Duel with atomic "blades"
IN lately V Western press, and then in the domestic media space the discussion of the seemingly long-closed question about the degree of danger intensified tactical nuclear weapons(TNW). In particular, in the United States, Pentagon officials even coined the term “nuclear weapons.” reduced power" as a tool necessary for America to contain Russia's allegedly growing aggressiveness in international arena. The fact that this is no longer just the initiative of individual media is evidenced by the fact that the issue was brought up for discussion within the framework of the Conference on Disarmament, held on February 28, 2018 in Geneva.
Head of the Russian Foreign Ministry Sergey Lavrov there he expressed it clearly: “ It should be clear to everyone that by doing so the US military is preparing armed forces European countries to the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Russia».
After which the public began a loud debate about the degree of danger of tactical nuclear weapons as such.
About the peaceful and not so peaceful atom
Supporters of the classical approach are outraged - the consequences of the use of tactical nuclear weapons, in their understanding, cannot but be terrible. Unlike conventional weapons, the negative consequences of the use of tactical nuclear weapons will affect people and environment for a long time. In turn, opponents, including the American military, point out a clear discrepancy with his established reputation real facts. The world has produced a lot nuclear explosions low power, and they did not lead to any global apocalyptic consequences.
No matter how strange it may sound, we have to admit that the Americans are right. Yes, of course, any weapon is intended for only two purposes: kill and intimidate. But let’s leave philosophy for now and return specifically to the tactical. In all modern armies, the enemy’s long-term line of defense is routinely intended to be hacked by tactical nuclear strikes. For example, a brigade line - with the help of three. I emphasize: normally, that is, in order of things.
Tank and mechanized units are immediately introduced into the gaps he makes, literally in a matter of hours reaching the operational space behind enemy lines. With subsequent degassing, decontamination and disinfection at specially deployed points of anti-chemical and anti-radiation protection battalions. And then further into battle. Here's to get a strategic intercontinental warhead ballistic missile – this is really the end. After its use, there is no question of any continuation of hostilities.
Practicing decontamination and decontamination of equipment by the Slovenian Army RCBZ platoon during tactical exercises of the NATO Combined Battalion Combat Team in Latvia.
Thus, the ancient truth is once again confirmed: everything new is well-forgotten old. The fact is that about the unacceptability of tactical nuclear weapons no one ever said. Yes, it has many unpleasant negative consequences, but does not at all mean a transition immediately to the world Fallout games with mutants and nuclear wastelands.
Confusing perceptions of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons arose from the consequences Cuban crisis and the “policy of international nuclear detente” that began later, known as the Helsinki process. It just became obvious to everyone then that if it came to an exchange of tactical nuclear strikes, then it will not be limited to them for sure.
Because to use nuclear weapons in low-intensity peripheral conflicts like Vietnam, Afghanistan or current Syria devoid of global and even operational meaning, which means there is no need to waste a valuable resource and create international political complications. And in a direct military confrontation between “great powers,” breaching the front with low-power nuclear strikes is completely natural. Corresponding ammunition exists for cannon artillery, even brigade caliber (152–155 mm), for multiple launch rocket systems, for operational-tactical and cruise missiles, and also in the form aircraft bombs. There was a time when such attacks were planned even with mortars. And this is in to the same degree concerns everyone modern armies all leading countries of the world.
Demonstration model of a 152-mm tactical nuclear artillery projectile
Thus, tactical nuclear weapons are trump card in the war of great powers, means of achieving victory. And a global victory in a hypothetical Russian-American war means the direct physical destruction of the opposing state. And this is already a strategic threat national security, eliminated only by strategic weapons. With all the ensuing consequences. And now they are truly immensely terrible. Behind all this, it was the tactical nuclear weapons that were quietly lost, and the horrors of large nuclear charges gradually began to spread to small ones.
The head of the American intercontinental ballistic missile Trident
To avoid them, in the 70s of the twentieth century the world began to agree on restrictions. Since then, the third generation has grown up, for which nuclear weapons are an absolute abstraction, and their terribleness is doubtful. Moreover, the post-nuclear world in the mass perception has turned into a kind of vacation and relaxation zone - just look at the games “Metro 2033”, “Stalker” and the Fallout tetralogy.
Life in the metro under the nuclear ruins of Moscow - a scene from the game "Metro 2033"
Hence the perception of tactical nuclear weapons as acceptable in war. The paradox is that formally, in the logic imposed by the press, supporters of tactical nuclear weapons are right, but at the same time they are catastrophically mistaken, because they are looking in the wrong direction. Tactical nuclear weapons are dangerous not so much in themselves (although we do not forget: these are weapons to kill and intimidate), but rather for the reason that aroused the desire to remember them.
In essence, tactical nuclear weapons are a tool for solving military problem positional deadlock. Its solution during the First World War was tanks and dramatic improvements in artillery. The development of means and methods of armed struggle following the Second World War again created the same impasse. Breaking through a sufficiently prepared defense requires an inadequately large expenditure of material and unacceptably high losses in personnel. Inadequate because victory does not provide opportunity strategic development success - during the breakthrough, the enemy manages to pull up reserves and stop the attackers, who will be able to advance several kilometers at the cost of huge losses, which are extremely difficult to fill, - modern weapons extremely expensive and demanding on personnel.
France, 1915. Artillery battery position
For a long time, nuclear weapons kept great countries from turning into this very strategic impasse - the winner of a nuclear war received as a “prize” a radioactive dump the size of an entire planet.
And it worked quite effectively. If until the mid-twentieth century, a major military conflict in Europe, affecting the territories of most of its countries, occurred on average every 20–25 years, then after the advent of strategic nuclear weapons we have been living in peace for more than half a century.
War with Russia as a lesser evil
However, this rule has one important exception. In addition to the usual aggressive or defensive ones, wars also happen in life as a choice of the lesser evil. What is happening now is just such a case.
The Pax Americana is being destroyed. The United States is losing international influence at a progressive pace, and it is this that forms the basis of its political and economic power. In fact already lost Middle East with its hydrocarbons, which, among other things, provide the United States with the right to use dollars in global transactions, which allowed Washington in global disputes to use non-military methods of coercion such as sanctions and freezing of banking assets.
The events of the last five years have shown that now all this practically does not work. Despite all efforts, Washington nothing to oppose progressive economic rapprochement between Europe and Russia - even the Transatlantic zone project free trade died under Trump's footsteps and cries about great America. Despite all the efforts made by the American leadership, since 2006 the United States has continued to slide from the global Olympus. Moreover, consolidation even at the level of regional leadership is a big question. America's wealth and prosperity for at least a century have been based on siphoning profits from the rest of the world through the hegemony of the dollar, ensured by the capacity of the rich US domestic market and the superiority of military power, also based on the wealth of the state. If there is no dominance, there will be no wealth, and without it, the collapse of the United States as a single state.
Russian gas already covers a third of European demand and is steadily moving towards half.
The US is being pushed out of its leadership position global peace with the inexorable prospect of sliding down to the level of only a regional state, to which nothing can be opposed. And the loss of superpower is the greatest evil, for the sake of salvation from which it seems quite appropriate to choose a lesser evil - war.
Just not for the sake of capturing anything valuable from the enemy, but for the sake of the complete physical destruction of the enemy himself as such. Otherwise, these Russians had already been captured once. Even medals “For victory in cold war" were distributed. And they rose again, and again the United States found itself “on the brink of death.” If the issue is to be resolved, then now only radically.
US Medal for Victory in the Cold War. It was awarded among others Mikhail Gorbachev.
It is important to comply with two conditions. First: so that such a war does not seem strategic to Russia itself. Second: to fighting were not conducted in the United States. The only place where both conditions coincide is - Europe. If we accustom the world to the idea that the use of tactical nuclear weapons is acceptable, then such a task becomes completely achievable.
The current state of the Syrian city of Aleppo. Before the war, it had a population of 2.3 million, almost as many as Rome and more than Milan or Warsaw.
In fact, with the idea of the permissibility of using tactical nuclear weapons, Washington figured out how to win the Third World War and even how to make money from it. Regardless of whether Russia wins or loses this war, the cost of victory for an exhausted Russia will be too high, and the United States will always be able to offer the world new plan Marshall.
In short, strategy comes down to a simple sequence of elementary moves.
Step one– announce that Russia has begun aggression. For example, in the form of a global hacker attack for something important. This option is convenient because it does not require the presentation of any material evidence. It’s enough to just believe in it, and it’s precisely the formation of such faith that the Western information machine actively working more than a year. For example, there is no objective evidence of Russian interference in the American presidential elections, but the Western public already believes in the real existence of omnipotent and aggressive Russian hackers as a reliably proven fact. All that remains is to organize something grandiose, like September 11th. 2001.
Step two– declare war on Russia on behalf of the North Atlantic Alliance with tactical nuclear strikes on our positions first, or provoke us to take such a step first with a massive blow conventional weapons. It's not as difficult as it seems. Cruise missile with conventional and with nuclear warhead looks exactly the same on the radar.
Step three- support the exchange of tactical nuclear strikes with massive information support about their decisive desire for peace and readiness to sit down at the negotiating table at any time.
Moreover, the “Marshall Plan 2.0” is being successfully implemented in any case. If we go on the defensive, the war will stop only after the destruction of our industry, infrastructure, logistics and a drop in the standard of living of the population. We are losing this “limited war” and crumbling as a result of internal rebellion, as in our time in the USSR. A quick cessation of hostilities is possible only as a result decisive offensive to Europe. We can argue about the details, but on the whole we can successfully implement it. True, only with the mandatory widespread use of tactical nuclear weapons. In this case, we win the “limited war”, but inevitably we find ourselves forced to occupy a Europe completely destroyed by military operations with a population four times larger than our own, which we will have to treat, provide and support. Such a load Russian economy is clearly unable to pull it off, which means that ultimately the collapse of the state is also inevitable. Europe ultimately “goes to” the United States, and we remain guilty of the war. At the same time, China is also suffering, losing a rich market. Even two, including the American one. As in both past world wars, this time the United States is also quietly sitting overseas.
What allows us to consider this fantasy quite realistic? As always - details and minor reservations of the “big people”. If you look closely at the official American rhetoric, you can see how sharply the United States has intensified the media promotion of two theses.
Firstly The West in general, and the United States in particular, urgently needs to arm itself, because Russia could literally strike first. If the Russians (!) do not stop with hackers, interference in elections and referendums, militarization and “annexations,” America will be forced (!!) to go to war.
Secondly, It is quite obvious that the Russians cannot be stopped with conventional weapons. They were unstoppable back in the days of the USSR. So it will inevitably be necessary to use nuclear weapons; their use is presented as completely acceptable.
American atomic bomb B61-12. Since 2015, 20 of these have been stored at Büchel Air Base in Germany.
At the same time, the United States is pushing NATO to transfer combat troops to Russian border. If you look only at the scale of conventional combat operations, the number of deployed brigades to hope for the success of an offensive against the Russian Armed Forces is frankly small. In the current situation, they will not be enough even if the European members of the Alliance are deployed “in the east” all yours combat-ready formations. But if their actions are supported by tactical nuclear weapons, then even such a contingent may be quite sufficient.
What the Russian President actually said
Remarkable, but talking about a revolutionary breakthrough in the field nuclear weapons, the President of Russia did not place the main emphasis on strategic intercontinental missiles. They were only in the background as a transparent hint “yours is about them won't stop».
The main trump card was precisely ultra-long(and therefore intercontinental) cruise missile with a nuclear warhead of strictly tactical power. Thus, it was made more than clear: even within the framework of “ only small nuclear war , strictly within the limits of tactical warheads” Russia has the ability to reach US territory.
Maybe, which means he will do it. Moreover, the Pentagon will not be able to intercept these missiles - key targets on US territory will be attacked in the same way as targets in Europe. Russia has a tool that completely refutes the main basic meaning of the American plan - to model a global conflict in a form that does not reach the use of strategic nuclear weapons.
"Limited nuclear war" for the USA seemed promising solely because the range available in Russian army tactical nuclear weapons excluded the possibility of reaching US territory. Losing Alaska, given the stakes in this game, didn't seem like a big deal.
However Vladimir Putin made it more than clear that if they try to start this game, America will inevitably have to pay many times more. In fact, its entire territory is within reach of not only strategic nuclear weapons, the use of which should not happen, but also tactical nuclear weapons, on the widespread use of which the entire American plan is based.
In general, increased talk about the permissibility of using “low-yield nuclear weapons” is an important, even key, signal indicating that Washington is seriously considering a direct scenario open war with Russia as completely acceptable. And the clearly militaristic content of Putin’s message to Federal Assembly The Russian Federation is in fact a clear and harsh demonstration of the Americans’ readiness and, more importantly, ability to break the plan outlined above. The United States will not succeed in a small nuclear war just in Europe. Their cities industrial centers, logistics hubs and infrastructure are more than vulnerable to our “low-yield nuclear weapons.” In fact, even defenseless.
The Russian President showed that the principle of mutually assured destruction on tactical nuclear weapons spreads too. We don’t want to start this war, but if we have to, we are ready for it.
The US is gradually involving NATO countries in operations using nuclear weapons - expert
More details and a variety of information about events taking place in Russia, Ukraine and other countries of our beautiful planet can be obtained at Internet Conferences, constantly held on the website “Keys of Knowledge”. All Conferences are open and completely free. We invite everyone who wakes up and is interested...
US losses in Vietnam were greater than in World War II. This campaign turned out to be the bloodiest for the Americans. Neither before nor after it did the United States lose so many people and equipment. Let us remember the causes of this conflict, as well as the course of hostilities. We will voice not only the US losses in Vietnam, but also the losses of the other side, as well as local residents who were victims of this conflict.
Causes of the war
The war was associated with the division of the world after World War II into two systems: capitalist and socialist. The Korean War ended, dividing the once united country into two camps. It was Vietnam's turn. By 1954, it was already divided along the 17th parallel into North (socialist) and South (capitalist under French rule). The North was actively advancing with the support of the PRC and the USSR, trying to create a unified state under its flag. The question of unification was only a matter of time. The South, of course, did not want to put up with this state of affairs, and capitalist states led by the United States were not going to give up another bridgehead under the banner of the socialist camp.
Occasion
American society reacts painfully to the loss of its soldiers in any wars. Therefore, before the start of any conflict, serious information propaganda is carried out. To begin operations, an armed incident is needed that could be used as a justification for starting hostilities. This was the event in Tokyo Bay on August 2, 1964. The US Navy destroyer USS Maddox approached the borders of North Vietnam and was attacked. And already on August 5, 1964, the Americans began bombing. This event still raises a lot of questions:
- Why would a destroyer approach the shore of a hostile state? Before this event, the Americans landed a landing force of instructors in the South. The North was already seen as the enemy.
- The circumstances of the ship's death have not been fully clarified. There is a version that the Viet Cong were physically unable to destroy this ship.
- Fast decision making. Only three days passed between the destruction of the destroyer and the start of the attack. Consequently, the military was already aware of how the provocation would end.
Start
All forces of the North were united into the Viet Cong organization. Hence the name “Vietcong”, which was synonymous with the word “communists” for Western countries.
In 1961, the United States sent its instructors and military personnel to the region. The first US losses appeared in Vietnam. However, America did not conduct full-scale hostilities. Her participation was in training the southerners. However, the US leadership understood that the Viet Cong forces with the support of the socialist camp were incomparable.
In 1963, the North destroyed almost the entire army of the south at the Battle of Apbak. There were already about 8 thousand Viet Cong partisans on enemy territory. By 1964, the United States was transferring a large contingent of 25 thousand people here. Before this, there were only 800 specialists and fighters here. Military conflict was inevitable.
"Burning Spear"
In 1965, the positions were attacked. There were US losses in people and equipment in Vietnam. President Johnson announced the start of Operation Burning Spear. Its purpose was to carry out air strikes on Viet Cong positions. However, this did not have much effect.
Full scale intervention, Operation Rolling Thunder. Conventional airstrikes had no effect. In dense jungle conditions, it is very difficult to find objects to destroy. Then the United States develops Operation Rolling Thunder. Its essence is carpet bombing huge territories using ground forces. The number of personnel was increased to 180 thousand people. Over the next three years, the American group grew to half a million.
Lead to big losses among the civilian population. I would like to note that the doctrine of bombing, adopted by England back in 1920, was adopted by the United States. It was actively used in Dresden during the Second World War. Its goal is to terrorize the entire population. In this case, murder civilians considered part of the overall plan.
North Vietnamese offensive
I would immediately like to dispel the myth that the Viet Cong defensive war, and the Americans - offensive. Actually this is not true. All main actions were initially carried out partisan detachments It was on the territory that the Viet Cong were the actual aggressor.
On "Tet Day", January 30, the North launched a large-scale offensive in 1968. This was unexpected, since according to the agreement no military operations should be conducted on these days. US losses in Vietnam have increased significantly these days.
All attacks were successfully repulsed, but the city of Hue was lost to the Americans. Only in March did the offensive finally fizzle out. After this, the southerners and Americans launched a counteroffensive in order to recapture Hue. The most bloody battle in the history of the entire war.
The city had strategic importance. This is one of three major centers South Vietnam along with Saigon and Da Nang. The main highway passing through it connected northern territories with the capital. The army north of Hue was cut off from supplies by land. In the 19th century, this city was the capital of a single state. Therefore, it also had a symbolic meaning.
American losses in the Battle of Hue numbered about 200 killed. Southerners - about 400. However, the losses of the Viet Cong were much more serious - about 5 thousand people. It is believed that it was this defeat that finally undermined their military potential.
Battle of Hue - US military glory
The victory at Hue is considered one of the memorable battles in US history along with the Battles of Guadalcanal (Solomon Islands), the Second world war, under Chosin (Korea). Military leadership gained extensive experience in conducting combat operations in the city. Previously, the Marine Corps did not lead them in large populated areas. It is believed that it was here that the Americans developed urban combat tactics, which they then successfully used during the assault on Fallujah in 2004 (Iraq). 3 battalions took part in the battles of Hue Marine Corps and 11 battalions of South Vietnamese forces.
US losses in Vietnam: aviation
The help of the USSR and China was invaluable for North Vietnam. The Democratic Republic of Vietnam received 340 million rubles from the Union alone, which at that time was a very significant amount. Soviet instructors helped to master complex equipment. Allies supplied weapons, including the latest tools Air defense. US technical losses in Vietnam (aircraft, not counting other equipment) - more than 4 thousand units. The Americans reported that this is approximately 0.5 per 1000 sorties. In war conditions this figure is small. However, when crossing the border of North Vietnam, losses immediately increased. Soviet air defense systems protected the sky with a reliable shield. Don’t forget about the loss of aircraft. Before the war, their aircraft ranked fourth in number in the world after the USA, USSR and China. And here the losses are enormous - about 10 thousand aircraft.
US losses in Vietnam: helicopters
As for helicopters, the Americans lost more than 5 thousand units. That is 3 cars a day.
Helicopter - main equipment Marines during the Vietnam War. In difficult jungle and off-road conditions, this is the only vehicle that is also capable of covering infantry with fire.
However, a helicopter is an easy target compared to airplanes. You don't need to have air defense to shoot him down. Since 1972, the Viet Cong have adopted Soviet Strela MANPADS. Any peasant could master them. It was in 1972 that the United States realized that it could not win this war.
"Christmas Bombings" and the end of the war
In 1972, the North attempted another major offensive using armored forces. However, with the help of the southerners, they repulsed this attack.
After this, the United States carried out serious carpet bombings across major cities North: Hanoi and Haiphong. The operation was called "Christmas Bombing". North Vietnam had to sit down at the negotiating table, after which the Americans quickly withdrew their troops. It is difficult to calculate US losses in Vietnam year by year. This war is a record for the number of American soldiers killed. Desertion in the army flourished, all cities were frightened by passing military men who handed out flags. This meant death in battle close relative. US losses in Vietnam (photos are given in the article) range from 40-60 thousand people. This does not include the Puerto Ricans who were recruited into the army to gain citizenship, as well as the wounded and maimed. They were not included in this figure, but they were also lost to society.
It was then that the famous boxer Muhammad Ali became a Muslim and adopted a new name, as it gave him protection from conscription. Many emigrated from the country. More than 1 million Vietnamese people died in this war, including women and children.
Against the backdrop of numerous US wars last decade The war in Vietnam, which was lost for Washington, is gradually fading into obscurity. However, she is a shining example of how national identity and patriotism can defeat any enemy, even armed with modern weapons.
The Vietnam War was the longest military conflict in modern times military history. The conflict lasted about 20 years: from November 1, 1955 until the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975.
The most characteristic picture of the Vietnam War
In 1940, US President Franklin Roosevelt officially announced his country's assistance to Ho Chi Minh and his Vietnam Minh movement. The documents referred to them as "patriots", "nationalists", "freedom fighters" and "allies".
Roosevelt and Ho Chi Minh
[Wikipedia]
58,200 Americans died in the fighting and another 304,000 were wounded. In total, approximately 2.5 million military personnel passed through Vietnam. Thus, every tenth person was killed or injured. About two thirds of military personnel American army They were volunteers during the war. The bloodiest year for Americans was May 1968, when 2,415 people died.
Moments of war
The average age of a dead American soldier was 23 years 11 months. 11,465 deaths were under 20 years of age, and 5 died before reaching 16 years of age! The oldest person killed in the war was a 62-year-old American.
War is a matter for the young...
[http://www.warhistoryonline.com/]
Losses civilian population unknown to date - it is believed that about 5 million died, more in the North than in the South. In addition, the losses of the civilian population of Cambodia and Laos are not taken into account anywhere - apparently, they also number in the thousands here.
Footage of war crimes
From 1957 to 1973, about 37 thousand South Vietnamese were shot by Viet Cong guerrillas for collaborating with the Americans, most of whom were minor government employees.
A typical picture of Vietnamese cities...
On average, an American soldier fought 240 days a year in Vietnam! For comparison, an American soldier during World War II Pacific Ocean fought on average 40 days over 4 years.
Military operation in the jungle
As of January 2004, 1,875 American soldiers were reported missing in action in Vietnam. As of August 1995, there were 1,713,823 Vietnam War veterans in the United States. Only 0.5 percent of Vietnam War veterans were incarcerated after the war ended, and their suicide rate was 1.7 percent higher than average.
Downed American pilot
US used during the Vietnam War chemical reagent Agent Orange, banned for military use in Geneva in 1925. As a result, at least 400 thousand Vietnamese died. Traditional explanation This fact is its use exclusively against vegetation.
Spraying defoliants over the jungle.
[Wikipedia]
March 16, 1968 American soldiers completely destroyed a Vietnamese village, killing 504 innocent men, women and children. For this war crime Only one person was convicted, who three days later was “pardoned” by a personal decree of Richard Nixon.
Destroyed Vietnamese village
The dominant leader on our planet, the United States, is accustomed to always emerging victorious in everything, or at least certainly not a loser. But also in American history there is a shameful stain that has not been gotten rid of for half a century. And this stain is the Vietnam War.
Until now, these pages of history are mysterious and not fully understood. Why did America intervene in Vietnam? On what grounds? How it was possible to deceive the entire American people and present the peace-loving, naive Viet Cong as aggressors in their eyes is still unclear.
But all this is nothing more than food for thought. All we have to do is analyze the facts and accurate data.
According to many sources, US losses in Vietnam vary, depending on who provided the information and who should be classified as “losses.” This figure varies from 40 to 60 thousand people. If we take into account not only the number of those killed in battle, but also those missing in action, those who died from disease and force majeure situations that occurred during the war, then this is approximately 58,220 Americans.
Wall of Memory in Washington - memorial fallen soldiers in Vietnam Many commanders who went through the entire war from beginning to end, maintaining contact with their soldiers in the future, stated that even after the end of the war, the number of losses only increased: those who received wounds died, those who were sick, some ended their lives suicide.
Chuck Dean, a war veteran, wrote that according to his calculations, 150 thousand Americans committed suicide. However, the figure is very dubious and unverified.
303 thousand soldiers were injured, with we're talking about not about injuries in the form of an abrasion or scratch. Most of these people returned home crippled and disabled.
About 800 military personnel American side were captured during the entire war. Mostly these were downed aviators.
By the way, US aviation losses in Vietnam were quite impressive. It is worth noting that on the American side, the war was waged mainly by air: airstrikes were carried out, cities and villages were bombed. According to today's estimates, US Air Force losses in Vietnam amount to about 5,000 aircraft.
For the United States, the Vietnam War was the fourth most powerful, destructive and large-scale after the Civil War and two world wars.
And all the same, all these losses are nothing compared to the terrible figures that characterize the consequences of this disaster for the Vietnamese side.
The People's Army of Vietnam, together with partisan detachments, lost about 1 million 100 thousand people. More than 3 million civilians were killed.
Veterans Vietnam War receive the Medal of Valor from President Barack Obama The damage that the war caused to the Vietnamese people and statehood is difficult to calculate or even imagine. People have suffered a lot of grief and suffering because their views on the structure of their own social order and the states went against the American ones, and, of course, for friendship with the USSR.
And yet, Vietnam survived. Neither the number of weapons, nor weapons, nor the number of soldiers, nor their military training, nor advanced technology could help the United States in this confrontation. The Vietnamese fought for their land, for the lives of their children. Their high morale was noticeably superior to the Americans, who were demoralized and did not understand what they had to lay down their lives for.
Vietnam War - shining example how the human factor plays decisive role during the war.
The UN Security Council discussed the situation in Eastern Ghouta: a suburb of Damascus partially controlled by militants, where Syrian army conducts a counter-terrorism operation. During this meeting American representative Nikki Haley stated that the United States could strike Syria again if the UN fails to achieve a ceasefire in Damascus.
The USA has similar experience. On April 7, 2017, the US Navy ships USS Ross and USS Porter fired a salvo at the Shayrat base of Syrian government forces, from which it is believed Western countries, planes allegedly took off to carry out chemical attack in the city of Khan Sheikhun. The destroyers fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles, of which only 23 reached the target. Our military in Shayrat was not injured as a result of the attack: the day before, Pentagon representatives contacted the Russian Ministry of Defense and made sure that there were no Russians at this air base.
On Tuesday, March 13th Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov responded to Haley's threat and outlined the operational situation. According to him, the militants are preparing to stage a chemical attack by government forces against civilians. “For these purposes, a crowd of women, children and old people has been assembled in Eastern Ghouta to portray victims,” Gerasimov said. “White Helmets activists are already there and film crews with satellite video broadcasting equipment.” After this provocation, according to the General Staff, the United States plans to accuse troops of using chemical weapons Assad and launch a missile and bomb attack on government quarters in Damascus. At the same time, as the general said, Russian military advisers, representatives of the Center for Reconciliation of Warring Parties and military police are in Damascus in the institutions and facilities of the Syrian Ministry of Defense. Therefore, if an American strike poses a threat to the lives of Russian military personnel, the Russian Armed Forces “will take retaliatory measures against both the missiles and the launch vehicles that will use them.” In other words, our military is ready not only to hit American missiles, but also to shoot down planes and sink ships.
On Tuesday evening, the Russian Ministry of Defense reported that General Gerasimov and General Joseph Dunford Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, discussed the situation in Eastern Ghouta by telephone and “agreed to continue bilateral contacts.” The conversation took place on the initiative Russian side. However, whether the parties managed to find a compromise is unknown.
Vladimir Kozhemyakin, AiF.ru: Evgeny Petrovich, for what purpose did the Americans threaten to bomb Syria? Is this an attempt to force Russia to vote, for example, for a new UN Security Council resolution on a ceasefire in Eastern Ghouta?
Evgeny Buzhinsky: The Americans see that the Syrian army, with our support, is capable of clearing Ghouta of militants. But the United States, at all costs, needs to protect these groups there and thereby maintain a pressure point: a source of tension that will not allow Assad and the Syrian government to relax. Hence the hysterical statements that could lead to an open clash between America and Russia.
- Is this the expectation that we will stop at the threshold?
— If we do succumb to pressure, the Syrians will stop trying to occupy Ghouta, and the militants will have time for respite and regrouping: someone will leave the enclave, but someone will remain.
— A number of political scientists believe that this time Washington is bluffing. And on our part, warning about an inevitable retaliatory strike is not a bluff?
— I have little faith in bluffs on the part of the boss General Staff. This is a clear warning: there is no need to joke with Russia anymore. The Americans were told directly: our citizens are there. If according to them struck, this, accordingly, will be a blow to Russia. That’s why Gerasimov said: both the missiles and their carriers will go astray. One can hope that if it comes to this, the matter will be limited only to airplanes. What if there is a retaliatory strike against the US naval group in the Mediterranean? This is no longer just a clash, but a war with all the ensuing consequences.
— Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov hinted that Nikki Haley’s threats made at the UN were unlikely to be coordinated with the Pentagon, since professional military personnel usually do not joke about such things. Representatives of the Armed Forces of Russia and the United States have their own channels of communication and clearly understand what is possible and what is not.
- I hope so too. Please note that the most balanced position on Guta is now occupied not by Nikki Haley, who, in my opinion, already carries everything that is possible and impossible, but US Secretary of Defense, General James Mattis. And the most adequate statements so far come from the Pentagon. Surely the American military understands where all this can lead.
— What options does Russia have if Damascus is hit?
— We have a fairly strong group of air defense systems deployed there. Therefore, the first option that suggests itself: we will shoot down cruise missiles. Which, by the way, might be a good thing: let’s show our capabilities. Let the S-400s work, and let's see how many of these missiles reach the target.
- What other reasons - except for the use of chemical weapons - can the Americans use to strike?
— Others suitable occasions They won't come up with it now. You can, of course, pull out the slogan “Assad must leave!” from the stash, but it is not very relevant, unconvincing and is unlikely to work in the case of the Europeans. And chemical weapons are convenient because they are designated as a “red line.” This is what the Americans believe can bring their allies together again.
— In Korea Soviet pilots shot down Americans and vice versa. And nothing to big war it didn't lead...
— Our pilots fought there in the Korean War. military uniform, and the planes were also with strangers identification marks. That is, all measures were observed that made it possible not to talk about direct involvement Soviet Union into this conflict and its head-on collision with the United States. This won't happen now. We will act openly.
— What actions can Russia take that are acceptable to itself so as not to lead to a hot conflict?
“On our part, everything is being done correctly. The Americans have been given proactive information: we know that you are preparing a provocation, and we will respond blow to blow. What else can be done here? Just expose and warn.
