In order to determine the possible role of aircraft carriers in a large-scale non-nuclear conflict, let's try to figure out how much tactical aviation the Russian Federation and NATO will have in the very near future - say, by 2020. The author did not set himself the task of achieving absolute reliability in the calculation of the Air Force , collecting them from open sources, but should not be mistaken in the order of numbers.

The RF Aerospace Forces for 2020 inclusive should have:
PAK FA - 12 pcs. These will be vehicles for trial operation in the troops, so it is hardly worth considering them in the total number.
Su-35S - approximately 98 vehicles. The contract for 48 aircraft has already been completed, the second one is being executed now, for 50 aircraft by the end of 2020.
Su-30 M2 / SM - according to rumors, it is planned to increase up to 180 machines by 2020
Su-33 - it is not clear, we will leave 14 cars.
Su-27 SM / SM3 - 61 vehicles. In general, initially it was said that at least 100 vehicles would undergo modernization, but recently, something has not been heard about the Su-27SM3. Perhaps the program has been closed?
MiG-35 - 30 vehicles
MiG-29SMT - 44 vehicles
MiG-29UBT - 8 vehicles
MiG-29KR - 19 vehicles
MiG-29KUBR - 4 vehicles
MiG-31 - 113 modernized by 2020
In addition, presumably the Russian Air Force will retain a certain number of non-modernized vehicles: 78 Su-27, 69 MiG-31 and 120 MiG-29.

As for the front-line aviation, everything is more complicated here:

Su-34 - 124 aircraft until 2020, but it is possible that their number will be increased further. Taking into account the fact that they are now produced at 16-18 aircraft per year, it is quite possible to increase the number of aircraft to 142 aircraft. So let's count.

Su-24 - 0 vehicles. Alas, according to existing plans, the Su-24 should be completely decommissioned from the Air Force by 2020. On the other hand, in case of aggravation of the international situation, this decision may be reconsidered. And, in fact, even if a decision is made to withdraw, it can be assumed that the modernized Su-24 will be mothballed and not destroyed. Let's leave about half of the current number of Su-24s in service - approximately 120 vehicles.

Su-25 - there can be up to 200 vehicles.

Tu-22M3M - it is planned to modernize 30 vehicles. Strictly speaking, these are long-range missile-carrying aircraft, not tactical ones, but they, with a high degree of probability, will be used to solve tactical aviation tasks, so we will take them into account here.

Of course, there are also Tu-95 and Tu-160, which theoretically could perform non-strategic functions, but in practice, in the event of a conflict with NATO, they are unlikely to play this role.

Thus, we counted:
Fighters - 458 pcs.
Interceptors - 113 pcs.
Tactical bombers - 262 pcs.
Long-range missile carriers - 30 pcs.

And in total, it turns out, 863 new or modernized aircraft and, in addition, 267 not modernized fighters and interceptors and 200 attack aircraft - only 1,330 aircraft.

It is clear that all these machines cannot take off at the same time, because no one canceled the need for maintenance and repairs. But today we are by no means the 90s in the yard, so we can safely assume that the number of non-combat-ready aircraft at any given time will be within reasonable limits.

And what about our opponents? Let's count the European NATO countries first

Germany. Formally, today the Air Force has 125 Eurofighters and 93 Tornadoes. In fact, they are able to perform combat missions 55 Eurofighters and 29 Tornadoes. Generally speaking, Germany planned to acquire 180 Eurofighters, but how long will it take, and how many will be on the wing by 2020? It is unlikely that by that date the once mighty Air Force will be able to boast of at least a hundred combat-ready or undergoing maintenance aircraft.

France. 167 Mirages-2000 of various modifications, approximately 115 Raphael in the Air Force by 2020 and 44 Raphael in the Navy. A total of 326 aircraft. It seems to be a great force, but only about 40% of the aircraft are combat-ready.

England - 141 Eurofighter (232 ordered), 76 Tornadoes. The author does not know the schedule for the delivery of Eurofighters, for example, they will reach 160 aircraft, making a total of 236 aircraft. But there is no reason to believe that the situation with combat-ready aircraft is much better than in France or Germany.

Italy - 83 Eurofighter, 68 Tornado fighter-bomber, 82 light attack aircraft AMX ACOL and AMX-T ACOL
Spain - 86 F-18 and 61 Eurofighter.
Greece - 156 F-16, 22- Mirage-2000, 34 Phantom II and 34 attack aircraft Corsair
Turkey - 260 F-16s of various (including quite modern) modifications, 51 Phantom II, 35 old F-5s
Norway - 57 fairly old F-16s.
Netherlands - 63 old F-16s.
Belgium - 68 old F-16s
Denmark - 30 old F-16s in service should be decommissioned by 2020. Let's leave them all the same
Portugal - 30 old F-16s
Hungary and the Czech Republic - 12 Swedish SAABs each, total - 24
Bulgaria - 15 MiG-29 and 14 Su-25
Romania - 12 F-16 and 36 MiG-21
Slovakia - 12 MiG-29
Croatia - 16 MiG-21
Poland - 48 F-16. There are also MiG-29 and Su-22, but they seem to be withdrawn from the Air Force.

And in total, it turns out, 2,177 aircraft, of which no less than 814 (rather - much more) are already very old machines.

Since 2,177 are noticeably more than 1,330, it seems that the air forces of the European countries - NATO members are significantly stronger than the Russian aerospace forces. But if you dig a little deeper, then everything becomes completely different.

The first is, of course, the percentage of serviceable cars in their total number. Unfortunately, the author does not know this figure for new aircraft of the Russian Air Force. At the same time, there are data on the US Air Force, where the level of readiness of the F-15 and F-16 aircraft is 71-74% of the total number, and the A-10 attack aircraft - even 77%, and there is no reason to believe that ours is worse today.

Let's assume that the% of serviceability of the RF videoconferencing system is at the level of 70%. At the same time, the owners of the most powerful air forces in Europe, equipped with the most modern aircraft - Germany, England, France - have extremely low percentages of serviceability at about 40%.

It turns out interesting. If we compare the total estimated number of the most modern aircraft of the Russian Federation (Su-35/30, MiG-35 / 29SMT / K), which, even without taking into account the modernized MiG-31BM, by 2020 there should be about 383 machines with the most modern NATO machines (440 "Eurofighter" maximum, plus 159 "Rafale", and a total of 599 cars), it turns out that the European NATO countries have more than a half-fold advantage. But if we compare the number of combat-ready vehicles (at 70% for the Russian Aerospace Forces and even 50% for NATO), we get 268 versus 299, i.e. almost parity.

If we assume that the percentage of serviceable aircraft on average in European NATO countries does not exceed 50-55% against 70-75% of the Russian Federation, then the ratio of combat-ready aircraft will be 1,088 - 1,197 NATO aircraft against 931-997 aircraft of the Russian Federation, that is, the superiority of European countries NATO is minimal.

But that's not all. After all, it is not enough to have planes, they also need to be controlled. And if the Russian Aerospace Forces are subordinate to a single command and are capable from the very beginning of the conflict to act as a single whole, then the air forces of the European NATO members (we have listed the air forces of 19 (!) Countries) are nothing of the kind. But this is very important. Of course, NATO countries conduct joint training of their air forces, but they are unlikely to be intense and massive enough to ensure the kind of coordination and interaction of aviation that is possible within the air force of one country.

Remember, too, that NATO pilot training is very heterogeneous. The author does not have accurate data on that score, but the training of Turkish or Bulgarian pilots is hardly equivalent to French or English.

One should also take into account the relationship of countries in NATO itself. It is not easy to believe that in the event of a serious local conflict, the European NATO countries, as one, will enter the war as a monolithic force. It is very difficult to imagine the Greek armed forces fighting to the last drop of blood for the interests of Turkey.

Again, it is extremely difficult to expect that even those countries that do get involved in a conflict will throw all their aircraft into battle. You can be sure, almost for sure, that in the event of some large-scale clash, for example, in Eastern Europe, neither Britain nor France will throw all the might of their air forces into battle, but will confine themselves to sending a "limited contingent". Of course, the Russian Federation has the same problematics, because Far East and southern borders it is impossible, but in general, the percentage of the total number of combat-ready aircraft that will be able to bring the Russian Federation into action in any conflict may well turn out to be higher than that of the European NATO countries.

Logistics issues. No, of course, Europe's airfield network is very large and includes over 1,800 hard-surfaced airfields. But the fact is that after the end of the Cold War, the Europeans are saving a lot on their military budgets, which will create certain problems for them when trying to concentrate the power of their air forces, say, closer to Eastern Europe. It is not that the Russian Federation does not have such difficulties, but it is easier to cope with them within one country.

All of the above leads us to the fact that, despite the listed air superiority of the European NATO countries over the Russian Federation, the actual balance of power in a suddenly flared up conflict may not be as brilliant for Europeans as it looks on paper.

And if you go beyond the air force itself, and remember such an important factor as air defense?

The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation have a very strong ground air defense system, significantly superior to that of the European NATO countries. Not that NATO has absolutely no ground-based air defense components, but earlier, during
Cold war, they traditionally relied on their air superiority. And after the USSR collapsed and in Europe they began to cut military budgets everywhere, of course, they saved a lot on the development and updating of air defense systems. And did the NATO countries really need new versions of the same air defense systems at that time? In the "wonderful" 90s, if a military conflict with the Russian Federation suddenly happened, the question was not how to defeat the Russian Air Force, but how to find them.

However, any disarmament policy is good only when the enemy is even weaker, if he suddenly begins to strengthen, then ... Of course, no ground-based air defense, no matter how powerful it is in itself, is not able to withstand the modern air force. But as one of the components of the country's balanced armed forces, it is capable of greatly hampering the actions of enemy aircraft and seriously increasing its losses.

Until recently, NATO aviation had a certain superiority in tactical control, missile weapons and electronic warfare equipment, and, in addition, in pilot training. But it is well known that in the GPV 2011-2020. Much attention has been paid to communications and troop command and control issues, so we can count on the fact that if we have not caught up on this issue, then at least we have reduced the gap. In terms of the missile, the situation is also gradually stabilizing, so, for example, by 2020, a noticeable amount of RVV-SD should be expected to enter the troops. As for the electronic warfare means, here the lag has been completely eliminated, and it can be assumed with a high degree of probability that NATO is now catching up. On the issue of combat training, the situation has also improved significantly - not only did the Russian Aerospace Forces begin to spend much more resources on training, but also the war in Syria allowed many pilots to gain combat experience. And although the "Barmaley", of course, are not a serious enemy for the Air Force, but still, at least, we can talk about "exercises close to combat conditions."

Taking into account all of the above, the author of this article can conclude that the Russian Aerospace Forces (provided there is a sufficient number of trained pilots) in the very near future can get not only parity with the air forces of European NATO countries, but even good chances of gaining air superiority at the initial stage hypothetical military conflict.

Of course, all this is true exactly until the moment when we remember the US Air Force. Even without taking into account the F-35, which, most likely, as of 2020, will remain in a semi-operational state, the US Air Force has 1,560 fighters (184 F-22; 449 F-15 and 957 F-16 of various modifications) as well as 398 attack aircraft, including 287 A-10 and 111 AV-8B. And that's not counting 247 F-18s, and 131 AV-8Bs of the Marine Corps, and 867 F-18s of carrier-based aircraft. The United States has at its disposal 3,203 tactical aircraft, and in terms of air power, the United States, perhaps, surpasses the European countries of NATO and the Russian Aerospace Forces combined.

Thus, we can say that the United States has overwhelming superiority in the air. But ... as one very wise proverb says: "if your pistol lies a millimeter further than you can reach, then you don't have a pistol."

Currently, the United States has deployed 136 F-15 and F-16 combat aircraft at European bases, not counting transport and reconnaissance aircraft. This air group cannot fundamentally affect the balance of power in Europe. Air superiority will depend entirely on the speed of the American air force's movement from the United States to Europe.

It would seem, and what's wrong with that - refueled, sat down at the wheel, and flew across the Atlantic ... But this happens only in third-rate action films. Even the most unpretentious combat aircraft require maintenance at the rate of 25 man-hours per flight hour. We need people, we need equipment, we need cover for airfields where the air wings will be deployed, we need fuel, ammunition and much, much more. And the problem is that the Americans in Europe have none of this now. And the Europeans, who somehow maintain the percentage of serviceable cars at the level of 40-50%, do not either. And delivering all of this from the United States to Europe is not at all as easy as it might seem.

Let's remember the operation "Desert Shield"

The transportations continued from the beginning of August 1990 to mid-January 1991. 729 tactical aircraft and 190 aircraft of the Marine Corps were transferred, and in total, about 900 land-based tactical aircraft (729 + 190 \u003d 919 aircraft, but some of the Harriers are naval infantry operated from decks landing ships), as well as 5 divisions, 4 brigades and 1 separate regiment ground forces and marines. By the beginning of Desert Storm, this contingent was provided with all the necessary supplies for one month of combat operations. This is undoubtedly an outstanding result. But it took more than five months to create this grouping - the transfers went from August 7, 1990 to January 17, 1991!

Of course, we are talking not only about the transfer of aviation, but also about large contingents of ground forces, but in the event of a large-scale conflict, these very ground forces will be badly needed by the United States on the continent. The fact is that the European NATO countries have about the same problem with the ground forces as with the Air Force - seemingly on paper and a lot, but for now you will concentrate in the right place, the war will be over three times already. We have already mentioned the state of the once formidable Bundeswehr, which today has only three divisions with 95 combat-ready tanks. France has two tank divisions with three regiments of special operations forces and also a foreign legion, but in the event of a sudden conflict, it will be very problematic to remove its parts from Tahiti, Djibouti and similar places. Italy has three divisions, two (and several brigades) - Great Britain ... In total, the European NATO countries have very impressive ground forces by the standards of the 21st century, but only on one condition - if all of them are collected in one place, and with this in the event of a sudden military conflicts will be very big problems.

If the above reasons are correct, then in the foreseeable future, the Russian Federation can achieve parity in the air with NATO in the event of a sudden large-scale conflict. And it will take the United States not even weeks, but months to realize its air superiority. It is quite another matter if the conflict is preceded by a long (several months) period of aggravation of relations - in this case, the war can begin with one and a half, or even a double advantage of NATO in the air.

To be continued...

The state of NATO's combined armed forces

The armed forces of NATO countries are subdivided into joint armed forces and troops remaining under national control. The combined armed forces of NATO include a part of the armed forces of the member states of the military organization of the bloc, transferred, allocated and intended to be transferred under the operational leadership of the coalition control bodies.

Joint commands and headquarters have been created for the leadership of the NATO Joint Armed Forces in peacetime.

The coalition military strategy of the bloc introduced a classification of the troops (forces) included in the NATO Joint Armed Forces according to their operational designation, called the "three-component structure". In accordance with it, the combined armed forces of the bloc are divided into reaction forces, main defense forces and reinforcement troops (forces).

The Response Force (RF) is the most combat-ready component of the NATO Allied Forces. They include the formations of all branches of the armed forces of the countries participating in the military organization of the bloc. Designed to be used mainly in crisis situations and local military conflicts in order to resolve them. At the same time, they can be involved both in the zone of responsibility of the alliance and outside it. The specific composition of the troops (forces) involved in the operation will depend on the military-political situation in the crisis area and the scale of the alliance's military participation in it.

Depending on the degree of readiness for use, the reaction forces are subdivided into immediate reaction forces (RRF) and rapid deployment forces (RRF).

The Immediate Response Forces are designed to resolve crisis situations not by force, but by demonstrating unity and readiness to defend collective interests by force of arms. These include: the command of the mobile ground forces, the air component, the naval component, the command of the early warning radar and aviation control "Avax-NATO".

The command of the mobile ground forces includes 12 battalions: 2 from the FRG, one each from the United States, Great Britain, Belgium, Canada, Hungary, Norway, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and Poland, a company from Luxembourg and a platoon from Denmark.

The air component includes: ae TA - 17; ae VTA - 2; SAM battery -14.

The naval component includes over 45 warships.

There are about 300 combat aircraft of the Air Force and Navy.

AWACS-NATO command of AWACS and aviation control includes 17 E-3A aircraft.

The Rapid Deployment Force is designed to be used in military crisis management operations, as well as to ensure the deployment of the main NATO defense forces in the face of the threat of a large-scale war. They will be used if the scale of the crisis exceeds the capabilities of the immediate response forces to localize it. These include land, air and sea components.

Combat formations of the ground component of the SBR are represented by 8 divisions: 3 mechanized and 1 armored divisions of Great Britain; 1 armor tank division USA; 7th Panzer Division of the FRG; 3 mechanized division; 1 mechanized division of Turkey; 2 motorized infantry division of Greece and national RBU of Spain, consisting of three separate brigades (equivalent to one division). five separate teams from the Armed Forces of Great Britain, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy.

The air component of the NATO rapid deployment forces includes 22 squadrons of tactical aviation (about 500 combat aircraft) of the US Air Force, Germany, Great Britain, Turkey, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, 11 SAM batteries (63 launchers) of the US Air Force and Denmark, as well as 2 squadrons (about 80 aircraft) of the military transport aviation of the US Air Force, Germany, Great Britain and Turkey.

The naval component of the NATO Rapid Deployment Forces includes aircraft carriers, nuclear-powered multipurpose submarines equipped with the Tomahok SLCM, diesel submarines, frigate-class ships (destroyer), missile boats, escort and logistics ships, amphibious forces with a brigade Marine Corps, Basic Aviation, Marine Corps Aviation. In total - up to 110 warships and about 500 aircraft of the US Navy, Germany, Great Britain, Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Turkey.

The Main Defense Forces (GOS) are the most significant in number and combat personnel part of a three-pronged NATO Allied Forces. They are designed to conduct large-scale operations during general or limited war in Europe and the Atlantic. In peacetime, they can be used together with the block's response forces in the course of resolving armed conflicts. They consist of regular and reserve formations of ground forces, air and naval forces of NATO countries, with the exception of France, Spain and Portugal, and are manned at least 65%, with military equipment - 100%.

GOS in their composition have: divisions - about 40, dep. brigades - over 95, combat aircraft of the Air Force and Navy - up to 4300, warships - over 500.

The formations of the main defensive forces, in accordance with their main purpose, have lower combat readiness categories than the formations of the reaction forces. At the same time, about 10% of divisions and 40% of individual brigades of the land component of the main defensive forces in everyday conditions are supposed to be kept in high degree combat readiness (manning is at least 90%, the time of readiness to perform a combat mission is up to 48 hours).

Reinforcement troops (forces) include regular and mobilized formations that are not part of the reaction forces and the main defensive forces.

The ground component of the reinforcement troops is represented by regular formations of ground forces transferred to Europe from the USA and Canada, by regular French troops that were not part of the response forces, units and formations of the ground forces of Spain and Portugal, as well as newly mobilized formations of the armed forces of the European countries of the bloc.

The reinforcement troops (forces) include: divisions - 20, brigades - over 45, combat aircraft of the Air Force and Navy - up to 1000, warships - about 200.

The state of combat readiness of the NATO Allied Forces. In accordance with NATO requirements, certain categories of combat readiness have been established for the various components of the Alliance's Joint Armed Forces (reaction forces, state defense systems, reinforcement troops (forces)).

The formations and units allocated to the ground component of the reaction forces have the following combat readiness categories: mobile ground forces - A3, rapid deployment forces - A4. The readiness of the formations of the air component of the response forces corresponds to categories A1-A3. The ships of the united naval forces, assigned to the permanent formations of the OVMS of the block, have the A1 combat readiness category, and those assigned to the naval component of the SBR - A2-A4.

The formations and units of the ground forces of the main defense forces of the bloc have the categories of combat readiness A4-B7, the formations of the united air force - categories A2-B9, and the warships of the united navy - B5 and B6.

In the troops (forces), the reinforcements of the formation of the ground forces are in the combat readiness categories B5-C8, the combined air force formations and units are of the A2-C9 categories, and the ships of the United Navy, depending on the time required for their transition from the basing areas or conducting combat training to areas of combat purpose, have combat readiness categories B8-C9.

NATO- the military-political alliance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, created by the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty in Washington on April 4, 1949.

Source: http://rus.ruvr.ru/2006/11/27/625122/

At the time of its creation, NATO included 12 European and North American states.

In the 1990s, a number of Eastern European countries expressed their intention to become NATO members.

Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic joined NATO in March 1999.

In November 2002, at the Prague Summit of the Alliance, seven more countries (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Estonia) were invited to start NATO accession negotiations, which officially joined the Alliance in March 2004.

On September 4-5, 2014 the NATO Summit will take place in the south of Great Britain in the capital of Wales, Cardiff. The NATO summit will be attended by US President Barack Obama, French President Francois Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

NATO troops

The armed forces of NATO countries are subdivided into joint armed forces and troops remaining under national control. The combined armed forces of NATO include a part of the armed forces of the member states of the military organization of the bloc, transferred, allocated and intended to be transferred under the operational leadership of the coalition control bodies.

NATO's troop classification is built on a "three-component structure":

The Response Force is a combat-ready component of the NATO Joint Armed Forces. They include the formations of all types of armed forces of the member countries of the bloc's military organization. Designed to be used mainly in crisis situations and local military conflicts with the aim of settling them, they can be used both in the zone of responsibility of the alliance and beyond.

Immediate reaction forces are designed to resolve crisis situations not by force, but by demonstrating unity and readiness to defend collective interests by force of arms. These include: the command of the mobile ground forces, the air component, the naval component, the command of the early warning radar and aviation control "Avax-NATO".

Rapid Deployment Force are designed to be used in military crisis management operations, as well as to ensure the deployment of the main NATO defense forces in the face of the threat of a large-scale war. They are supposed to be used if the scale of the crisis exceeds the capabilities of the immediate reaction forces to localize it. These include land, air and sea components.

• The command of the mobile ground forces includes 12 battalions: 2 from the FRG, one each from the United States, Great Britain, Belgium, Canada, Hungary, Norway, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and Poland, a company from Luxembourg and a platoon from Denmark.

The combat formations of the ground component of the SBR are represented by 8 divisions:

3 mechanized and 1 armored divisions of Great Britain; 1 US Armored Division; 7th Panzer Division of the FRG; 3 mechanized division; 1 mechanized division of Turkey; 2 motorized infantry division of Greece and national RBU of Spain, consisting of three separate brigades (equivalent to one division). 5 separate brigades from the Armed Forces of Great Britain, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy.

• The air component of the NATO rapid deployment forces includes 22 squadrons of tactical aviation (about 500 combat aircraft) of the US Air Force, Germany, Great Britain, Turkey, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, 11 SAM batteries (63 launchers) of the US Air Force and Denmark, as well as 2 squadrons (about 80 aircraft) of the military transport aviation of the US Air Force, Germany, Great Britain and Turkey.

The air component includes: ae TA - 17; ae VTA - 2; SAM battery -14. There are about 300 combat aircraft of the Air Force and the Navy. The AWACS-NATO command of AWACS and aviation control includes 17 E-3A aircraft.

• The naval component of NATO's rapid deployment forces includes aircraft carriers, nuclear-powered multipurpose submarines equipped with Tomahok SLCMs, diesel submarines, frigate-class ships (destroyer), missile boats, escort and logistics ships, amphibious forces with a brigade Marine Corps, Basic Aviation, Marine Corps Aviation. In total - up to 110 warships and about 500 aircraft of the US Navy, Germany, Great Britain, Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Turkey.

The naval component includes over 45 warships.

• The Main Defense Forces (GOS) are the most significant in terms of number and combat strength of the three-component, designed to conduct large-scale operations in the course of general or limited war in Europe and the Atlantic.

In peacetime, they can be used together with the block's response forces in the course of resolving armed conflicts. They consist of regular and reserve formations of ground forces, air and naval forces of NATO countries, with the exception of France, Spain and Portugal, and are manned at least 65%, military equipment - 100%.

GOS in their composition have: divisions - about 40, dep. brigades - over 95, combat aircraft of the Air Force and Navy - up to 4,300, warships - over 500.

• Reinforcement troops (forces) - include regular and mobilized formations that are not part of the reaction forces and the main defensive forces.

The ground component of the reinforcement troops is represented by regular formations of ground forces transferred to Europe from the USA and Canada, by regular French troops that were not part of the response forces, units and formations of the ground forces of Spain and Portugal, as well as newly mobilized formations of the armed forces of the European countries of the bloc.

The reinforcement troops (forces) include: divisions - 20, brigades - over 45, combat aircraft of the Air Force and Navy - up to 1000, warships - about 200.

Russia and NATO

In the early 50s of the 20th century, NATO rejected the USSR's initiative for cooperation.

In reply Soviet Union formed in 1955 a military bloc of states pursuing a pro-Soviet policy - the Warsaw Pact.

After the collapse of the Warsaw Pact Organization and the USSR, the NATO bloc, which was created, according to official documents, to repel the Soviet threat, did not cease to exist and began to expand eastward.

In 1991, the Russian Federation joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (since 1997 - the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council).

In 1994, the Partnership for Peace program was launched in Brussels, in which Russia actively participates.

In 1996, after the signing of the Dayton Peace Treaty, Russia sent its troops to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In 1999 russian troops took part in the operation in Serbia.

In 1997, the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council was established (after the adoption of the "Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between The Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization ").
After his election in 1999, V. Putin announced the need to revise relations with NATO in a spirit of pragmatism.

The Kursk submarine crash exposed a number of problems in relations between NATO and Russia. The terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 once again rallied Russia and NATO, Russia officially opened its airspace to NATO aircraft with the aim of bombing Afghanistan.

In 2001, a NATO Information Office was opened in Moscow.

In 2002, a document was adopted (the Declaration "Russia-NATO Relations: New Quality") and the Russia-NATO Council was formed, a military representation was opened.

In 2004, a representative office of the RF Ministry of Defense was opened in Belgium.

On June 7, 2007, the Russian President signed Federal Law No. 99 “On the Ratification of the Agreement between the States Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty and other States participating in the Partnership for Peace Program on the Status of Forces of June 19, 1995 and the Additional Protocol to it”.

On September 23, 2008, Russia protested in connection with the signing on that day of "a declaration of cooperation between the NATO and UN secretariats." The declaration was signed by Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and Ban Ki-moon.

On March 5, 2009, NATO foreign ministers announced the resumption of relations with Russia, terminated after the August crisis in the Caucasus.

In July 2009, Philip Gordon, US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, said that the United States was ready to consider Russia's joining NATO under certain conditions.

At present, Russia's official position is directed against eastward expansion, the inclusion of former Soviet republics in NATO. Contradictions (in particular, directly affecting Russia's military interests in the Black Sea and in Abkhazia) accompany the decisions of Georgia and Ukraine to become NATO members.

NATO does not recognize the following positions of Russia:

• Due to the prevailing circumstances of the events in Ukraine in 2013-2014, the legality of the 2014 referendum in Crimea
• russia's assertion of the illegality of the Ukrainian authorities, considering Russia's actions as aggression against Ukraine
• Russia's assertion that the continued existence and expansion of NATO poses a threat to Russia
• Russian criticism of the legality of NATO-Kosovo military action
• Russian criticism of the legality of NATO military action - Libya
• Criticism of the relationship between Russia and NATO, in which NATO tried to push Russia out of the international lease

NATO bases

Faded: http: //yarportal.ru/topic184660s15.html

NATO troops will remain in Poland and the Baltic countries as long as the threat from Russia persists, Jens Stoltenberg told Polskie Radio. The NATO Secretary General emphasized that it is necessary to send a signal to Russia that the actions that it took in Crimea and Ukraine should be completely ruled out against any NATO member country.

"Poland is a loyal ally"- so, in an interview with Polskie Radio, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg summed up 19 years of this country's membership in North Atlantic alliance... The NATO head was also asked about Russia. “What really should be worrying is the fact that Russians are increasingly using nuclear and conventional weapons in their military doctrine, as well as during military exercises. And this is very dangerous ", - he stressed.

In a conversation with Brussels-based Polskie Radio correspondent Beata Plomecka, he thanked Poland for its contribution to NATO's activities in Europe, as well as for the operation in Afghanistan and Iraq. "We are very grateful,- said Jens Stoltenberg. - NATO is important for Poland, and Poland is important for NATO. This is a collective alliance, we stand together, shoulder to shoulder, one for all - and all for one. This is the strength of the alliance, and Poland is part of it. ".

The head of NATO also announced that Poland meets all the requirements of the alliance and directs at least 2% of GDP for defense. In a conversation with Polskie Radio, he also touched upon the strengthening of the eastern flank of the alliance, while emphasizing that the NATO summit in Brussels in July will confirm that NATO troops will remain in Poland and the Baltic countries as long as the threat from Russia remains.

“It was about sending a clear signal that any actions similar to those that were committed in Ukraine, including the illegal annexation of Crimea, are excluded in relation to any of our allies. For this, NATO is located on the eastern flank to protect all member countries and protect their territorial sovereignty from any aggression. Battle groups will be on the eastern flank as long as necessary "Stoltenberg warned.

The NATO Secretary General also called on Russia to abide by international agreements. They talked about both the Minsk Agreements and the treaties related to arms control.

Moreover, Jens Stoltenberg commented on the recent speech of the Russian President. Vladimir Putin announced that the army has new types of weapons, missiles that can strike targets in both hemispheres of the Earth. The head of the alliance said he was not surprised by this performance. He added that this is confirmation of the mechanisms of action of Vladimir Putin, because for several years Russia has been allocating huge sums of money to modernize its military capacities, it has been investing in re-equipping the army, in nuclear and conventional weapons.

The head of the alliance said that it is, first of all, about compliance with the INF Treaty, that is, an agreement concerning the elimination of medium-range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. “Therefore, we call on Russia toshe respected agreementstransparentand verifiableway ",- summed up the NATO Secretary General.

source Polskie Radio Poland Europe tags

• 03:00

  Chief designer of the strategic missile carrier-bomber Tu-160 Valentin Bliznyuk died at the age of 91, the Tupolev press service reported.

• 03:00

  Former Washington Capitals striker Andrei Nikolishin said that psychological pressure should not be a decisive factor in the final match of the group stage of the youth ice hockey world championship between the national teams of Russia and Germany.

• 03:00

  The bronze medalist of the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Andrei Nikolishin, answered whether the influence of the legendary former striker Igor Larionov on the Russian youth hockey team was too great.

• 03:00

  Russian athlete Sergey Shubenkov commented on the response of the All-Russian Athletics Federation (ARAF) to open lettercompiled by him, as well as by athletes Maria Lasitskene and Angelica Sidorova.

• 03:00

  Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev commented on the end of negotiations between Ukraine and Russia on gas transit.

• 03:00

  Pittsburgh Penguins head coach Mike Sullivan commented on the game of the Russian forward Evgeny Malkin in the National Hockey League (NHL) regular season match with the Ottawa Senators (5: 2).

• 03:00

  Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Maria Zakharova believes that the Swedish 16-year-old schoolgirl Greta Thunberg is primarily a child.

• 03:00

  Bronze medalist of the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City Andrei Nikolishin called the game in the power the main problem the youth national ice hockey team of Russia at the World Championship in the Czech Republic.

• 03:00

  Former Washington Capitals striker Andrei Nikolishin expressed the opinion that the goalkeeper of the Russian national hockey team Amir Miftakhov is to blame for only one missed puck in the match with the US national team at the World Youth Championship in the Czech Republic.

• 03:00

  A court in the Stavropol Territory sentenced a college student to five years in prison who attacked three minors with acid in the summer of 2017.

• 03:00

  Russian tennis player Vera Zvonareva will not take part in the Australian Open Grand Slam series due to injury.

• 03:00

  Journalist Vaughn Smith told RT about a phone call from his friend, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who is currently in prison in the UK.

• 03:00

  Sergei Tsekov, a member of the Federation Council Committee on International Affairs, commented in an interview with RT on the signing of a package agreement by Moscow and Kiev, which will allow the continued transit of gas through Ukrainian territory after January 1, 2020.

• 03:00

  The famous figure skating coach Rafael Harutyunyan shared his opinion on why there are many athletes in Eteri Tutberidze's group who own quadruple jumps.

• 03:00

  An airplane flying to Moscow made an emergency landing at Koltsovo airport in Yekaterinburg, Interfax reports.

• 03:00

  Olympic bronze medalist Andrei Nikolishin said that the defeat of the Russian national hockey team from the US national team at the World Youth Championship in the Czech Republic was not due to fatigue.

• 03:00

  Olympic bronze medalist Andrei Nikolishin commented on the defeat of the Russian ice hockey team from the US national team at the World Youth Championship in the Czech Republic.

• 03:00

  Forward of the Russian national team Nikita Rtishchev shared his expectations from the World Youth Championship match with the German team.

• 03:00

  The silver medalist of the 2002 Olympics, choreographer Ilya Averbukh, congratulated two-time world figure skating champion Evgenia Medvedeva on her debut in his The Wizard of Oz ice show.

• 03:00

  Prime Minister of Ukraine Oleksiy Honcharuk said that by 2023 the Ukrainian energy system should finally separate from the Russian-Belarusian one and become part of the European one.

• 03:00

  Russian forward of the New York Rangers Artemy Panarin received an invitation to take part in the National Hockey League (NHL) All-Star Game.

• 03:00

  As part of the regular season of the National Hockey League (NHL), the Pittsburgh Penguins defeated the Ottawa Senators.

• 03:00

  The chief specialist of the Phobos weather center, Yevgeny Tishkovets, said that the snow will remain in Moscow on New Year's Eve.

• 03:00

  The health department of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug said that four people were hospitalized in the Surgut trauma hospital after a bus collided with a cargo trawl.

• 03:00

  The price of Brent crude oil is growing. This is evidenced by the bidding data.

• 03:00

  An earthquake with a magnitude of 5.5 was registered in the east of the Kamchatka Peninsula, the Kamchatka branch of the Unified Geophysical Service of the Russian Academy of Sciences told Interfax.

• 03:00

  State Duma Deputy Vitaly Milonov proposed to the head of the traffic police Mikhail Chernikov to punish drivers who provoke traffic jams.

• 03:00

  More than 40 thousand law enforcement officers will ensure law and order during the New Year holidays in Moscow.

• 03:00

  Former head of the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi automotive alliance, Carlos Ghosn, confirmed that he had left Japan and said he was fleeing political persecution.

• 03:00

  Dmitry Morozov, Chairman of the State Duma Health Protection Committee, said that a presumption of consent to posthumous organ donation may appear in Russia, and a draft law has already been prepared.

• 03:00

  In Moscow on Tuesday, December 31, up to +2 ° C is expected, Gazeta.Ru reports, citing data from the Hydrometeorological Center.

• 03:00

  Former head of the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi automotive alliance, Carlos Ghosn, may have left Japan under a different name.

• 03:00

  Taxcom fiscal data platform specialists have calculated the index of mimosa salad. The research results are available to RT.

• 03:00

  The American publication Forbes writes that the US sanctions against the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline were a year late.

• 03:00

  On January 1, the last stage of limiting the maximum debt comes into force in Russia. According to the new rules, the maximum interest rate on loans for up to one year should not exceed the debt itself by more than 1.5 times.

Russia-NATO balance of forces in the event of a conflict in the European theater of operations

Deployment in a conflict situation

American military experts are sounding the alarm: in the event of a conflict in the European theater of military operations, the Russian armed forces will have a number of significant advantages over the NATO armies. Recently, even the Chief of Staff of the US Army, General Mark Milli, speaking before the Senate Armed Services Commission, admitted that Russia has recently gained significant firepower in Europe.

Military analysts at the Rand Corporation research center modeled the possible course of the clash between Russia and NATO in the Baltic States. They agreed that it would take Russian troops only three days to defeat the forces of the North Atlantic Alliance.

Situation in 10 days

In accordance with their conclusions, Moscow is capable of deploying an army of 50 thousand soldiers, fully equipped with armored vehicles, artillery and covered with powerful air support, on the intended bridgehead in about 10 days. NATO in the same 10 days can mobilize only a few scattered lightly armed units.

As a result, after a ten-day deployment of forces, Russia, according to experts from the Rand Corporation, will have a huge advantage over the United States and its allies in almost all types of weapons.

Advantage in various types of military equipment

For tanks, this advantage will be in the ratio 7 to 1... Infantry fighting vehicles - 5 to 1. On attack helicopters - 5 to 1... Barrel artillery - 4 to 1... By rocket artillery - 16 to 1... For short-range air defense systems - 24 to 1... And on long-range air defense - 17 to 1!

NATO supremacy in aircraft

The only area in which NATO troops are so far superior to Russia is But even this trump card they will not be able to fully use, Western analysts lament, since Russia has the world's best air defense system.

It includes such unique long-range complexes as the famous S-400, medium-range complexes "S-300" and "Beech»Various modifications, as well as a short-range complex "Thor" and a super-efficient complex that has no analogues in the world "Shell"covering the close lines of our air defense.

Closed access area

These funds make it possible to create a deeply echeloned "closed access zone", in case of a breakthrough of which NATO aircraft will incur colossal losses that cannot be restored until the end of the conflict.

At first glance, these numbers seem incredible. In recent decades, we have become accustomed to taking it as an axiom that Russia is much weaker than NATO. But the Americans, having compared our military potentials, were seriously concerned about the problem they suddenly faced.

Expert group:

Washington has even formed a special government expert group to understand how the US army can adapt to the "new scale of the Russian threat."

The result was an extensive study called "Russian war of a new generation" ... Its goal is to revise the concept of using the US ground forces in case they have to face Russian tanks in Eastern Europe.

The commission was chaired by Lieutenant General Herbert Raymond McMaster. After detailed research, he stated that “ american military and intelligence officials are deeply alarmed that Moscow has significant advantages in a number of key military areas».

The scale of the Russian military revival is only now becoming clear to overconfident Western generals ...

Tanks and infantry fighting vehicles

For example, the light American Stryker armored vehicles, which Washington has widely used in Iraq and Afghanistan, are completely defenseless against the new Russian weapons, which are now en masse. land units our Western Military District.

And this is no coincidence. The fact is that after the collapse of the USSR, the American army was reoriented to conduct colonial wars and punitive expeditions in third world countries.

Especially for this, light armored vehicles "Stryker" were created, as well as military reform... This reform culminated in the creation of a large number of light tactical groups against the background of a radical reduction in the number of brigades equipped with heavy equipment ...

USA developments

In 2009, the Pentagon completely stopped the program to develop new generation heavy combat platforms - a new tank, heavy infantry fighting vehicle, self-propelled artillery unit and other vehicles of a similar class.

This was done because, according to American experts, after the collapse of the USSR, large-scale and intense hostilities, for which such machines are supposedly designed, are no longer expected. And now it finally dawned on the Americans how wrong they were.

Russian tanks such as T-90 and T-72B3, which they considered "a relic of an outdated military doctrine," in Ukraine, Syria and other local military conflicts have unequivocally proved that it is they who continue to play a decisive role in achieving victory.

Moreover, according to the former commander of NATO forces, General Wesley Clark, the multilevel protection of Russian tanks today is so good that they “ mostly invulnerable to American anti-tank missiles».

Guided and unguided rockets, artillery

Another surprise for American strategists was the fact that Russia has a large assortment of guided and unguided missiles. As well as powerful artillery systems, which far exceed the artillery systems of the US ground forces in range and effect. Simply put, the newest Russian self-propelled guns "Coalition" and tanks "Armata", heavy infantry fighting vehicles "Kurganets" and multiple rocket launchers "Tornado" the Americans today simply have nothing to oppose.

US artillery

Today, the US Army actually uses only two artillery systems. These are the ancient self-propelled gun M109Paladin, which was put into service 55 years ago, and the field towed 155mm howitzer M777. It can, if necessary, be moved on the external sling of the helicopter, but this inevitably imposes serious restrictions on the mass of the gun. And because of such restrictions, its combat capabilities are significantly inferior to the new Russian artillery systems, which in terms of the main combat indicators - range, power and rate of fire - exceed those of their American counterparts by one and a half to two times.

The maximum firing range of most American guns is 14 to 24 kilometers. And the most common Russian self-propelled howitzer is capable of hitting a target located 29 kilometers away.

US rocket artillery

The picture is even more sad for the Americans in the field of rocket artillery. It is based on the M270 multiple launch rocket systems, which were put into service 33 years ago. In terms of their combat effectiveness, they roughly correspond to the Soviet Smerch. But the Smerch projectile is much more powerful, and American installations are many times more expensive to manufacture. There are no analogues of modern Russian MLRS "Tornado-G" and "Tornado-S" in the USA at all.

There is a big difference in organization combat use rocket artillery. In the American army, MLRS are grouped into special artillery brigades, which are attached to the military group, starting only at the level of the army corps. In Russia, each brigade has a jet division in its composition. And each of our divisions, deployed in the Western Military District, has a full-fledged regiment of rocket artillery in its composition!

Air defense

As much as over Russian tanks and multiple launch rocket systems, the Americans are worried about the weakness of their ground forces' air defense systems. American brigades are equipped with outright junk - anti-aircraft missile system "Av enjer ”, the first launch from which was carried out back in 1984.

This complex is a portable anti-aircraft missile "Stinger" mounted on a light army all-terrain vehicle "X andmvi ". Its characteristics are frankly failing at the present time. It can shoot down targets - helicopters and attack aircraft - at an altitude of no more than 3800 meters and at a distance of no more than five and a half kilometers.

Today, American military experts justify such unforgivable carelessness by saying that “ the U.S. Army has not been seriously attacked from the air in over 70 years, since 1943».

At the same time, Russian brigades are armed with the Tor short-range anti-aircraft missile system. It can even shoot down ballistic missiles and high-precision aircraft weapons such as guided bombs.

Kaliningrad region in the rear of the NATO group

A special headache for NATO generals is our Kaliningrad region, which after the collapse of the USSR found itself in the rear of the NATO East European grouping. The S-400 anti-aircraft systems and the Bastion anti-ship systems deployed there, in combination with the Iskander strike complex, are capable of creating extensive “restricted access zones” for NATO troops, covering vast sea and land territories.

« Russia has land-based and sea-based anti-aircraft and anti-ship complexes, as well as combat aircraft stationed in the Kaliningrad region and other regions of the country, which can cover vast areas"- a senior NATO official told Western journalists recently.

They are strange after all, these Europeans. As if it only became known yesterday! As if Moscow over the past ten years did not warn Brussels and Washington a hundred times that it would give an "adequate response" to the West's attempts to consolidate its military advantage over Russia, which arose after the collapse of the USSR!

Now, gradually, the world is beginning to understand the scale of this Russian response. Now Europe has found itself face to face with our military grouping, numbering hundreds of thousands of servicemen and many thousands of armored vehicles, combat aircraft, high-precision ballistic and cruise missiles. And by the end of the rearmament program in 2020, its composition, in addition, will be massively replenished with such weapons, which NATO has no analogues and is not expected in the next 10-15 years ...

It seems that the scale of the ongoing changes is beginning to reach even the clumsy brains of most Western "strategists".

It is not for nothing that in May 2016 a high-ranking NATO general - who, however, wished to remain anonymous - said in an interview with the influential Financial Times newspaper that in the event of a conflict with Russia, “NATO's rapid reaction forces will be defeated even before prepare for battle east of the Oder. "

Well, as they say, better late than never.

Perhaps this belated insight will finally compel NATO strategists to stop escalating international tension and force Washington to seriously consider Russia's national interests.

Although, to be honest, there are many hopes for such a turn of events. Therefore, I think we should forget about "peace, friendship, chewing gum" and focus our efforts on ensuring that the "Russian armored train", which, as you know, always stands on the western andsleep of the way, was ready at any moment to start off. West, west, west ...

At the same time, I involuntarily recall the words of the old military song "Soldiers - on the way!" This song was very popular in the post-war stalin era... To me, a boy, it was often sung by my father, who went through the war from an ordinary tanker to a major, chief of intelligence of a tank regiment.

Let the enemies remember this

We do not threaten, but we say:

We passed, passed half the world with you

If necessary, we will repeat ...

It looks like I'll have to repeat it.

NATO generals and high-ranking European officials in Berlin and Prague, Budapest and Vienna, Warsaw and Bratislava have become too forgetful. However, even a bad peace is, of course, better than a good quarrel. It's a pity that under the influence of Washington and Brussels, it gets worse and worse every year ...

Russia-NATO balance of forces in the event of a conflict in the European theater of operations

For objectivity, we quote the opinion of the Latvian military analyst Bens Latkovskis (Bens Latkovskis)

Russia - NATO: the balance of power in the Baltics

After regaining independence for many years, the international situation was relatively calm. This allowed us to "save" on defense spending.

From the very beginning the armed forces of Latvia were perceived as a symbolic decoration. With the main function, it is more or less decent to look at military parades on the Embankment on November 11.

During the crisis defense budget was cut below 1% of GDP. But after the annexation of Crimea and the events in Ukraine, the situation has changed significantly.

Defense spending is skyrocketing. A new concept for the defense of Latvia has been developed. And in public space, it is discussed how long we must hold out in the event of a potential aggression before NATO forces come to the rescue.

In conversations about the defense of our state, general political assessments usually dominate, which provide little opportunity to understand the true balance of power in the Baltic area. And in the British Air Force's film “World War III: At the Command Post”, which caused a stir, more attention was paid to the practice of decision-making in case of a possible conflict and less to the military aspect. What is the current balance of power in our region?

The situation is not so hopeless

The conventional wisdom is this. NATO international forces are not permanently deployed on the territory of the Baltic states (these forces are located here only for permanent exercises and in rotation), so Russia's military superiority is so convincing that in the event of an armed conflict, the Russian army can occupy Tallinn and Riga in a maximum of 60 hours. This conclusion was reached, in particular, by military experts from the Arroyo Center RAND Corporation. In 2015, they simulated a war game in which Russian troops invade the Baltic states.

In the course of this game, the well-known weakness of the armies of the Baltic states was revealed. Small numbers, insufficient maneuverability, the actual absence of armored vehicles (tanks). Lack of artillery forces and lack of air defense equipment for use against targets flying at high altitudes.

The armies of the Baltic states have at their disposal only such air defense systems that are intended for low-flying objects. True, at first this may be sufficient, because direct air support of the enemy to ground forces is possible only at low altitudes.

However, the situation is not as hopeless as it might seem. All military analysts emphasize: military force today's Russia is significantly inferior to that of the USSR, and the lag russian army from NATO in terms of technical equipment has only increased. The experience of the Chechen wars and the Georgian conflict in 2008 shows that in the conditions of real hostilities, the Russian army has big logistical problems (the movement of troops and their supply with everything they need).

In case of intervention, all roads in the territory of Latvia and Estonia will be occupied by military equipment, and great chaos is possible due to the resistance of local troops, as well as NATO air raids.

In 2008, this was observed in Georgia without any interference from aviation. In such conditions, it is highly likely that the units of the Russian army will not be able to complete combat missions in a timely manner.

Despite the fact that the distance from the Russian border to Tallinn is less than 200 kilometers, and to Riga is 210-275 kilometers, it will not be so easy to overcome it in a short time. Especially considering that the movement on the main highways will be complicated. Off-road driving is almost impossible for wheeled vehicles. The area is wooded, there are many lakes, swamps and rivers.

Blowing up bridges across a river will stop the army for a short while (until the engineer units restore movement), but near rivers such as Aiviekste, Ogre, Gauja, the enemy's offensive may be suspended for a long time.

The one who dominates the air will win

When assessing the demonstration of the capabilities of the Russian army in Georgia and in the east of Ukraine, it is necessary to take into account that it operated there absolutely without interference from the air. In the event of an invasion of a NATO country, Russia will have to rely on serious opposition from the alliance's aviation.

Due to NATO aviation, the landing of large units of the Russian army from the air is considered unlikely, because it is difficult to implement in practice without significant losses.

In the military doctrine of Russia (formerly the USSR), the emphasis is always on the traditionally huge numerical superiority in armored vehicles (tanks), while NATO doctrine is based on air and water superiority.

RAND Corporation game

The armed forces of Russia and the armies of the Baltic states are incomparable values, but they can be compared if only those Russian forces that can be used in the event of a potential attack are taken into account.

In the RAND Corporation game from the Russian side in the initial phase of a potential attack, four tank battalions (such designations of military units are used in the published description of the game) with 124 tanks, three self-propelled artillery battalions (54 guns), five battalions of multiply-charged rocket artillery systems (90 Tornado installations , "Hurricane" and "Tochka-U") and six squadrons of Mi-24 attack helicopters (from 72 to 120 aircraft).

The Baltic countries can put forward 12 battalions against 22 battalions of a potential aggressor. These forces will temporarily stop the advance of the Russian army if they occupy strategically important strongholds.

The situation before the hypothetical invasion

Due to the fact that before a hypothetical invasion, in all likelihood, at least a short period of escalating tension and threats is expected, it seems that our side will have time to gain a foothold at these points and implement defensive measures.

The core of our defense strategy is artillery. Unfortunately, on this point Latvia is the weakest link in the Baltic states. Estonia has 357 guns and mortars (caliber from 81 to 155 millimeters) at its disposal, and now it is purchasing 80 Javelin portable anti-tank missile systems.

The armed forces of Latvia have only 80 guns and mortars, 12 anti-tank systems and 132 recoilless anti-tank guns at their disposal. The Lithuanian army has 133 large-caliber guns and mortars, 90 Javelins, as well as an exactly unknown number of Swedish large-caliber grenade launchers.

NATO forces in the Baltic

Using only the forces available in the Baltic region, NATO will not be able to repel Russian aggression in the Baltic area. But the situation looks less straightforward if NATO uses all of its aviation potential.

In the mentioned war game on the part of NATO, only aviation deployed at bases near the region of hostilities was put into operation, but now the readiness to use all possible conventional forces to repel aggression has significantly increased.

This means that aviation based in the Mediterranean region will also be involved. In such a scenario, NATO air superiority would seriously diminish the impact of Russia's overwhelming ground advantage.

US Army in the Baltics

Despite the fact that the superiority of the Russian army is impressive, this does not guarantee it an easy walk, significant losses in the event of a conflict are expected on both sides. In this situation, the presence of US soldiers is extremely important.

Currently, there are two detachments of the US armed forces in Latvia. As part of the Strong Europe initiative and Operation Atlantic Resolve, over 70 US military personnel arrived in Latvia last November with six Black Hawk helicopters. This is the second helicopter unit stationed at the Lielvarde airbase.

In turn, 170 US soldiers arrived at the base in Adazi in January. Although these units are in Latvia ostensibly for training purposes, and it is not officially known whether their participation in active hostilities in the event of a potential invasion is foreseen, the presence of US soldiers has a very large effect on appeasing the aggressor's appetite.

The death of even one American soldier will cause the question of whether to start a third world war? " will sound very different.

Poland factor

There is another factor that can play a decisive role in the event of a potential conflict. It's about the Polish army.

In the RAND Corporation game, it was assumed that the Polish armed forces would remain at their places of deployment and would not intervene in the conflict.

This is based on the widespread assumption that the NATO high command will not be able to quickly agree on the application of the 5th paragraph (this requires a unanimous decision of all member countries of the alliance), and in the first hours and days of the conflict, it may (or may not) intervene. only the armed forces of individual states (primarily the United States).

This means that in such a situation, the government of Poland will play a decisive role, as it has the only sufficiently strong ground forces in the region capable of offering serious resistance to the Russian Armed Forces.

It is no secret that a negative attitude towards Russia dominates in Poland, and any aggressive actions near this country will cause even greater condemnation. Poland's intervention in the conflict before the official entry into force of the 5th paragraph is quite likely.

The fighting efficiency of the Polish army

The Polish army is considered the strongest in Eastern Europe, with about 50,000 soldiers and more than a thousand tanks, including 247 Leopard tanks, on constant alert. These combat vehicles are now rated as the best in the world, and in almost all respects they are ahead of their Russian counterparts.

In the event that Poland sends into battle at least 12 battalions with 150 tanks, 50 of which will be Leopard, the balance of forces in the region of hostilities will to a certain extent be balanced.

Aviation of Poland

Poland can also use its own aircraft - 48 F-16C and F-16D fighters, 32 MiG-29 and MiG-29UB fighters and 26 Su-22 M4K fighter-bombers. This will complement the 18 squadrons of other NATO countries (222 combat vehicles), which, according to the RAND Corporation, can be used to defend the Baltic states.

Russia is in a position to oppose these forces with 27 squadrons (324 aircraft). At the same time, it should be remembered that more than a thousand US combat aircraft are based in England and Germany alone, which, if necessary, can be used to defend the Baltic countries.

Russia is not ready for a blitzkrieg

The above means that for a successful blitzkrieg in the Baltic area, Russia will have to significantly (threefold) increase its forces in the region. This cannot go unnoticed by NATO intelligence and will prompt an immediate response from the alliance.

Even if Russia manages to implement a successful blitzkrieg and occupy the Baltic states, it is unlikely that this will all end, and Putin will be able to reap the benefits of "victory" without care.

Together with this, this entire scenario becomes unlikely, because the risk exceeds potential (doubtful) acquisitions. This enables us to feel more secure, but not frivolous.

Defense capacity of the Baltic states

The defense capability of the Baltic states needs to be seriously strengthened. At the NATO summit, which will be held in Warsaw in the summer, it is envisaged to decide on the deployment of seven army brigades in the Baltic states, including three brigades of heavy tanks with appropriate air and artillery support. USD 2.7 billion will be allocated for this purpose.

But even now, if NATO activates all possible military resources at its disposal, the blitzkrieg with the capture of the Baltic states will not be easy and painless for the Russian army.

The main task of the Latvian state is to get guarantees that in the event of a serious threat, all these opportunities will be used without the red tape and hesitation that Putin can hope for. It is clear that Russia cannot win a long war against NATO. The only thing Putin can hope for is that the West will not have the courage to give an adequate rebuff to the aggressor.

2016-05-19T10: 24: 12 + 05: 00 Sergey SinenkoAnalysis - forecast Sergey Sinenko's blogDefense of the Fatherlandanalysis, armed forces, Europe, NATO, RussiaNATO-Russia force balance in the event of a conflict in the European theater of operations See also: NATO-Russia force balance in the Middle East (Syrian conflict) Deployment in a conflict situation American military experts sound the alarm: in the event of a conflict in the European theater of war, Russian military forces will have a number of essential ...Sergey Sinenko Sergey Sinenko [email protected] Author In the middle of Russia