What is the cost of the wrists between Russia and NATO

category:Military
 What is the cost of the wrists between Russia and NATO


In April 14th, three of the most powerful NATO countries in the United States and Britain attacked Syria by the United States and Britain, the international communitys worries about the war between Russia and the western countries rose linearly. Through the smoke of the Syria, may as well be cold to see, Russia and the NATO - based western countries wrists, in the military, what is the capital? NATOs comprehensive offensive At the same time, the strategic geopolitical situation is also worth the million soldiers. The China Europe frontline between NATO and NATO is nearly 900 kilometers away from the Soviet Union and more than 600 kilometers away from the coast of the Atlantic. The upheaval in Eastern Europe and the breakup of the Soviet Union made all of this change. In recent years, the Russian economy has been deeply troubled by the collapse of international oil prices and the aggravation of western economic sanctions. NATO, on the pretext of the Ukraine crisis, increased the US $26 billion budget from 2015 to 2017. At present, the total GDP and military expenditure of NATO are about 30 times and 18 times that of Russia. Although Russian officials have repeatedly vowed to revive armaments, the shrinking military budget has led to the low position of military equipment procurement in the Russian army for many years, and the modernization of the replacement planning has been sluggish, and the disconnection of military scientific research personnel has made the Russian military workers less innovative. In recent years, although the Russian army reconstructs and optimizes the compilation system through the new appearance military reform, it is relatively backward in many key fields, such as UAV, electronic components, radar, reconnaissance satellite and so on. The ability of battlefield reconnaissance, control and evaluation is far weaker than the ability to strike. After the cold war, the repeated eastward expansion of NATO has made the European Union of Hua Yuan a change in front, which has greatly compressed the depth of Russias defense. Moscow and St Petersburg have been in the front line, only more than 400 kilometers and more than 100 kilometers from the nearest NATO countries. Russias border advantage Although there is a gap in the overall strength, in the Eastern European confrontation front, military strength contrast is another scene. At present, the Baltic region is the only area where the ground forces of NATO and Russia actually touch each other. Russias enclave Kaliningrad wedged between Poland and Lithuania, dividing the area into two parts of the north and the south. The northern section is the Baltic Sea, and the eastern part of the Poland Lithuania corridor is a flat area suitable for reloading. In these two places, NATO has stationed frontier reinforcements after the Ukraine crisis, but at the moment it has also deployed about 32 thousand ground troops and about 130 tanks. The Russian mainland opposite them is the Russian army ground troops and some 750 tanks with a significant strength of 78 thousand. The tendency of the Russian army to return to the heavy and large compiling is conducive to the implementation of the heavy Corps under the conditions of the conventional high intensity war. Some U. S. and European defense experts estimate that in the Baltic region, the Russian army can mobilize at least 150 thousand people in a few weeks, including armored, artillery, air and sea power. The air to ground integrated warfare is a specific strategy for NATO to focus on training in the European region since the end of the cold war. The United States and NATO European allies are now able to quickly gather about 5000 advanced fighters to support Eastern Europe and the Baltic Sea, nearly 4 times the number of Russian troops available in the region for three generations. However, about 350 advanced mid and long range air defense missile launchers deployed by the Russian army in the area will also greatly reduce the safety action space of NATO air force. Russias key reliance Russia has to offset the huge strength of NATOs conventional military strength and rely on the strategic nuclear force as an important bargaining chip. Although the Russian army has claimed to strengthen the non nuclear containment force in recent years, the importance of its nuclear deterrent capability has been lifted to an unparalleled height. Russias unconventional development of nuclear power reflects profound strategic considerations. First of all, Russias practice of giving up flexibility, pursuing the strongest power and the greatest damage is not to seek victory, but to ensure that it will not fail. Nuclear power is used to defend survival, and conventional force is used to safeguard interest expansion. Strategic nuclear weapons are used to see rather than to be used. The purpose of high-profile propaganda is not belligerence but rather no war. This is a valuable experience left by the cold war. It is difficult for the conventional forces to catch up with NATOs Russia. The development of nuclear containment forces can no doubt deter NATOs unrestrained encroachment. Second, this is a powerful lever for Russia to contain the United States. The United States is also very clear that strategic nuclear weapons are useless at sight and deterrent is far greater than the actual military utility. However, as the only superpower, the United States has fallen into the military dominance obsessive compulsive disorder and is entering a new round of expansion. In order to ensure absolute security, the United States has to compete with some of the military modernized regional powers to combat conventional military power, and to reinvigorate nuclear weapons to prevent Russia from being launched. It is not only difficult to bear the large scale of investment, but also to exert pressure on Russia. (sea mirror) the source of this article: Xinhua editor in charge: Li Ying Ying _NBJS5961 First of all, Russias practice of giving up flexibility, pursuing the strongest power and the greatest damage is not to seek victory, but to ensure that it will not fail. Nuclear power is used to defend survival, and conventional force is used to safeguard interest expansion. Strategic nuclear weapons are used to see rather than to be used. The purpose of high-profile propaganda is not belligerence but rather no war. This is a valuable experience left by the cold war. It is difficult for the conventional forces to catch up with NATOs Russia. The development of nuclear containment forces can no doubt deter NATOs unrestrained encroachment. Second, this is a powerful lever for Russia to contain the United States. The United States is also very clear that strategic nuclear weapons are useless at sight and deterrent is far greater than the actual military utility. However, as the only superpower, the United States has fallen into the military dominance obsessive compulsive disorder and is entering a new round of expansion. In order to ensure absolute security, the United States has to compete with some of the military modernized regional powers to combat conventional military power, and to reinvigorate nuclear weapons to prevent Russia from being launched. It is not only difficult to bear the large scale of investment, but also to exert pressure on Russia. (sea mirror)