Россия. Что происходит?-2

[Птиц]

Ну, так у тебя везде флуд или фуфлыжная копипаста как вчера про Обаму было. Ни чем не лучше.

так ты не ответил - я пишу идиотские вещи типа "Украина-страна убийц"? да? нет? делаю идиотские вбросы типа фотографии лужи с подписью "естественная среда обитания россиян"?

[Alter Ego]

Я тебе ответил про твои идиотские вбросы. Но ты опять пытается увести разговор в сторону.

[Птиц]

нет, не ответил. там был прямой вопрос, требует ответа да/нет.

[Dima424]

Я тебе ответил про твои идиотские вбросы. Но ты опять пытается увести разговор в сторону.

О, альтер напомнил. Ты там писал про разгромленный госпиталь в Сирии, или Афгфне... помнишь ту фуфлыжную копипасту?

А про генералов убитых в Сирии.???

А еще много другой фуфлыжной копипасты.

[Izold]

И это присходит в серьезнейшей теме про РОССИЮ! Как можно! Давно пора, ***на мать, умом Россию понимать(с)

[Птиц]

в домене .ru ничего честного жить не может

ну так постани че-нить с домена .ua. или боишься, что засмеют?

[STYLE]

Я тебе ответил про твои идиотские вбросы. Но ты опять пытается увести разговор в сторону.

Вам всем надо брать пример с Изольда. Он никогда ни комипастит, а только свою личную муйню постит.

[Птиц]

Russia to develop nuclear weapons to overwhelm U.S. defenses

Many believe President Ronald Reagan’s creation and firm support for the Strategic Defense Initiative was critical in the fall of the Soviet Union as the Soviets could not keep up with the pace of American defense spending and basically bankrupted their nation attempting to do so. Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking to a group of military leaders in Moscow, aims to achieve a different outcome in the developing arms race.

Although due to increased defense resources and pressure from Putin, Russian conventional forces have improved dramatically in some areas, the overall force still doesn’t measure up to Western standards of efficiency and readiness in sufficient numbers to counter NATO’s advantages. Russia, therefore relies on nuclear weapons as a deterrent and offensive strike capability.

According to the Russian state news agency, TASS, Putin today said Russia would in time develop its own anti-ballistic missile defense systems, but “at this first stage … we will work on strike systems able to overcome any missile defense system.” Putin believes American declarations of only developing missile defense for one-off attacks from rogue nations is not credible and believes the real intent is to counter Russian nuclear forces. “Their true aim is to neutralize the strategic nuclear potential of other nuclear countries … especially our country.”

I’m sure the Kremlin has been monitoring the Republican presidential debates and their frequent calls for more American defense outlays. Putin frequently warns the West, “Don’t forget Russia is a nuclear power.” It seems that he wants to keep the nuclear arrow in his quiver and will spend precious resources to defeat Western missile defense systems now and in the future.

[remodify]

Ну так почему Россиюшку и макают (пока) головой в унитаз - кому понравятся постоянные угрозы ядерного удара?
А больше нечем угрожать.

До этого была тема "отключим газ", но оказывается при желании избавится от отношений с бандитами, российский газ никому не нужен. Ещё детей детдомовских запрещали усыновлять за рубежом "пусть лучше умрут православными инвалидами", санкции на продукты, чтобы русский народ не привыкал к хорошей жизни.

[Птиц]

U.S. repeatedly loses in Pentagon war games against Russia

On Sept. 29, 2015, an op/ed by reporter Benny Avni in the New York Post proclaimed Vladimir Putin’s Russia as “the world’s new sole superpower.” Avni wrote:

The baton was officially transferred Monday to the world’s new sole superpower — and Vladimir Putin willingly picked it up.

Putin’s deployment of forces in Syria and arming of Assad create facts on the ground. They have also propelled him to the top by taking initiative on today’s most consequential world fight….That’s how Putin seized leadership from America….

And it’s bad for America. Because sooner or later, after more bloodshed and under even worse conditions than now, our next president will be called upon to retake the leadership baton from Putin. And that could prove tricky.

Avni’s proclamation isn’t that far-fetched given the fact that the Pentagon’s own war games show that the U.S. would lose in a Baltic war against Russia.

Julia Ioffe writes for Foreign Policy, Sept. 18, 2015, that the Pentagon continuously generates contingency plans for every possible scenario — anything from armed confrontation with North Korea to zombie attacks.

For the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, however, the U.S. Department of Defense is reviewing and updating its contingency plans for armed conflict with Russia, to reflect a new, post-Crimea-annexation geopolitical reality in which Russia is no longer a potential partner, but a potential threat.

Michèle Flournoy, former undersecretary of defense for policy and co-founder of the Center for a New American Security, explains that “Russia’s invasion of eastern Ukraine made the U.S. dust off its contingency plans. They were pretty out of date.” Flournoy says the new plans have two tracks:

One focuses on what the United States can do as part of NATO if Russia attacks one of NATO’s member states.
The other track considers American action outside the NATO umbrella.

Both versions of the updated contingency plans focus on Russian incursions into the Baltics, a scenario seen as the most likely front for new Russian aggression. They are also increasingly focusing not on traditional warfare, but on the hybrid tactics Russia used in Crimea and eastern Ukraine: “little green men,” manufactured protests, and cyberwarfare. Julie Smith, who until recently served as Vice President Joe Biden’s deputy national security advisor, says: “They are trying to figure out in what circumstances [the U.S. Defense Department] would respond to a cyberattack. There’s a lively debate on that going on right now.”

It was in February 2014 that Putin caught the Obama administration off guard by sending little green men into Crimea and eastern Ukraine. David Ochmanek, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for force development, said, “We didn’t plan for it because we didn’t think Russia would change the borders in Europe.” Crimea was a “surprise.”

In June 2014, a month after he had left his force-planning job at the Pentagon, the Air Force asked Ochmanek for advice on Russia. At the same time, the Army had approached one of Ochmanek’s colleagues at Rand, and the two teamed up to run a thought exercise called a “table top,” a sort of war game between two teams: the red team (Russia) and the blue team (NATO). The scenario was similar to the one that played out in Crimea and eastern Ukraine: increasing Russian political pressure on Estonia and Latvia (two NATO countries that share borders with Russia and have sizable Russian-speaking minorities), followed by the appearance of provocateurs, demonstrations, and the seizure of government buildings.

“Our question was: Would NATO be able to defend those countries?,” Ochmanek recalls.

The results were dispiriting. Given the recent reductions in the defense budgets of NATO member countries and U.S. pullback from the region, Ochmanek says the NATO team was outnumbered 2-to-1 in terms of manpower, even if all the U.S. and NATO troops stationed in Europe were dispatched to the Baltics — including the 82nd Airborne, which is supposed to be ready to go on 24 hours’ notice and is based at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

“We just don’t have those forces in Europe,” Ochmanek explains. Then there’s the fact that the Russians have the world’s best surface-to-air missiles and are not afraid to use heavy artillery.

After eight hours of gaming out various scenarios, “the conclusion,” Ochmanek says, “was that we are unable to defend the Baltics.”

Ochmanek decided to run the game on a second day. The teams played the game again, this time working on the assumption that the United States and NATO had already started making positive changes to their force posture in Europe. Would anything be different? The conclusion was slightly more upbeat, but not by much. “We can defend the capitals, we can present Russia with problems, and we can take away the prospect of a coup de main,” Ochmanek says. “But the dynamic remains the same.” Even without taking into account the recent U.S. defense cuts, due to sequestration, and the Pentagon’s plan to downsize the Army by 40,000 troops, the logistics of distance were still daunting. U.S. battalions would still take anywhere from one to two months to mobilize and make it across the Atlantic, and the Russians, Ochmanek notes, “can do a lot of damage in that time.”

Ochmanek has run the two-day table-top exercise eight times now, including at the Pentagon and at Ramstein Air Base, in Germany, with active-duty military officers. “We played it 16 different times with eight different teams,” Ochmanek says, “always with the same conclusion.”

When asked about Ochmanek’s conclusions, a Defense Department official expressed confidence that, eventually, NATO would claw the territory back. “In the end, I have no doubt that NATO will prevail and that we will restore the territorial integrity of any NATO member,” the official said. “I cannot guarantee that it will be easy or without great risk. My job is to ensure that we can reduce that risk.”