coincide, no matter how European integration and a unified NATO command try to integrate them into a single system, this will never be possible to do as it would be in a single state.

It is precisely because of the political fragmentation of the NATO countries that in military affairs they will always have to spend a lot of time and effort to overcome what was decided in Russia at the beginning of its historical existence.

In Russia, thanks to the unified leadership of a vast territory, all roads, bridges and ports were built as a single transport system, primarily for the purpose of transporting the army. The dimensions and weight of equipment are specified in the standards for roads and bridges. And only secondarily were roads built for peaceful transport. It is the lack of military necessity that causes the traditional Russian lack of roads - if there is no military purpose, the road is not built. And our army is trained in advance to overcome off-road conditions.

In Novorossiysk, the airborne division is calmly transferred several times a year along highways to different training grounds - and no problems arise. The BMD tracked vehicles move under their own power on the asphalt and the asphalt is intact. If more active movement is expected, the equipment is loaded onto wheeled platforms. The roads are intact, the equipment does not get bogged down. Bridges do not create problems. All organizational issues have long been resolved, all interactions have been worked out.

In the event of a declaration of war in mobilization plans, everyone has long known what to do to whom, and no coordination between territories is required. There is a single leadership, and it decided everything a long time ago and worked it out in exercises. The security and supply system along the way, the availability of main and backup communications - all this is decided instantly by a single military command, to which in the event of war all power in the country passes.

During military exercises, Russia solves completely different issues compared to the problem of coordinating and delivering a shipment of weapons from point A to point B with the NATO leadership in Europe. It requires a lot of coordination between military and local civil legal and administrative systems. And even in the event of war, when the military begins to manage all processes, roads that have already been built, where uniform construction standards have not been laid down for certain equipment, the transfer of troops over long distances is still a difficult problem for NATO.

Russia continues to outpace NATO in terms of deployment speed. And this is the most serious argument in the dispute between the two military systems. The US military in Ukraine and the Baltic states is learning how to overcome Russian impassability. They have never tried to fight in the mud. And in Europe, only Germany had such experience - and this experience turned out to be sad for it. This is the specificity of Europe as a theater of military operations. Their tanks are afraid of dirt. As soon as they leave the road, they get stuck in local river banks and road ditches. The pace of the movement of troops stops, turning them into a target.

Of course, Moscow, Washington and Brussels are well aware of this specificity. This is precisely what explains the concern of the NATO command when they see that Russia is capable of transporting 120 thousand troops with headquarters, tanks, troops, armored personnel carriers and missiles almost a thousand kilometers in a few hours, while their tank company is stuck in Polish villages and cannot overcome the distance between the port and the unit in three days.

It is precisely overcoming transport uncoordination in Europe that is the goal of NATO exercises in Europe in general and the Baltic states in particular. A problem that has long been solved in Russia. This gives rise to understandable horror in NATO and understandable sarcasm in Russia. They say, well, train, train. The main thing is don’t start fighting seriously.

Western experts assessed the possibility of a real conflict between Russia and the United States. The forecasts turned out to be disappointing. Most of them believe that war is more likely to happen than not. The only question is when to expect it.

What is happening now between Russia and the West is called a new Cold War, no matter how the parties deny it. Only now, according to the famous American political scientist and president of the Center for National Interests Dmitry Simes, Moscow does not have an attractive international ideology on its side, such as building socialism throughout the world.

In addition, Russia is now more dependent on the West than the USSR was in its time. When the Iron Curtain collapsed, Russians began to have access to everything that Soviet citizens were deprived of. The Russian economy itself became involved in the international system and became part of it. A step back would mean global restructuring, which could cause protests among the population.

Will there be a war? Dmitry Simes himself asked this question to leading experts at the Center for National Interests and asked them to estimate the probability using the system “from one chance to ten.”

Director of Intelligence and National Security George Beebe decided it was "6 out of 10." That is, there will most likely be a war. But it’s still impossible to talk about this with certainty. At the same time, the expert noted that this is a very risky indicator for two nuclear powers.

His colleague’s point of view was supported by the well-known specialist at the Center for Naval Analysis, Michael Kofman, who often acts as an analyst on the pages of The National Interest. According to him, the danger of a direct clash between Russia and the United States is quite real. The risk is 6 or even 7 chances out of 10. If the parties continue in the same spirit, sooner or later they will start a war. And the beginning of a conflict could provoke a crisis in which the United States and Russia will be involved. War does not usually arise out of the blue.

“First there is a crisis, people make their choice, and then they shoot at each other,” Kofman said, apparently alluding to Russia because the United States is far from political turmoil.

However, Paul Saunders, executive director of the Center for National Interest, is not so pessimistic. He believes that the war will start with a probability of 5 out of 10. In his opinion, Vladimir Putin enjoys quite a lot of support among the people, as shown by the recent elections, although the West predicted worse results for the current president.

The West, according to experts, acted ineptly, trying to discredit the power of Vladimir Putin. The British never provided evidence that Skripal was poisoned by the Russians, but immediately began expelling Russian diplomats and pulling the European Union with them. As a result, the Russian people rallied around the double-headed eagle. This is the opposite effect.

Moreover, the State Department made mistakes, according to Saunders, much earlier, in the 90s. last century, when he tried to “conquer” Russian youth and convince them of the attractiveness of the West. But what happened in Ukraine and Georgia failed in Russia. Local youth grew up in a period of relative prosperity and at a time when Vladimir Putin began to restore Russia's authority in the world, which had suffered greatly after the collapse of the USSR. These are the people who support Vladimir Putin more than others, the expert believes. And the election results fully reflect the real situation.

The President managed to convince the people that Russia must be strong. And if we behave like the democrats from the 1990s, the country will again be devastated. Russians appreciated that Vladimir Putin restored the country’s authority as a great power, and the annexation of Crimea, which most residents perceived as the return of the peninsula home, also played a role.

But this is also a double-edged sword. A strong state needs a strong economy, and for this the Kremlin will have to weaken its control over society, which, in turn, will weaken the power of the state. According to George Beebe, Moscow may soon fall into this vicious circle. It is important whether the Russian authorities will be able to maintain a balance, and this is very difficult.

All this allegedly pushes the Kremlin to take a strong position based on military power. And this inevitably leads to confrontation with the West, which has long forgotten how to communicate with Russia. The US learned no lessons from the Cold War experience. Over the past 25 years, Washington has become too accustomed to a world in which there are no great powers and the only threat comes from terrorists. The Americans do not understand what strategic nuclear deterrence is and how the dialogue with Moscow was conducted under the USSR; they do not know history well. For a long time, the United States fought first with Saddam Hussein, then with Muammar Gaddafi, and finally stumbled over Bashar al-Assad and Ukraine when Russia intervened in the matter.

According to Kofman, the American establishment may need a new version of the Cuban Missile Crisis to understand how dangerous it is to deal with a nuclear power. But it would be better if this did not happen, because Trump is far from Kennedy.

How dangerous is the fifth-generation stealth fighter being created in Russia, as well as its nuclear arsenal, modern and high-tech air defense, anti-satellite weapons, ground forces and submarine fleet, for NATO and the United States?

The tension that has arisen between Russia and NATO forces many experts to carefully analyze this issue, as well as study the current state of the Russian army, its weapons and technical achievements. This is done in order to better understand the nature of the threats that Russia can pose.

Naturally, Russian military maneuvers and the annexation of the Crimean peninsula have many Pentagon analysts studying and assessing the modernization of the military, as well as the state of the troops, military equipment and weapons of this Cold War military giant.

Russia clearly wants to show that it is able to create a counterweight and contain the North Atlantic Alliance. However, some scholars of the Russian military and its current state doubt the Russians' ability to create real problems for NATO during long-term and large-scale military operations.

Still, Russia is making continued military gains, and many Pentagon experts and analysts have expressed concern about NATO's posture in Eastern Europe and doubt that it will be enough to deter Russia from possibly invading the region.

Moreover, the economic pressure exerted on Russia has not stalled the rapid process of modernization of the armed forces. Moscow is increasing its military budget, even though its military today is a fraction of what the Soviet Union had at the height of the Cold War in the 1980s.

This former Cold War juggernaut has shrunk in size and extent of its external borders since the 1980s, but Russia's land, air and sea forces are trying to evolve rapidly, moving to higher levels of technology and aggressively developing next-generation combat platforms.

Russia's conventional and nuclear arsenal is a fraction of what it had during the Cold War, but Moscow is building new air-independent propulsion submarines, the T-50 stealth fighter, next-generation missiles, and advanced personal weapons and equipment for soldiers. ground forces.

The National Interest think tank recently published a series of reports on the technical achievements and successes of Russian military designers. There is information about new anti-satellite weapons, T-14 Armata tanks, air defense systems, preliminary plans to create a sixth-generation hypersonic fighter, and much more. Russia clearly places an emphasis on modernizing its armed forces and is making significant progress in this direction, reports from The National Interest and other publications note.

For example, The National Interest writes that Russia conducted a successful test launch of the Nudol anti-satellite interception missile with direct launch into orbit.

“This is the second test of a new weapon that is capable of destroying satellites in outer space. Apparently, the launch was made from the Plesetsk cosmodrome, located north of Moscow,” The National Interest said.

Context

Is Russia's "smart bomb" smarter than others?

T-90MS is sent to the Middle East

Russia has its own good attack aircraft

"Sarmat" - the killer of the American missile defense system?

After Syria: Russia will strengthen the T-72 tank

Firepower of Russian Airborne Forces

Russia is also building a tank support combat vehicle called Terminator 3.

During the Cold War, Russia's military budget accounted for almost half of its total spending.

Today, military appropriations make up a smaller share of the Russian budget expenditures. But despite the huge differences compared to the 1980s, the Russian military budget is increasing again. From 2006 to 2009, it grew from $25 billion to $50 billion, as reported by Business Insider. And in 2013 it amounted to 90 billion.

Overall, during the Cold War, Russia's conventional forces were approximately five times larger in size than they are today.

According to globalfirepower.com, in 2013 the number of personnel on active duty was 766 nsczx people, and there were 2.4 million in reserve. During the Cold War, between three and four million people served in the Russian army.

According to the same estimates for 2013, the Russian armed forces have more than three thousand aircraft and 973 helicopters. On the ground, Russia has 15 thousand tanks, 27 thousand armored combat vehicles and almost six thousand self-propelled artillery units. Of course, the Russian army is much smaller in size than during the Cold War, but it is making considerable efforts to modernize and maintain its mechanized assets and platforms in combat condition. The T-72 tank, for example, has undergone many upgrades and improvements since its creation in the 1970s.

As for the Russian navy, globalfirepower.com estimates its combat strength at 352 ships. These include one aircraft carrier, 13 destroyers and 63 submarines. The Black Sea is a strategically important water area for Russia economically and geopolitically, as it gives it access to the Mediterranean.

Analysts also note that in the 1980s, a huge number of conventional and nuclear weapons were manufactured for the Russian armed forces, ranging from rockets and missiles to effective air defense systems.

According to experts, the S-300 and S-400 missiles are especially effective if they are carefully maintained and modernized.

Citing Russian media, The National Interest reports that the Russians are currently testing a new S-500 anti-aircraft missile system capable of hitting targets up to 200 kilometers away.

The Su-27 fighters, created in the 1980s, fly in the Russian skies and are used in almost all strategic directions.

The Su-27 is often compared to the American F-15 Eagle fighter. The Russian machine is equipped with two engines, has high maneuverability and is intended mainly for gaining air superiority.

War Games Rand

While many experts argue that NATO's troop numbers, firepower, air superiority, and technology will ultimately defeat Russia in large-scale combat, this does not disprove the findings of a study conducted by the nonprofit RAND that was published in the past. year. It says that NATO would be in an extremely difficult position if Russia were to invade the Baltic countries.

The organizational structure of NATO's armed forces in Eastern Europe will not provide a decisive rebuff to the Russian aggressor in the event of Moscow's invasion of neighboring Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, RAND finds.

After conducting a series of war games in which "Red" (Russian troops) and "Blue" (NATO forces) fought under various scenarios in the Baltic theater, RAND in its report "Reinforcing deterrence on NATO's Eastern Flank" Nato's eastern flank) concluded that for the successful defense of this region, NATO will need many more aircraft and ground forces than are currently deployed there.

In particular, the study's authors call for NATO to develop a strategy similar to the concept of air-land operations, which was created in the 1980s at the height of the Cold War. At that time, an American army group of several hundred thousand people was stationed in Europe. Its purpose was to deter a possible Russian invasion. The US military told Scout Warrior that there are only 30,000 US troops in Europe today.

The RAND study suggests that unless NATO creates a deterrent force of at least seven brigades with adequate fire and air support to defend Eastern Europe, Russia could overrun the Baltic countries in just 60 hours.

“In its current state, NATO is unable to successfully defend the territory of its most vulnerable members. Numerous war games involving a wide range of military and civilian experts have convincingly shown that Russian troops would need 60 hours to reach the Estonian capital of Tallinn and the Latvian Riga. After such a rapid defeat, NATO will be left with very few options,” the RAND study says.

The concept of air-land operations used by the Americans and their NATO allies during the Cold War, among other things, provided for clear interaction between large and highly maneuverable mechanized combat groups of ground forces and attack aircraft. As part of this concept, air strikes against rear logistics facilities were supposed to weaken the enemy and his advanced fire support. As a result of such air-ground interaction, large ground formations could easily move forward, breaking through the enemy's front line of defense.

In the event of a Russian advance into the Baltics, NATO will have very few options available. These include a massive but risky counter-offensive, the threat of using nuclear weapons, or simply weak-willed consent to Russian annexation of these countries.

The study examines one of the options for response and says that it will take a lot of time to prepare and carry out a massive counter-offensive, which will most likely lead to protracted battles with heavy losses. Another option is the threat of using nuclear weapons. But it is unlikely, if not completely unrealistic, in light of the American strategy of reducing nuclear arsenals and reluctance to use nuclear weapons, the study says.

The third and final option, the authors note, is the surrender of the Baltic countries and putting the North Atlantic Alliance on high alert in the spirit of the Cold War. Naturally, many residents of the Baltic countries will not agree to such a scenario, and the NATO alliance will significantly weaken, if not collapse altogether.

The study outlines specific measures that need to be taken to create a credible and effective deterrent force.

“The war games indicate that a force of seven permanently ready brigades, including three tank brigades, supported by air, artillery and other ground firepower, will be sufficient to prevent a rapid takeover of the Baltic states,” its authors note.

Having examined various scenarios during the war games, participants concluded that in the absence of larger mechanized defensive forces, NATO resistance would be quickly broken.

“American units do not have short-range air defense systems, and other NATO troops have them in minimal quantities. This means that resistance during an enemy offensive will be provided only by on-duty aircraft carrying out combat patrols, which will be destroyed due to the numerical superiority of the enemy air force. The result of the war game in this scenario was heavy losses for the Blues and the inability to carry out a counteroffensive,” RAND noted in its findings.

Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are likely to be Russia's first targets because they are all in close proximity to Russia and were part of the Soviet Union for many years, the authors say.

“Like Ukraine, Estonia and Latvia are home to many Russians who have, at best, been unevenly integrated into the political and social systems of these countries since their independence. This gives Russia self-justification for interfering in the affairs of Estonia and Latvia,” experts note.

The study says the deployment of additional brigades is a costly but necessary measure for NATO.

The creation of three completely new armored brigade combat teams within the US Army will require considerable funds. In total, it will cost about $13 billion, including military equipment, artillery, air defense and support units. But much of this equipment, in particular the expensive Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles, is already available.

The actual number of NATO troops in Eastern Europe has not been finalized, and under the new administration it may change. But NATO and the United States have been thinking for quite some time about sending additional forces and assets to the eastern flank in order to more reliably contain Russia.

At the same time, the European Security Initiative, for which the Pentagon has requested $3.4 billion, provides for an increase in the number of troops in Europe, as well as the creation of “forward reserves,” arsenals of firepower and “headquarters support” for NATO forces.

Representatives of US forces in Europe told Scout Warrior that new solidarity exercises with NATO allies are planned and that the number of personnel could also be increased.

For example, from May 27 to June 26 last year, NATO conducted the Swift Response 16 exercise in Poland and Germany, in which more than five thousand military personnel from the United States, Belgium, France, Germany, Britain, Italy, and the Netherlands participated. , Poland, Portugal and Spain.

InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.

Back in early 2017, Stephen Cohen, a member of the American Council on Foreign Relations, made an unexpected statement. They say that, according to him, at the request of senior US officials, the Pentagon has prepared a new plan for war with Russia.

I quote: “For the first time in my life, I consider the possibility of a war between Russia and the United States to be very real. I became aware of the plans of senior American officials that were associated with the direct outbreak of military action against Russia” (Stephen Cohen, member of the American Council on Foreign Relations, political scientist and journalist)

If Cohen is right, then this plan is one of the newest and toughest. According to him, it will not be America that will start hostilities, as many people think, but individual countries allies of the United States. (By the way, an example of this is Israel’s constant provocations and attacks on Syrian territory, and Israel, as we all know, is an ally of the United States)

Cohen argues that the offensive is envisaged from several directions simultaneously. The most important thing still remains Ukrainian. The development of events speaks in favor of this version. For example, the NBC News news agency reported that the Pentagon has prepared a plan to supply the Ukrainian army with the first batch of anti-tank systems worth $50 million.

However, some sources indicate that these complexes already exist in Ukraine.

The Baltic states also have a special role, especially after they failed to capture Crimea. The Romanian analyst Valentin Vasilescu spoke very well about this, and may the laws of authorship forgive me, but I will still insert his statement:

"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 country's strategically important capital, Moscow."

Valentin Vasilescu believes that Euromaidan was initially started to create a convenient springboard for aggression against Russia. 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.

It was after this that the Baltic direction became relevant. Vasilescu said that NATO's main task is to inflict a quick defeat on Russia, which will force the country's political system to collapse. However, if you look at all this more globally, then there really is some truth in his words. For example, plans to capture Kaliningrad are being worked out very carefully and this is a fact! Regarding Moscow, in principle I’m not even surprised. The West has always dreamed of this!

Very often I hear statements from Western politicians and military personnel that Kaliningrad needs to be taken back for the annexation of Crimea, and such heated statements continue to this day.

However, statements, statements... But what alarmed me even more was the very serious activity in building up nuclear bunkers throughout Russia. Moreover, both new ones are built and old ones are modernized. The question arises: why is the Kremlin suddenly concerned about building up nuclear bunkers right now?

This information is not new and it has already been discussed on the Internet more than once, so I think there is no need to describe in detail where and how all this is being built and in what regions. I’ll give just one example, and it’s not our media that are writing about this, but the Western ones. So recently, CNN reported on Russia’s modernization of nuclear bunkers in Kaliningrad. The channel claims that satellite images it has received confirm the construction of another 40 new bunkers in the region.

As CNN points out, the Russian military is carrying out significant modernization at at least four military installations in the Kaliningrad area. In addition, according to the TV channel, a bunker for storing nuclear weapons in the Kaliningrad region has been reconstructed. Satellite images proving this fact were obtained by CNN from the private company ImageSat International between July 19 and October 1.

Another series of images indicates that Russia has begun building 40 new bunkers in the Primorsk area since July, CNN claims. Referring to satellite data, the channel announced the likelihood of reconstruction of the territory of the Chkalovsk Air Force base located in Kaliningrad, as well as at the military facility in Chernyakhovsk, where Iskander operational-tactical missiles were delivered in February. CNN emphasizes that the Russian Ministry of Defense refused to comment on this information, which is otherwise not surprising.

And against this backdrop, American President Donald Trump recently made sharp statements about withdrawing from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Nuclear Forces, and is also preparing to withdraw from the START-3 treaty with Russia "Strategic Arms Reduction-3", providing for the reduction of the nuclear arsenals of both states. According to the current American President Donald Trump, the US withdrawal from this very treaty is due to the fact that the Russian Federation allegedly does not comply with the adopted agreements. The head of the United States noted that this, in his opinion, has been going on for many years. Even his predecessor, Barack Obama, said Donald Trump, should have closely dealt with the issue of the US withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Whether the states decide to withdraw from the treaty or not will become clear very soon, or rather after the meeting between National Security Advisor John Bolton and Vladimir Putin.

After all of the above, the question arises: why are the states so hastily breaking all agreements with Russia? They devote considerable effort to spying on Russian military facilities and pay special attention to Kaliningrad and arms supplies to Ukraine (by the way, deliveries are currently in full swing) What is this all for? And the answer is quite simple, the United States will stop Russia at any cost, which with its actions in Syria, Crimea and Ukraine is changing the American-centric status quo. It is also extremely important for the states to prevent economic reforms from being carried out in Russia, which is why recently there has been such a large-scale build-up of the so-called “fifth column” in Russia. This is clearly visible on the Internet in various social networks and video hosting sites.

That being said, the US only really has a chance of success if it invades before 2020. After 2020, the chances of success will decrease significantly, since after the completion of the rearmament of the Russian army, 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.

For reference: by 2020 it is planned to update the Russian army up to 70% with modern weapons and equipment.

To summarize, I hope that I am wrong and all my conjectures about the series of events that were mentioned will remain only conjectures.

Almost all experts and even people far from the army agree that the Cold War never expected to end with the collapse of the USSR, and now the geopolitical situation is tense to the limit.

The North Atlantic Alliance is conducting its largest military maneuvers in 13 years. As part of these exercises, a ballistic missile is demonstratively shot down in the skies over Europe for the first time, scenarios of landing operations and full-scale hybrid wars using the Internet are played out. And at the same time, Russia surprises the world with its latest weapons during the anti-terrorist operation in Syria. Almost all experts and even people far from the army agree that the Cold War never expected to end with the collapse of the USSR, and now the geopolitical situation is tense to the limit. In this regard, “Bell of Russia” decided to find out what the real balance of power is in the potential confrontation between our country and the West. Our interlocutor was a former General Staff officer, Doctor of Military Sciences Konstantin Sivkov.

Bell of Russia: Konstantin Valentinovich, it’s not fun, of course, to ask such a question head-on, but, given recent events, it’s necessary. What if the confrontation between Russia and NATO suddenly turns from “cold” to “hot”? What is the state of our army and how strong is the potential enemy?

Konstantin Sivkov: If we take the quantitative composition, then for general purpose forces that do not use nuclear weapons, the ratio is approximately 12:1 in favor of NATO. This is according to the personnel of the alliance's armed forces, taking into account wartime deployments. If we do not take certain types of troops of NATO countries, which during the conflict come under the command of a single center, the ratio will be approximately 3-4:1 not in our favor.

As for the quality of the composition, here the Russian army is almost not inferior to its opponent. Just like us, the alliance did not update its weapons and equipment for a long time.

Now the percentage of modern military equipment is slightly lower than that of NATO, but the gap here is not very large. But with serviceable vehicles, the situation is clearly not in our favor - the percentage of combat readiness for us is estimated at 50-60%, and for the enemy - 70-80%.

Although in certain areas, for example, in the Caspian Flotilla and the Black Sea Fleet, our readiness is almost 100%.

Over the past two or three years, we have seriously improved the operational and tactical training of command personnel. Moreover, everything was fine with our tactics before. It is significant here to recall the war with Georgia in 2008, when in just three days the enemy’s armed forces were completely defeated. This is a unique case, given that the Georgians were then trained and advised by American specialists.

KR: Since then, our military has not been particularly visible at the international level, but now they had to show themselves in Syria. Did they pass this exam?

K.S.: The war in Syria has demonstrated that Russian weapons meet the highest modern requirements in a number of indicators, significantly surpassing American ones. For example, the Kalibr-NK cruise missile is better than the Tomahawk both in range (2600 versus 1500 kilometers) and in firing accuracy. Our pilots also showed in action the unique SVP-24 Hephaestus sighting and navigation system, which allows the use of conventional high-explosive bombs with the efficiency characteristic of high-precision weapons. Thanks to this, the small Russian air group in Syria is able to operate with high efficiency. Recently, we have been able to reach 70-80 targets hit with 50 sorties per day - this is very good. The Americans allocate at least 3-4 aircraft to one target, and to destroy, for example, an enemy airfield, an entire squadron is used. The average cost of our new weapons is significantly lower than American ones, which is a big plus.

At the same time, the Syrian war has shown that Russian troops have a serious problem with the provision of ammunition. The brilliant launch of 26 Kalibr-NK missiles on October 7 from the Caspian Sea was never repeated - apparently, we have a very small reserve of these weapons.

So far we have not seen effective launches of the K-55 series missiles of a new modification, which could well be used by Tu-95 or Tu-160 aircraft. There are isolated successful launches of K-55 missiles during exercises, but nothing more. High-precision adjustable aerial bombs - KAB-500S and KAB-500kr - are used to a very limited extent. In terms of security and accuracy, they are much more reliable than similar American ammunition of the same caliber. Nevertheless, the number of cases of their use allows us to conclude that there are not enough of them in our arsenals. Free-fall bombs are mainly used, however, as mentioned above, thanks to the Hephaestus system, they hit the target much more accurately.

Bringing the number of sorties per day to the maximum possible - about 60, and the refusal to use flights in pairs in favor of single raids indicate that the resource of sorties of our aviation in Syria has reached its limit. Both in terms of inventories of material and technical resources, and in terms of the intensity of use of equipment.

This means that the number of aircraft with the latest electronics is actually limited to the group located in Latakia.

KR: It turns out that in the event of a long and large-scale war, our Armed Forces would have huge problems. First of all, due to insufficient material and technical support...

K.S.: We can say more specifically: today the Russian army, even with full mobilization, is capable of winning 1-2 local conflicts. After them, you will need to take a long pause to patch up the holes. If the question of open confrontation with NATO arises, then our general-purpose forces are unlikely to be able to hold out against the United States and allies for more than one or two months. Americans are now afraid to go to war with Russia only because we have nuclear weapons, which remain the only ironclad means of deterrence. If we imagine that we do not have nuclear missiles or that both sides do not have nuclear weapons, in this case, I am sure, a military operation against Russia would have already started.

Using its superiority, the alliance would agree to significant losses during the first operations, when our main general purpose forces would be defeated, and then the complete occupation of our country. Now only nuclear parity saves us.

Therefore, to say that in the framework of a hypothetical Third World War Russia can conduct large-scale military operations (say, with a group of 800 thousand people or more) without the use of weapons of mass destruction is nonsense.

If we talk not about a local, but about a regional war (as the Great Patriotic War, WWII was for us), then we will have to put a group of 4-5 million in the line of fire... This is simply fantastic. For comparison, the USSR in its heyday was able to ensure national security in any war, including world wars, without the use of nuclear weapons.

KR: But if the question comes up about putting all our existing reserves “under arms,” wouldn’t a large supply of tanks and field artillery units, preserved from Soviet times, help?

K.S.: Indeed, we have a large number of tanks in our arsenals - T-72, T-80. Judging by open data, there are about 5,000 80-k and 7,000 72-k different models. Our T-90 can easily cope with the new modifications of the Abrams M1A2 series. In any case, there will be no head-on collisions or massive tank battles during the Second World War, but our vehicles are capable of resisting infantry and solving other modern combat missions. Although I note that approximately 80% of them will first have to be repaired.

But the main thing is that today our ammunition production industry has almost been destroyed. Let's say, for a division of 300 tanks you need to have about 1200 shells for full ammunition. During intense combat operations, they are consumed during the day. To conduct combat operations for a month, about 20,000 rounds are needed. This is only for tanks. Let's also add more intensively working field artillery - they usually lose a couple of rounds of ammunition in a day. Plus air defense systems, and we get the same picture that we had during the Second World War.

To launch a large-scale offensive, it is necessary to create a supply of shells, measured in hundreds of echelons - tens of millions of rounds. This requires a powerful industry. The Soviet military industry provided the front with everything necessary. And we can say that now, by and large, it is not so much Russia that is fighting in Syria, but the USSR.

Most of our stock of air bombs are Soviet-made, not Russian. So if a large-scale war breaks out, then during the first major operation everything will be thrown out of us, and we will no longer be able to replenish these reserves. Here I refer, among other things, to the opinion of a most authoritative engineer, one of the former leaders of the ammunition industry Yuri Shabalin.

Our second problem is the production of new equipment. Our so-called basic technology industry has been largely destroyed or transferred into private hands - heat-resistant steel, standard microcircuits... Therefore, resolving the issue of replacing components for our tanks will be problematic.

Finally, another important point - the launch of 26 Caliber missiles from the Caspian Sea cost us 10 billion rubles. That is, the cost of each missile from this salvo was $6.4 million. For the Americans, a Tomahawk-type missile salvo costs about $2-2.5 million.

Question: where do we get such high prices? First of all, because of corruption schemes that no one thinks to fight. Therefore, all our newly created weapons will be very expensive - in any war, all kinds of industrial bosses are happy to warm their hands.

It is no secret that before the recent sanctions, we purchased many basic spare parts for new developments from the West. And now our import substitution is mainly due to China and all sorts of gray workaround schemes. From the moment our military industry came under sanctions, I have not heard about the commissioning of a single new, more or less serious enterprise. That is why the only deterrent to the enemy in the coming years is nuclear weapons.

KR: Just the other day, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu spoke about the completion of the construction of a modern military base in the Arctic - on the New Siberian Islands. How effective will this project be, and what other steps should the Russian Ministry of Defense take to protect our borders?

K.S.: The Arctic is the most important northern, northwestern and northeastern strategic directions in the event of a major war. It is from there that intercontinental ballistic missiles and strategic bombers will fly in the event of hostilities between Russia and the United States. In turn, we will also go in these directions - all the shortest trajectories will lie there. From the point of view of the development of air defense and missile defense systems, we need this base like air.

The sad result of our liberal reforms of the 90s is that the entire air defense infrastructure in this region was destroyed. Now the gaps in our air surveillance system are measured in hundreds of kilometers. Moreover, in Soviet times, a dense radar surveillance system was located in the Arctic, controlling all airspace at altitudes of 200-300 meters and above. Individual gaps were closed by patrol aircraft. Today, the lower limit of observations reaches several kilometers, and in the region of Central Siberia, huge areas of the sky are not visible at all. Creating a stable working ground location field with 100% coverage of our northern borders is task number one, which requires a lot of effort and resources. For now, patrol posts are being installed in a targeted manner, which close certain directions in order to ensure the detection of at least those aircraft and missiles that threaten the most important industrial facilities and large cities.

In addition, enemy aircraft must be shot down before they launch missiles, which are usually 500-800 kilometers from our border. Accordingly, Russian fighters should operate on the border. Thanks to the efforts of our scientists, the firing range of MIG-31 missiles reaches more than 300 kilometers. It remains to place airfield hubs with these aircraft, each of which can effectively cover an area of ​​the sky measuring up to 1,600 kilometers in order to close all the gaps. In addition, all strategically important facilities must be protected by air defense systems. Accordingly, they need people and infrastructure to work well.

Finally, in this zone it is necessary to ensure constant routes for radar patrol aircraft. Today we have only 15 units. In a good way, to cover the entire country you need about four times as much. NATO has 67 such aircraft at its disposal, and the United States has about 100. However, we are planning only single assemblies of such aircraft, and only for 2018. In addition, from the northern waters (at a distance of more than 1,000 kilometers from the coast), American submarines can launch Tomahawk missiles at our Siberian oil centers in order to deprive the country of energy. Therefore, today the program that is being deployed as part of the defense of this region is very adequate. But for now this is only the necessary minimum, the first steps.

KR: What can you say about large-scale NATO exercises near our western borders? Apparently, the alliance is practicing not only defensive, but also offensive operations. Including using landing forces and heavy equipment. Now the Baltic states are being pumped up with new American tanks. What are the possible scenarios for the development of events on the “European front”?

K.S.: First of all, any exercises are conducted in order to practice certain interactions between troops; there is no demonstrative function here. And there is nothing terrible about the fact that the Americans recently shot down a ballistic missile from a destroyer that was off the coast of Scotland. This is a completely ordinary event. In the same way, our ground- and ship-based anti-aircraft systems practice destroying missiles. Of course, Western exercises are not preparation for a big war against Russia like 1941.

They understand perfectly well that if preparations for such a war even begin, and it is not possible to hide it, under the current political leadership, Russia, realizing that we have no prospects for a long-term confrontation, will be the first to use nuclear weapons. We must assume that there are no suicides either in the USA or in Europe, so they are unlikely to do such a thing.

But our enemy may also have other technologies - for example, first create a system of chaos in Russia, disorganize governance, inspire economic problems and completely discredit the current government, pitting it against the people, force the people to take to the streets and, against this background, create mass unrest, in as a result of which the control of strategic nuclear forces will be disrupted. After the capture of the General Staff in Moscow, no one will be able to take command of a nuclear strike... And only then will an invasion of ground forces be organized, which will destroy the disunited resistance of individual parts of the Russian army - and our territory is occupied. This goal is very likely in large-scale NATO exercises.

Of course, no one is seriously considering a possible Russian invasion of the territory of Estonia. Everyone understands perfectly well that there are no idiots in the governments of the United States and Russia - no one wants to survive in a nuclear winter. But in order to justify the continued deployment of NATO on our western borders and to rally their ranks, they continue to escalate the situation. Moreover, so-called operational-based formations are being deployed in close proximity to us. With them, all heavy equipment and ammunition are located in forward areas, and personnel are located on US territory. When hostilities begin, personnel are transferred to Eastern Europe, the weapons are reactivated, and in a couple of days a full-fledged US motorized division of 12-15 thousand people appears there. And in a calm environment, there are a maximum of 500-600 military personnel there, simply guarding the territory.

The war now, of course, will bear little resemblance to the classic head-on clashes that we read about in textbooks. It all begins, as we know, with information and network battles for people’s consciousness.

KR: Since we are talking about this madness (exchange of nuclear strikes with the United States), what can missile defense systems do here and what does the notorious “nuclear umbrella” actually save from?

K.S.: Currently, U.S. missile defenses pose little threat to our nuclear capabilities. Their SM-3 “anti-nuclear” missiles are capable of hitting enemy warheads at a distance of up to 400 kilometers.

This is in the most ideal conditions - if the enemy missile is on a collision course. Moreover, the flight speed of the warhead that it can hit is limited to somewhere around 2.5 kilometers per second. That is, this missile is capable of hitting warheads up to an operational radius of action - within 2-2.5 thousand kilometers. Intercontinental missiles travel at a much higher speed in the final part of their trajectory. Therefore, the only threat SM-3 can pose to us is only when they are brought within 150-200 kilometers of the patrol areas of our nuclear submarines. In this case, they will have a chance to shoot down missiles launched from our submarine cruisers, but only on the active part of the trajectory - they will have about 80 seconds to do this. Naturally, our aviation and naval forces will inflict serious blows on enemy ships. So first he will have to defeat the Russian fleet and aviation, which will take at least 10-15 days. By this time we will probably have used nuclear weapons.

In addition, our submarines, like American ones, can launch from under the Arctic ice, punching holes in it with torpedoes before launching. Although, in the presence of intercontinental-range missiles, submarines, in principle, do not need such tricks - they can easily attack off their shores under the cover of a reliable anti-submarine and air defense system. Here, any missile defense forces available to the two sides are ineffective.

As for other defense systems, they are only capable of firing at warheads that are already in space - not on the active part of the trajectory.

The Americans will be able to destroy about 3-5 warheads out of 1,700. You understand that this is negligible. By 2025, the United States plans to increase this figure to 30-40 warheads, but the problem is still fundamentally not being solved.

But this is what poses the real danger to us - by the way, the President of Russia spoke about this Vladimir Putin at the Valdai Discussion Club. If desired, the silos of the NATO missile defense system expanding to the east can easily be loaded with not only “anti-nuclear” SM-3s, but also ballistic Minuteman-3s. That is, in less than a month, a strike group of medium-range missiles with nuclear potential is created.

With the tactics of a quick global strike, an extremely unpleasant scenario for us can be realized, when a significant part of Russia's nuclear potential is destroyed within a short time - our retaliatory strike will be completely disorganized. And when our single missiles fly in response, they will be shot down by the missile defense system.

True, it will take at least another couple of decades to perfect such a scheme. But Putin’s concern about this is completely justified.

Popular