Moon calendar 

If the war with America, who will win. Why is the US preparing for a war with Russia if it cannot be won? Unlikely of nuclear war

https://www.site/2018-04-11/rossiya_protiv_ssha_kto_pobedit_v_takom_voennom_konflikte

“Russia is simply not ready for a long war”

Russia vs USA. Who will win in such a military conflict?

Tia Dufour/ZUMAPRESS.com/GlobalLookPress

The escalation of the conflict in Syria due to the likely use of chemical weapons against civilians near Damascus has significantly increased the risk of a direct military clash between the Russian Federation and the United States in this region. On April 11, the head of the White House, Donald Trump, called on Russia to prepare to shoot down American missiles in the sky over Syria, which will be a response to a chemical attack. “Get ready, Russia, they will arrive,” he said. It is known that ships of the US Navy with Tomahawks have already approached Syria. Against the backdrop of already difficult relations between Russia and the West, the world stood still in anticipation.

If we imagine that the war between Russia and the United States really starts, who will theoretically emerge victorious from it? The site talked about this with an expert in the field of international relations and international security Pavel Luzin.

"Russia will be alone, without allies"

- In the light of recent events in Syria, some international experts are of the opinion that the possibility of a direct conflict between Russia and the United States is higher today than during the 1962 Caribbean crisis. Do you share this position?

- I would not dramatize so much and would not compare what is happening in Syria with the events that were then unfolding around Cuba. In 1962, there was a threat of nuclear war; now there is no talk of this. There is a threat of a clash with conventional weapons between the two powers, and therefore the political component is now important. Neither side wants a direct clash.

“But one gets the feeling that everything is heading towards this confrontation.

- Russia can blackmail the West with the threat of a direct collision and, if necessary, will shoot down missiles, Russian planes will fly over enemy ships. But the West has no desire to poke a "wild animal" with a stick, let's put it this way. The West has a task to ensure that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad no longer uses chemical weapons and, ideally, disappears from the historical arena altogether: he leaves for Iran, in the Moscow region, or died a heroic death. Everyone is sane and does not want war.

Nail Fattakhov / RIA Novosti

However, the situation could get out of control...

— Yes, as it happened in 1914. Then no one wanted a long war, but it turned out to be a terrible meat grinder that changed the vector of development of Europe and the world as a whole. Now, too, before this you can finish the game if you wish. But the Kremlin, I think, is not ready to seriously stand up for Assad. In addition, Russia did not respond to the defeated Wagner PMC fighters and the bombing of Syrian government military facilities ...

True, in the event of a military strike by the United States and the coalition on Assad, Russian military advisers in Syria may also die. And such an option, of course, will put the Kremlin in a disadvantageous situation. Therefore, one cannot discount the likelihood of an escalation of the conflict according to one scenario or another. I believe that if a military conflict starts, it will be of a conventional nature (a military clash using conventional weapons). And this cannot please, because the balance of power will not be in favor of Russia.

- Needless to say, that the war between Russia and the United States will be a war between the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO)?

- Of course, this will be a military confrontation between Russia and the Western military-political bloc, as well as US allies in the Middle East who are not members of the alliance. Of the hypothetical allies, Russia has only Iran. But, I think that the Iranian authorities do not want to support Russian ambitions. Iran has an anti-Israeli vector, and this country does not need to get involved in clashes with the United States. In addition, more recently, Iran signed a nuclear deal with the West to lift sanctions. And he did not do this in order to get involved in serious military adventures on the side of Russia. That is, Russia will be alone.

On the other hand, there are doubts that all NATO members will act on the Syrian front, since not everyone has the technical ability to take part in this.

Theater of War: First Steps

Let's imagine that the point of no return has been passed. How can the first hostilities begin to develop?

- Russia has created so-called "restricted zones" in Syria, protected by air defense / missile defense systems and coastal anti-ship missile systems, as well as electronic warfare systems, GPS signal jamming, etc. This is Russia's strongest side. Theoretically, we can confuse enemy missile guidance systems or even shoot down the missiles themselves.

At the initial stage of such a hypothetical conflict, Russia may begin to shoot down missiles, drones and aircraft of other countries, and not let their warships close to the coast. According to Tom Clancy, the West will respond by destroying our ground systems and various command posts.

Russia should not count on its aviation. Now we have a maximum of 30-40 aircraft in Syria - attack aircraft, bombers and a few fighters. But this cannot be countered by the number of aircraft even from one US aircraft carrier, and even more so from NATO air bases that are located around Syria. There is also, by the way, the aviation of Saudi Arabia, which will be for the United States.

It is difficult for Russia to fight far from its borders. Therefore, in the spirit of the same Tom Clancy, the Russian military may, after the start of clashes in Syria, take some action in eastern Ukraine or even in the Baltic countries.

- As a distraction to increase the grouping of forces in Syria?

- Most likely, as an attempt to raise the stakes in the conflict. The West will be able to respond to provocations in Ukraine or military operations in the Baltics only after three to five days. By this time, Russia will have already destroyed the advanced NATO battalions - it will take a day or two, and will withdraw its troops. And after that he will say: let's sit down at the negotiating table, we need to convene a peace conference. These are, of course, speculative and extremely unlikely options. But their probability is still not zero.

- You think that it will be a chain of local conflicts. Is there no talk of a long-term war at all?

- The Russian government is not suicidal. Yes, Putin is deliberately confronting the West, this was clear even before the Crimea. But this confrontation is a conscious position, the purpose of which is to force the United States to enter into negotiations. And here - who will blink first.

Well, what to do in this situation? Yes, after Syria there may be new local military conflicts, for example, in Libya or Sudan. But not on April 11 or 12, 2018, but in the future, in the coming years, for example. Russia is simply not ready for a long war.

- It is clear that the military potential necessary for victory is determined by a set of many factors, including the size of the economy, the capacity for the production of weapons. In this sense, are we losing to America?

Let's compare the numbers. The US military budget is about $700 billion. Russia's figure is several times less - less than 5 trillion rubles (about $80 billion), taking into account spending on all power structures that are responsible for defense and security.

On the other hand, look at the Russian military-industrial complex. In it, only a few factories operate at a profit. The rest generate losses, and these losses are covered by the budget. In addition, available technologies are key. Russia is denied access to new Western developments, and, by the way, it is due to this access that our country modernized in the 20th century.

- But on March 1, Vladimir Putin, in his message to the Federal Assembly, devoted much of his time to new types of weapons for Russia. He talked about the Sarmat missile system, underwater drones, laser and hypersonic weapons, the Kinzhal complex…

- "Sarmat" - a localized and, apparently, a modernized copy of the R-36M "Voevoda" missile. This rocket was previously produced by Ukrainian enterprises. The Kinzhal is reminiscent of the Kh-32 cruise anti-ship missile from the 1980s. So there is no question of any radically new developments. It's ridiculous to say that "Dagger" is a progressive development.

Moreover, the Kh-32 is intended for the Tu-22M3 aircraft, which carries three such missiles. But these aircraft are in need of deep modernization, replacement of engines and are in line for the Kazan Aviation Plant. Some of them flew in Syria, but in general their motor resource is now insignificant.

In the meantime, the engines will be changed, who will deliver the missiles? Our savvy military came up with the idea - to hang them on the MiG-31.

And it turns out that during the modernization of more than 50 Tu-22M3 aircraft, each of which can carry three X-32 missiles, it is proposed to compensate for the dropping military capabilities with several dozen MiG-31s, on which one such missile can be attached. And these MiGs are still scattered around the country.

U.S. Navy/ZUMAPRESS.com

Russia and the USA: a comparative analysis of the armies

- Let's make a comparative analysis of the armed forces of the United States and Russia. Let's start with the ground forces.

- Russia has a fully combat-ready ground forces of approximately 100 thousand people. This is the composition that is equipped, armed and ready to perform a combat mission. And these forces are stationed throughout the country.

The United States can deploy about 150,000 troops anywhere in the world, also fully equipped. In Europe - in a few weeks. Plus, the allies can deploy about 50-100 thousand people.

- What kind of air support can the RF Armed Forces count on?

- Since 2011, when the state armament program was adopted, Russia has received a little more than 400 new aircraft of all types (combat, combat training and transport). According to The Military Balance (an annual publication of the International Institute for Strategic Studies), Russia now has 1,065 aircraft. The United States, the publication points out, has 3476 aircraft. That is actually three times more. True, I think that America has about 2 thousand combat-ready aircraft, while Russia has about 600.

- What can we oppose the United States on the water?

- If you take ships - cruisers, destroyers and frigates - Russia has 32 of them. The USA has 93. The Americans have 10 aircraft carriers. Russia has one of these, and even then it is under repair for three or four years. Russia has 49 submarines with cruise missiles, the US has 54. Russia has 13 submarines with strategic ballistic missiles, and the US has 14.

- What are the figures for heavy land equipment?

- The Military Balance reports that at the moment the US has 2831 tanks, Russia has 2950. Again, the combat readiness of these tanks is not 100%. For armored personnel carriers: Russia has 5900, 3336 for the United States. However, if France and Great Britain join the US, they will have about 1,400 more armored personnel carriers.

Russian Defense Ministry/Global Look Press

- What is the nuclear arsenal of the two countries?

- Under the START-3 treaty, we can deploy 1,550 warheads and up to 700 intercontinental missiles of all types and bombers. We now have smaller missiles and bombers - about 500 with a little. In any case, it's a lot. This is much more than China, France, England, India, Pakistan or Israel. The United States has more deployed strategic forces, but in general we have parity here.

- As for the combat experience of the Russian and American military, does anyone have an advantage here?

- Not. In recent history, Americans have been fully at war since 2001. They went through Afghanistan, Iraq, carried out operations in Syria and Yemen. From the experience of Russia, the first and second Chechen campaigns, in 2008 - Georgia, since 2014 - Ukraine, where some part of the ground forces of the RF Armed Forces took part in hostilities. And now Syria.

Quality, cost and complexity of technology

- The numerical advantage of the American military is obvious. Maybe Russia can bet on the quality of its technology? Much is said, for example, about the high performance of our newest aircraft.

— Planes are difficult to compare, so each manufacturer sticks out the advantages and does not talk about the shortcomings. In a real situation, there were no collisions, for example, Su-35 and F-22. And you can not categorically talk about which one is better.

It should be noted that not only the technique itself is important, but the decision-making and management system. The way pilots prepare, the way aircraft are maintained.

We can evaluate these parameters for Russian civil aviation. After all, civilian ships are produced at the same enterprises as the military ones.

And here's an example for you. Sukhoi Superjet, manufactured in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, stands after 12 hours of flight on the ground. Waiting for parts and checking for faults. And this is a civil aircraft that should fly more than fighter jets.

After that, you are not surprised why not only our military personnel, but also representatives of the military-industrial complex are in Syria. They constantly repair equipment there, look at and evaluate the shortcomings, and then fly back to the plant and finalize aircraft and helicopters.

Americans live in a market economy, they have an order of magnitude higher production capabilities. Therefore, if they make excellent aircraft like Airbus and Boeing, then everything is in order with military aircraft. And the Russian military-industrial complex does not look at costs, at the quality of management.

Jakob Ratz/ZUMAPRESS.com/GlobalLookPress

- Do we have the same situation with tanks? Russia is now boasting of the "unparalleled" "Armata".

- And where are these "Armata"? There are only exhibition and training copies. Our main tank is T-72B3 and T-90. In general, I am not a fan of comparing tanks and other types of weapons. Let engineers with education do it. I want to focus on something else.

The Second World War. German tanks were good. But they were expensive and difficult to manufacture. But the Soviet T-34 and the American Sherman, on the contrary, are simple and cheap. And it turned out that even with heavy losses of these tanks, they win.

And we still have such a completely cannibalistic approach: it is not the quality of armored vehicles that matters, but its quantity. The more, the easier it is to spend. Only modern wars are won by quality, not quantity. Although there is an important point in terms of quantity: Western countries are able to increase the production of any military equipment many times over in a very short time, but Russia is not.

Our military factories produce 10-15 military aircraft a year, while American and European factories produce dozens, and maybe hundreds. It's just a different production culture, a different management system, the ability to scale new developments. There is money, people and knowledge for this.

- Is there any data on the losses of Russia and the United States in Syria, on the basis of which it would be possible to draw certain conclusions?

- During the entire Syrian campaign, Russia lost 13 pieces of equipment. The coalition is only five, and that's along with heavy drones. Our losses are higher, which means that our equipment, and the training of pilots, and the communications system, and navigation, and reconnaissance with tactics of use, have features.

By the way, have you noticed that Russia uses carpet bombing tactics? It's not because the Russian military are sadists. This is a consequence of the peculiarities of technology. If we have a shortage of high-precision weapons and target designation and guidance systems, then we have to rely on carpet bombing.

Facebook Pavel Luzin

Unlikely of nuclear war

— What is the result? Russia in the event of a direct military clash will lose to the United States?

Yes, Russia will be defeated. At the initial stage, as already mentioned, we can shoot down missiles and planes, sink ships. But we will also lose the Khmeimim air base near the city of Latakia, as well as a technical base with a port in the city of Tartus. Further local skirmishes are likely in other parts of the world. But after that, unpredictable political events are likely to begin already inside Russia. Because even in the Kremlin, not everyone wants war. Moreover, Russian society does not want war. Personally, in my life I have not met anyone who, in the event of a mobilization announcement, would collect things and go to the military registration and enlistment office. The Americans are another matter, they are a very militant nation.

- And you do not believe that nuclear weapons will be used?

“This scenario is unlikely. Russia has a concept of nuclear de-escalation. This is when, in a conventional military conflict, the Russian army is defeated and a decision is made to launch a limited nuclear strike on an uninhabited area or a non-navigable part of the ocean. The goal is to demoralize the enemy, show him determination, prevent his further defeat and sit down at the negotiating table. This is the kind of order that can be given and carried out.

Ian Dudley/ZUMAPRESS.com/GlobalLookPress

- When you talk about "unpredictable political events" inside Russia after the start of the war, what do you mean?

- Remember 2003, Saddam Hussein had 250-300 thousand soldiers, some money and a very tough authoritarian system of power, the political field was all cleaned up. How long did it take the international coalition then to defeat Saddam's army? Few weeks. Simply because the Iraqi system of government has collapsed.

Authoritarian systems in the event of critical challenges lose control, it is very difficult for them to survive. And it is far from a fact that the Russian system, for all its declared readiness to fight against the backdrop of trillions spent on weapons, is ready to survive any clash with the West.

Don't bet on sports guys.

Sports betting is not an additional income and not easy money, but expensive entertainment. As the Big Russian Boss said at a lecture at Moscow State University, just don't bet on sports.

For starters, what is it all about? There are bookmakers where people bet money on the victory of some athletes or sports teams. For example, let's take football. Manchester United and Liverpool are playing, you bet 100 rubles on what Liverpool will win. If this team really wins, then 100 rubles will be returned to you and your winnings will be thrown on top. If Liverpool lose, then your 100 will go to the office.

    First advice. If someone promises you the result of a match-fixing - this is a scammer. Infa cell.

    The bonus on the first deposit in the office is the appearance of a gift. No one will give you money just like that, you will need to “win it back”, that is, put several times more than the “donated” amount.

    Now about where the amount of your winnings comes from. There is a coefficient for every bet. Bookmakers are well versed in sports and calculate in advance who will win. If they think there will be a draw, then the odds should be 2 (this is calculated using the formula k = 1 / 0.5 = 2, where 0.5 is a draw). But the coefficients are underestimated, and in the real world it will not be 2, but 1.85.

    This is necessary for the company to make money. If you bet 100 rubles on a coefficient of 2, you will win 200, and if you lose, you will lose your 100. And if the coefficient is 1.85, then you will either lose 100 or win 85. The office will still squeeze 15 rubles from you.

    Advanced users come up with different ways to make money. For example, there is a martingale method. You bet each time on one result (for example, on a draw), constantly doubling the bet. At first it seems that it works, but in fact, a draw may not fall for a very long time: you will spend a lot of money and you will not be able to double the bet. You won't be able to buy food or pay rent.

    You can beat the bookmaker only if he made a mistake in the forecast and overestimated the odds. But in order to understand that the coefficient is too high, and to find it among different bookmakers, you need to shovel a bunch of information.

    You can try to win on the difference in the odds of the two bookmakers. This is also very difficult, you need to understand it well and constantly monitor it. People who try to make money in this way are called "arbulators".

    This is taught and studied, a few years ago, for two hours of individual lessons, you could give 50,000 rubles.

    There is only one conclusion. Sports betting can be a good pastime, but investing in it to get rich is not going to work.

What is the Sntch site?

We make summaries of interesting articles

You get:

  1. Squeezing the most important and interesting,
  2. In simple words
  3. Short and to the point.
  4. Reading one article takes no more than 2 minutes. In regular media, you will spend 10 minutes on this.

We also have collections of cool photos, games and tests.

Bookmark us if you value your time and love awesome stories.

US, Russia and China are testing each other's patience and strategic power

And while some of the post-2002 missile defense systems have been labeled ineffective, the US Navy has "Aegis," a system that a former Pentagon missile defense program manager says can shoot down ICBMs. 40 US warships are equipped with nearly 300 Aegis anti-missile launchers. In 2008, one even destroyed a satellite when it went out of orbit.

War mentality

In the run-up to the Iraq War, various governments and observers warned the US and UK of potential unintended consequences. But these countries did not succumb to criticism and fears. And despite all the lessons that can be learned from the disaster in Iraq, today there is a great risk that something similar will happen.

Victims in other countries have little effect on US domestic politics. The hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who died in the first sanctions and then in the war had no effect on Presidents Clinton or George W. Bush. It is impossible to say whether the reaction will be different with similar losses in Iran or North Korea, especially when using "humane" precision weapons.

There is also a need to revitalize and scale up the arms control activities of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which brought the Cold War to a peaceful end.

Perhaps Trump or one of his successors, like the Kaiser in 1914, will be horrified by the reality of massive US attacks. But unlike the Kaiser, who saw his empire divided and defeated for the first time, a US president in the 21st century may well avoid a similar fate.

New time has the exclusive right to translate and publish columnsthe conversion. com. Republishing the full version of the text is prohibited.

The overseas military review Real Clear Defense (an aggregator of the best American articles on defense topics and a platform for Pentagon experts) unexpectedly advised the US Army to take part in the International Army Games ARMI-2019. Tolga Ozyurtcu, an associate professor at the University of Texas, said it would be foolish to ignore events like these, which are attended by a growing number of participating countries every year.

“These games are a good chance for the Russian military-industrial complex to show off the latest innovations, invite potential buyers and strengthen cooperation with other armies,” writes Tolga Ozyurtcu. “A similar event is also being held among NATO countries, reviving the spirit of rivalry between East and West during the Cold War.”

Tolga Ozyurtchu notes that tank biathlon is the most popular (according to views on YouTube - author) in the Russian game. However, other competitions are also not for the “weaklings”, for example, cooks, before stoking the stoves, will have to hit targets from a machine gun, apparently to protect food from hungry enemies.

Despite the public entertainment and even "fleeting absurdity", "ARMY" is a serious matter. Watching the games, NATO countries realize that “the Russians are firmly on their feet and confident in their abilities,” a Texas expert from Real Clear Defense is quoted as saying.

China is not far behind. "The PLA's participation in international military games is an effective way to improve real-world combat capabilities," the Xinhua news agency wrote. “Thus, the troops are strengthening military training and readiness for war to protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China.”

Last year, Russia, as the host of Army Games 2017, invited NATO countries to take part in international army games - primarily in tank biathlon. Oleg Salyukov, commander of the Russian Ground Forces, said the games were open to NATO members, but they refused to participate.

However, last year Greece (a member of NATO) did decide to compete in one tournament, becoming the only participant from the North Atlantic Alliance. In this regard, the leadership of the alliance of Western armies has officially stated that invitations to these war games "do not replace proper transparency and confidence-building measures."

This year, six new countries joined the Army Games ARMI-2018: Vietnam, Myanmar, Pakistan, Sudan and the Philippines, which is almost a third more than a year earlier. In total - 32 armies of the world sent their best fighters. "It's nice to see that the scale of the competition is expanding geographically, the list of participants is growing," Shoigu said.

“NATO responded with its own festival - the “Strong Europe” tank challenge in Germany. Unlike the Russian games, this event is more intimate, and it is dedicated to strengthening military cooperation and the efficiency of NATO forces, Tolga Ozyurtcu notes. “Given that the debut of Strong Europe took place in 2016, it would be logical to assume that the US and Germany drew inspiration from the International Army Games.”

If the tank biathlon of the ARMI games resembles the popular sport of the Winter Olympic Games, then Strong Europe (where the USA takes part) is a competition in separate positions. For 5 days, participants in the Russian alternative compete on tanks in races in various lanes, including defensive and offensive operations, chemical attack, overcoming obstacle courses, as well as compete in shooting, evacuation of the wounded, and vehicle identification.

Over the past three years, Russian tankers have invariably won the tank biathlon during the Army Games, and in the Strong Europe competition, the first places have always been occupied by the Germans on Leopard 2A4 tanks - twice from Germany and once from Austria. As for the Americans, only in 2017 they were the third (out of 6 participants - author), competing on the upgraded tank M1A2 SEP v2. Ukraine then took 5th place on the "antediluvian" Soviet tank T-64BV, ahead of the Poles on the Leopard 2A5.

"I would be lying when I said we didn't want to win, but I think the other teams were really strong, so it was difficult," said German Sergeant 1st Class Mathis Hantke, the winning tank commander and deputy platoon leader from Panzerbataillon 393. In fact, the tankers from the FRG were ahead of their colleagues from the USA and Ukraine with a significant advantage (1450 points against 1150 and 950 points, respectively, with the maximum possible 1500).

Even NATO experts noted that the "Strong Europe" contest was inconsistent with the real combat situation. "It's a competition, but it's not really a competition," commented Major David Glenn, Senior Operations Officer at US 7th Army Headquarters, thoughtfully and floridly.

What is curious: the detailed results of "Strong Europe" turned out to be classified, so journalists had to be content with rumors from "reliable sources".

First, the targets for the Germans were the smallest, and for the Americans, the largest. In general, the German team turned out to be much better prepared than their rivals: two of the four crews were equipped with reservists, but even those easily defeated the professionals from the USA.

According to Polish sources, the Polish platoon destroyed 75% of the targets at a distance of 2 km from the target, while the Germans fired without a miss. Rumors from the unofficial Gunner Master network (USA - author) say that the Americans were fourth in the shooting. But the Italian tankers disgraced themselves by not hitting most of the targets, and were removed from the competition.

The Americans were the worst at camouflage, their crews could not figure out how to properly use the camouflage net. Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, representing the US Army, admitted that his tankers are not trained in this discipline at all, they say, it is problematic to cover a 60-ton vehicle.

A team from Slovenia, during an evacuation operation, crushed a “wounded” dummy in the form of the Slovenian army, causing great joy among the Germans and sadness among the Americans.

Bloggers and forum participants generally comment negatively on the participation of their teams in the Strong Europe competition, with the exception of the Germans. Those, in turn, are scolded by competitors, saying that the German team wins only because it has the best tank in the world. Meanwhile, the M1A2 SEP v2 is the latest US tank with innovative optics, but it is performing poorly.

“Now it has become fashionable to talk about the return of the Cold War,” sums up the comparison of the two army games Tolga Ozyurtcu. - The International Army Games (and with them the tank tournament) prove that world politics has not only absorbed the principles of international sports, but also reshaped them in its own way. Like the Olympics, these events are a good opportunity for powerful people to get together and sort things out without war.”

That is, those who consider themselves the strongest may not need to behave aggressively at all. But to test this, it would be foolish for Americans to shy away from competing with the Russians and Chinese in Army Games 2019.

Military exercises: NATO planes to fly near Russian borders for a week

Military news: The Germans recognized their tanks as "toys" compared to the T-34

Experts believe that military technical superiority is on the side of the US military. Therefore, in the event of a war with the Russians, the Americans will win. The Americans will win the Chinese too. Other analysts simply talk about a "small victorious" war. Still others object to the first two: they say, the Kremlin will have something to answer.

Who would win the war if Russia, China and America clashed “right now”?

According to Logan Nye, whose article was published in, the United States is the most powerful militarily.

1. Stealth fighters.

The US Air Force currently has a fifth generation stealth aircraft. However, there are problems here. The Air Force has only 187 F-22 fighters at its disposal, and the brand new F-35 has faced a number of difficulties, and even the pilot's high-tech helmet still cannot be brought to mind. Meanwhile, the Chinese and Russians are building their planes. Beijing is building four models: J-31, J-22, J-23 and J-25 (the latter are at the rumor level). Russia is working on one fighter, the T-50 (aka PAK FA), a stealth fighter with capabilities that some experts put on par with those of the F-22. This T-50 will most likely enter service in late 2016 or early 2017.

In 1980, the US Army adopted the first M-1 Abrams. Since then, the tank has been significantly upgraded, including armor, transmission and weapons systems. Basically, it's a novelty with a 120mm main gun, great electronics, armor configuration, etc.

Russian T-90. Russia is currently developing a prototype T-14 on the Armata platform, but now the Kremlin is counting on the T-90A. And this tank is still "surprising": one of these tanks "survived a direct hit from a TOW missile in Syria."

Chinese tank - "Type-99", equipped with a 125-mm gun. The tank is upgraded with reactive armor and is considered to be almost as survivable in combat as Western or Russian tanks.

Likely winner? Here, perhaps, a draw. However, America has more tanks and "better crew training." And the United States has more combat skills than its rivals, the author is sure.

3. Surface ships.

The US Navy has the largest military fleet in the world. 10 full-fledged aircraft carriers, 9 helicopter carriers. At the same time, technical advantages and the huge size of the Navy alone may not be enough to overcome the attack of Chinese missiles or attacks of Russian submarines (in the event that the Americans had to fight in enemy waters).

As for Russia, its launch of Caliber cruise missiles against targets in Syria showed that Moscow has found a way to launch serious attacks even from its relatively small ships.

The Chinese Navy has hundreds of surface ships with advanced missiles and more.

Likely Winner: US Navy. American forces are still "the undisputed world champion". However, this champion "will suffer heavy losses if he decides to fight China or Russia on their territory."

4. Submarines.

The US Navy has 14 ballistic missile submarines (a total of 280 nuclear missiles), each of which can destroy an enemy city, four submarines with 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles, and 54 nuclear submarines. They are technologically equipped, well-armed and secretive.

Russia has only 60 submarines, but they are very maneuverable. Russian nuclear submarines are on par or close to their Western counterparts. Russia is working on new underwater weapons, including a nuclear torpedo.

China's navy has a total of five nuclear submarines, 53 diesel-powered submarines and four nuclear ballistic missile submarines. Chinese submarines are easy to track.

Likely winner: The US submarine fleet wins here, even though the gap is narrowing over time.

Military expert Aleksey Arestovich expressed the following thought in the article for Moscow: it’s time for Moscow to get nervous, because America needs a “small war”.

Arestovich notes that the Americans intend to repeat the bluff of the SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) system, hoping to kill two birds with one stone. They want to force Russia and China, that is, their opponents, to enter into an arms race - one that both states cannot pull out. At the same time, they will actually test their missile system (the article mentions a test launch of a Minuteman III long-range ballistic missile). The level of technology already allows you to shoot down missiles on a ballistic curve, the expert notes, and the Americans are doing it.

Such launches tickle the nerves of both US adversaries and those who have ballistic missiles. Since they raise questions about the effectiveness of the missile shield, the ability to deliver a preemptive, retaliatory strike, and so on. The US actions are not only related to the North Korean crisis, but are a warning to everyone that it is time to get nervous. If you don't want to be nervous, then you need to negotiate with us. The United States is slowly, by the millimeter, gaining even greater superiority even over those adversaries that have nuclear weapons and can produce ballistic missiles. Another 10 years of such tests, and Russia's missile power will be completely different from what it was customary to talk about it before, and which it was customary to be afraid of. The same applies to the Chinese, Korean, Pakistani, Indian nuclear potential.

According to the Ukrainian author, the United States "needs a small victorious war." Trump personally needs it to overcome the wave of criticism. And the White House is now deciding who to beat, the expert believes. Missile tests, he notes, are not only planned tests, but also acts of political influence "on the brains of the North Korean, Chinese, Russian leadership."

Harlan Ullman, in 2004-2016, sees American and, at the same time, NATO power in a completely different way. who served as an employee of the main advisory group of the NATO Supreme Commander in Europe, now Art. advisor to the Atlantic Council in Washington.

In an article on the site, he talks about "black holes" that non-physicists study. There are also "strategic black holes" and their origins are much more complicated than those "in deep space".

NATO will have to deal with three such holes.

The first black hole is from the realm of strategy. “Russian interference in the affairs of Ukraine and the seizure of Crimea,” the author notes, turned out to be frightening. Russia's involvement in Syria has supported the "diabolical regime of Bashar al-Assad." Russia has become much more visible in Libya and the Persian Gulf as well.

And what about NATO? The Alliance created at one time the strategic concepts needed after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. And today, NATO's responses to Russia's actions reflect the thinking and concepts of the 20th, not the 21st century, the expert is sure. By the way, Russian President Vladimir Putin does not intend to go to war with NATO, the author believes. The Kremlin's policy relies on more than just blunt military force. Moscow was “not impressed” with the deployment of four battalions in the Baltic countries and the rotation of the brigade combat group within NATO.

The expert believes that the alliance needs a new strategy to solve these real problems and to plug the "second black hole": countering Russia's "active measures" or what some analysts call "asymmetric warfare."

Here's an expert's suggestion: NATO should move to a "porcupine defense" strategy, especially for its eastern members. The underlying concept is that any attack is so bad that under no circumstances will Moscow even consider using military force. Where do you get this "so bad"?

We need Javelin anti-tank missile systems, guided surface-to-air missiles (Stinger and Patriot), and they are needed "in very large quantities." Using thousands of drones will also deter any attempted attack, however this method is "too costly". In addition, Harlan Ullman advises using manpower in the form of local fighters who could wage "guerrilla and insurgent warfare." But even this is not enough.

Russian "active measures" include cyberattacks, propaganda, disinformation, intimidation and political interference, the author lists. And so far NATO has little to oppose to these measures. Therefore, the alliance urgently needs to "make efforts to plug this black hole."

The last black hole is the procurement of weapons systems. These processes are too long, they are unable to keep up with the rapid development of technology. And NATO should take this into account.

Will the alliance be able to realize all this? After all, these are "vital issues" and "the future of NATO is based on them."

While some experts and analysts are predicting a "small war" to the world, in which the United States (apparently, even without the participation of NATO) will finish off some of its opponents (apparently, not the DPRK, but someone more powerful), others warn: NATO - holes all around! Without patching them, the West may be the losers. The alliance is stuck in the twentieth century and cannot resist the smart policies of the Kremlin.