In the war with Russia, the U.S. intends to do “small blood”

By | August 19, 2020
In the war with Russia, the U.S. intends to do

The alarming statement of the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Valery Gerasimov on the preparation of the NATO military bloc for a large-scale armed conflict, in which our country appears to be the most likely adversary, some in the foreign media have already rushed to call exaggeration and “thickening of colors”. Unfortunately, this is hardly the case. All the actions of the member states of the North Atlantic Alliance, and above all, its “leading and guiding” – the United States, just show that nothing the head of our General Staff exaggerates, but simply states the very obvious facts.

Contrary to its own peace-loving statements, and at the same time common sense, the “collective West” has come closer to the use of military force against Russia as never before in recent decades. However, how exactly do local strategists and tactics see such a scenario?

Total war?! No, fire me…

The only truly positive thing on a rather gloomy general background is that Washington is well aware: in the event of a global clash with the use of all the cash arsenals, including the potential of the “nuclear triad” of world powers, the chances not only to win a convincing victory but simply to survive, the United States has no. No matter how much the West is nervous about Putin’s “cartoon missiles,” but the names Vanguard, Dagger and Circon have not been published in the media for a long time. And today these names of the latest examples of Russian weapons are not mentioned in a humorous way… And the frank confessions of high-ranking officials from the Pentagon, including its head Mark Esper, that the U.S. military at the moment has not only nothing comparable to the Russian hypersonic weapons but also effective means that can withstand it, show that the real balance of power there is assessed soberly. Naturally, there are attempts to “keep the mark” similar statement of the head of the U.S. Air Force Logistics Command, General Arnold Bunch, who assured journalists that the “American hypersonic” will be ready for combat in a couple of years. In addition, the genre can be attributed to the bold assumptions of his colleague, General John Rafferty, that the current “precision Strike Missile, PrSM” from Lockheed Martin Corporation “probably will be able to overcome the missile defense system of Russia.” Can… He won’t be able to… You better not try!

Moreover, the idea is not that of a large-scale nuclear confrontation, but even full preparation for it does not inspire Washington politicians. For all the terry Russophobia that has recently taken root in the local main legislative body, among its members are those who oppose such a prospect very actively. So, more recently, three senators – Chris Wang, Todd Young, and Robert Menendez (certainly not a friend of our country!), turned to the Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire with an extremely sensitive assignment. Lawmakers are asking him to “assess the consequences of the reaction from Russia and China” to the United States’ withdrawal from the latest international treaty limiting the development of strategic offensive weapons (START-3), whose term is inexorably nearing its end. In their opinion, it will not bring anything good “both in the short and in the long term” to the United States. Russia’s nuclear arsenal, which already poses a deadly threat to any of its adversaries, “will not be limited by anything”, will come to a new arms race, in which the Americans already have to play the role of catch-up. Who’s she going to ruin? Far from being a fact that the Russians. On this occasion, by the way, the other parliamentarian – the chairman of the subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, Energy and the Environment of the U.S. House of Representatives, Democrat William Keating, spoke very frankly. Also reaffirming his commitment to the extension of START-3 and repeating the on-call: “Russia cannot continue to invest so much money in weapons with problems that need to be solved within the country”, he found the strength to honestly admit: “This, by the way, is quite true for us too…”
Moreover, the radically changed capabilities of our Armed Forces at the root, we can say, destroy the usual doctrines of warfare for the United States, from local to world. It just so happened that due to their geographical location, Americans always relied on one thing: “Let’s sit back!” The planet survived two world wars, killing hundreds of millions and destroying entire countries, and the U.S. did not fall a single bomb. Yes, this arrangement eventually forced the Pentagon to aggressively defend “American vital interests” to maintain a huge network of military bases around the world, but it was still strategically advantageous than putting his own country at risk. But now all this more, sorry, will not ride … Very significant in this aspect is the recent publication in the American edition of Foreign Policy, the author of which, political scientist Michael Beckley makes very disappointing conclusions for the Pentagon. The main one is that accustomed to absolute security both “on its own soil” and in locations on the territory of NATO allies, the U.S. Army is not ready for a war in which “seclude places” will not exist in principle. Modern military technologies allow extremely effectively and, by the way, not so expensive to “get” the enemy anywhere: at least across the ocean, at least from the opposite hemisphere of the Earth. The “security zones” from which American soldiers are accustomed to carrying out their strikes with impunity, “carrying democracy to the world”, can be forgotten – under the sight will be airfields, parking fleets, transport “corridors”, warehouses and bases …

Small blood, in foreign territory

The most interesting thing is that the summary of all this respected author (peaceful, like, university assistant professor, by the way!) makes quite unexpected. The U.S. should temper its “civilizing” fervor and somewhat diminish the claims to the role of the “world gendarme”? It’s nothing like that! It turns out that in order to effectively conduct combat operations, the Pentagon needs to move the maximum of its forces in the territory, as close as possible to the borders of a potential enemy! In the case of a hypothetical conflict with Russia – in East and South-Eastern Europe, if there is a mess with China – in Southeast Asia. To cram there more missile systems and heavily armed UAVs – here they are, used “as minefields” and will give short to enemies! At the same time, Mr. Beckley for some reason assumes that our country will certainly throw “to capture the Baltics” and the Celestial Empire – Taiwan. On what to do if the stakes are much higher (for example, to shatter and split into half the United States itself), he shamefully kept quiet. But the most interesting thing is that the Pentagon seems to be going to stick to a strategy that was outlined in the pages of Foreign Policy! As proof of this assumption, for example, it is possible to consider such a fact, as the statement made recently by General Charles Brown, commander of the U.S. Air Force forces in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, that the deployment of American medium- and shorter-range missiles in the region would be “undoubtedly useful for the United States”. A few earlier similar thoughts were expressed by the head of the Pentagon, Mike Esper…

There are other signs – perhaps not so large-scale, but not becoming less significant. For scouts all over the world, it has long been an axiom that the unquestionable indication of what kind of war an army is preparing for is the answer to the question: what exactly is it armed with? The United States military budget for 2020 is enormous. This year’s appropriation exceeds $22 billion. According to statements made by high-ranking officials, the creation of space forces, modern missile defense, and air defense, as well as other projects to “decisive modernization and retooling of the army” will be a priority. At the same time, more than 700 million are definitely planned to be allocated for “containing Russia.” Most of these funds are likely to be used as part of the EDI program, the so-called Europe Security Initiative. That is, for the most part, they will be spent on the creation in the Old World of the very “outposts” of the Pentagon, from which, obviously, its leadership and plans, if necessary, to strike Russia, putting the territory of allies, but not their own, under fire. It is very similar to the fact that the U.S. Army is still preparing for a “little victorious war” in Europe, in the process of which our country should “point its place” by paying for it more with the lives of Europeans than Americans. In any case, some of the data on new weapons and equipment to the U.S. Army and Marine Corps show that this is what this is about. For example, new M320A1 grenade launchers, Mk13 Mod 7 pistols, and sniper rifles for Marines improved ENVG-B night vision devices, reinforced body armor and protective helmets for “landmen”.

However, all of this may be little things. But the massive deliveries to the troops of the deeply modernized Abrams M1A2C tanks are unlikely. The main armored vehicle of the U.S. Army “stuffed” to glory: here you and brought almost to the equivalent of 800-900 mm the latest armor protection, and the “smart” system Vehicle Health Management System, which monitors the condition of nodes and units, and the complex of active protection “Trophy-HV”, and the bloody break of the likes of expensive and high-tech “toys” turning this and a serious tank. Another point, far more typical: The U.S. military has invested a lot of money in dramatically doubling the production of air-to-ground guided missiles by joint air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM). They should replace the well-outdated AGM-114 Hellfire from the moment they were put into service. The salt here is that the new missiles are fundamentally no different from the “hellfire” that drove terrorists through the deserts for many years. The parameters are, of course, higher, but according to military experts, they are completely useless for fighting against an enemy with a more or less modern air defense system. We are not talking about Panzers, Torah and other similar complexes. Why, then, such investments? Does Washington plan to “bring the light of democracy” to some other underdeveloped country, unfortunately, the owner of oil fields? Or does it count that the plans being developed by some smart people in the Pentagon to “hack” the so-infuriating Americans of the Russian “closed protected zones A2AD” will still be able to implement, and then everything that will be good for you? It’s very could happen.

In truth, it would be better to be right to be the American political commentator William Connolly, who put forward the version that the hectic activity of the Pentagon is caused not by a real desire to fight, but an attempt to “save your image”, which “pretty shaken” after the U.S. Army suffered a series of “technical defeats” in the Middle East. Now they will try to impress at least the Europeans with exercises of unprecedented scale until they began to strengthen their own armies to the detriment of the “North Atlantic Brotherhood”. It would be good that this is how it was…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

four + three =