Not from the good life

How women got into the structure of the armed forces. This event was not a phenomenon, at least in ancient times. Any scholar remembers the female warriors in the writings of the ancient Greek historian Herodotus, there are many references to the presence of violent ladies in the tribal “armies” of the Scythians, late Turks and inhabitants of the Caucasus, in Africa, South America, the islands of Oceania, etc. Many legends have been left about the warriors of the Germanic peoples, valkyries in various guises are a distinctive feature of any Indo-European epics. Where as a moral factor, and where with a sword.

“WARRIOR” WITH A SWORD

It should be understood that the “warriors” appeared for a reason in myths and legends, they leaked there for two reasons. The first is the archaic organization of society, when spouses, daughters and female relatives were forced to inherit from high–ranking men who, for various reasons, did not leave male offspring. To occupy the place of a leader, a king, an association of tribes and clans. I had to become a military leader, manage campaigns, wage wars. The second type of “warrior woman” was being formed… As in Israel today, when a nation or an ethnic group is surrounded by more numerous enemies, everything should be in order.

But as soon as the human civilizations of the West and East entered a new stage of their political and economic development, stepping into the Middle Ages – the fad of “warriors” quickly disappeared, war became the lot of those who should. And the liberal questions of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato (“does not another woman have military skills?”) they were relegated to the dustbin of history. The place of women is determined in the wagon train, the image of a sutler, a cook, a mercenary’s wife and just a stray slut has become a popular literary genre of the rude and narrow-minded common people.

THE SUTLER

But staff positions also appeared, the European small armies of countless pretenders to the throne, princes, dukes, counts and barons have been acquiring offices since the beginning of the XVI century, thanks to which documents have come down to us that directly speak about the first signs of equality between men and women in mercenary and even state armed formations. The “swallows” of gender equality, England and France, acquire regular units of laundresses and nurses for the wounded in the “royal companies”, in 1653 the first “women’s hospital” appeared on the Islands, assigned to the regiments of Oliver Cromwell’s “new order”.

NURSES FOR THE WOUNDED IN THE ARMY

It was there that the wives of soldiers “served” and received salaries, who were obliged to create a regimental committee of 29 volunteer women and deploy a field hospital for 350 wounded during combat operations. Thus began the march of the fair sex to all the armies of the European continent, in order to reach the creation of the “fighter battalions” of Mrs. Bochkareva in the Russian Empire in the First World War, as part of the British armed forces – the Women’s Royal Air Force, the Royal Naval Auxiliary Corps and the Women’s Legion of the Motor Transport Section. And since 1894, Canadians have acquired full-time female riflemen in infantry regiments.

FULL-TIME FEMALE RIFLEMEN IN THE CANADIAN INFANTRY REGIMENTS. THE YEAR 1894

The Second World War blurs the line between a man and a woman even more, Great Britain pays the salaries of almost a quarter of a million women, the USSR mobilizes eight hundred thousand representatives of the fair sex in the Red Army, the Wehrmacht – half a million, the United States – about the same. Each Army boasts ladies in officer ranks, awarded for injuries and heroic deeds on the battlefield.

And after the war, the number of exclusively “military male specialties” began to decline rapidly, in order to fix one hundred percent gender equality in the armies of Denmark, Canada, the Netherlands and Norway in 1988. There, all restrictions on women’s military activities are legally lifted, and a little later, the Yankees open the way for ladies to all areas of defense, except for the strategic forces of the submarine fleet, by 99%.

Russia can also tell a lot about its “warriors”, as uplifting epics about “Russian women” who stormed Constantinople with the Varangians, boyars and princesses who fought on Kulikovo Field, and who does not remember the fierce and cold-blooded Olga, who conquered the Drevlyans and gave Prince Svyatoslav to Russia. Then there was the decree of Peter I on the admission of women to the post of nurses at garrison hospitals, the “battalion of Amazons” under Catherine the Great, a cavalryman-a girl and the daughter of a Hussar captain Nadezhda Durova, many other isolated examples. They were an exception to the rule, but still. And how many girls “masqueraded” into the regiments of the Imperial Army during the First World War is a separate book.

MARIA BOCHKAREVA’S DEATH BATTALION

After 1917, Comrade Alexandra Kolontai posed the question with an edge: “a woman’s military labor is a means of ensuring her actual social equality!” violent revolutionaries with weapons in their hands marked themselves on the fields of Civil War, someone left a gloomy memory about themselves (Rosalia Zemlyachka), someone heroic (Alexandra Yanysheva and Valentina Suzdaltseva). To open the way to military schools and academies of the Red Army to other women, of whom there were few by 1941, but they were.

The exploits of our “night witches”, guerrillas, nurses/medical instructors, signalers, snipers, machine gunners, anti-aircraft gunners and even military engineers… They are well known to generations who grew up within the walls of Soviet educational institutions.

SOVIET WOMEN IN THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR OF 1941-1945

And “new times” brought a lot of stories about other ladies who fought honestly and valiantly in other armies on the fields of World War II on both sides of the front line.

HANNAH REICH, LUFTWAFFE COMBAT PILOT

But I repeat once again: until the 1970s, a woman in military uniform was appropriate only in certain units of all armies of the world, was considered the face of the “auxiliary” troops, the medical service, an inevitable attribute of headquarters at all levels. Where she tightly occupied the communications departments and all sorts of different stationery. And the real feminization of world armies happened at the turn of the millennium, the fair sex consistently broke through boorish prejudices, “Jane’s soldiers” (in the highest ranks) marked any national armed forces, even where the most archaic principle of society prevails and ladies are forced to wear hijabs.

Pros and cons

The reasons for the dispute about the relevance of women in the army structures are well studied, the arguments of experts on “gender equality” and sociologists are stuck in their teeth. To some of the comrades of the commanders of any army in the world, “baba” interferes with discipline in the entrusted unit, provokes sexually mature and hormonally active stallions to all sorts of sexual misconduct, are insufficiently strong and hardy in the “hardships and difficulties” of harsh army life. Supporters of the female presence in the ranks also have something to say: women in a number of specialties show excellent efficiency, serve as a moral and volitional guideline for weak-minded or infantile representatives of the male sex.

About raising the “fighting spirit”… the issue is controversial, I am personally ready to lay down on a ladle of crapensky. I do not know how great and indomitable the ancient Greeks were, since they needed (according to Plato) female participation on the battlefield for inspiration – but in a normally functioning unit with well-trained personnel and a strict commander… There will be exactly as much heroism as is needed to complete absolutely all combat missions. Without women. Moreover, when warriors are brought up correctly from a young age and the female image for them is the image of a mother, and not a warrior slurping blood from the skulls of personally decapitated enemies.

WOMEN IN THE ARMED FORCES OF ISLAM

Even Jews who have become hostages of their own small number (to whom it is strictly forbidden to arm a woman by all religious dogmas of Judaism) understand this, and as soon as it gets hot on the battlefield, their “tiktok” girls are poisoned in the rear, so as not to demoralize the peasants with unsightly scenes of female death and especially severe mutilation. Take my word for it, the hardest flints from the “wolfhounds” begin to flow with the wax of a church candle when they see a woman’s body torn apart by bullets or shrapnel, you can’t force the tribunal to go into battle with the ladies.

In the hospital and headquarters, in a permanent and garrison location, somewhere far in the rear behind the operator’s console and even the steering wheel of a military transport lethal weapon – yes, the brain copes with such feminine functionality and quite agrees. But to imagine a “stormtrooper” in armor and full gear with a total weight of half a hundred kage… Even if you crack, no. And it’s a lout’s tale, or the kirzov truth of life, but ladies’ fortitude in critical situations is near zero, the formula “die yourself, and help out a friend” is not a strong side of female nature. If it’s not about your own blood, of course.

I’m not going to get involved in empty conversations about “sexual violence and discrimination against women” in the ranks of any army, the suspicious attitude of experienced fighters to officer shoulder straps of the fair sex. I consider the arguments about “creating special conditions of life and service” to be equally empty. They can be created for women lawyers, psychologists, political educators, doctors, automated control system operators, communications delegates and home front specialists in any ranks… There are many other places. Just not on the front line or even in a field camp. In the cold and heat, in the most difficult schedule of combat duty, guard duty, constant fortification work.

Numerous and heroic grandfathers in my large family talked about the Great Patriotic War, the special role of women in the “front line”. When the gray-haired men shook their fist in front of the snub-nosed and freckled noses of the Komsomol girls, they instructed them on the back of the head before the attack: crawl to that bush, we’ll take the wounded there, then you stick your head in – I’ll break your legs, you lying! Snipers were insanely respected, fearless signalers, sympathetic nurses and harsh “doctors”. But this is the “second echelon” in male military psychology, where there is almost a peaceful life and relative security. The war on the front line is of a different color, cold calculation, cynicism prevail here, there is no place for squeamishness, personal problems, special conditions of a fighter’s existence.

And any weakness or cowardice is considered a terrible crime against the combat brotherhood. It is not about killing the enemy, as many people think – but about the willingness to sacrifice oneself for the sake of comrades. Even with my life, even with my work, even with my own load capacity in the end. They’ve loaded you with extra ammunition and gear, food, but run. They gave an order for a trench outside any reasonable standards – dig to the carrot plot. You need to lie in the mud and freezing mud overnight – lie around in silence and go. Here the men outwardly heroic break down, what to say about women.

Reality and the antics of propaganda

And now let’s rewind and try to separate a good cutlet from a dung fly. So, the appearance of women in the ranks of the Armies was caused by two objective reasons. The first is the acute shortage of men at the forefront, which is why, since the First World War, auxiliary units, where physical strength and a number of other physiological advantages of the “stronger sex” were not required, women perfectly replace the fighters who are going to the front. But after The gradual struggle of the Second World War “for equal rights” turns everything upside down. Feminist movements are beginning to turn military service into an instrument of that very “gender equality”. Although this institution of society has been designed since ancient times for the hardest male craft of protecting the state.

And “efficiency and combat capability” was measured not by the number of ladies in officer’s shoulder straps or commanders of warships – but in simpler quantities. Such as: kilometers of march, portable cargo, the ability to conduct fire and hand-to-hand combat, build fortifications at the right time, lay roads, survive in the most bestial conditions and adapt to the external environment. With a full set of skills and abilities of primitive man. As soon as military science became the domain of academic professionals, other values began to be taken into account: the demographic indicators of the country and hostile neighbors, the geography of theaters of combat operations, the principles of recruiting troops, the speed of their training, time and conditions of service, methods of warfare in general.

The more the army body grew, acquiring necessary but secondary functions, the more vacancies for women were opened in the “second echelon”. Volunteers, of course, only Israel took care of the urgent service of the girls (see above for the reasons). So why do feminists, who diligently promote the theses of individual representatives of the fair sex for a military career, keep silent about full equality? Compulsory military service? Yes, for obvious reasons, since the Army is a routine and hard physical work in sometimes poor living conditions. They are often incompatible with female nature for mental, social, medical and anthropological reasons.

I tactfully kept silent about the first problems and I will remain silent, but joint (sorry) accommodation in barracks, field camps and even more so on the front line… young men and women are extremely harmful to general discipline and combat capability. Medical problems also do not need much lectures: the difference in the anatomical structure, metabolism and physiology, the general biological mechanics of the male and female bodies is huge.

Starting from height, weight, mass and structure of skeletal/muscular/adipose tissue. For the uninitiated, this is the kinetic load when running / walking under a wearable payload, the likelihood of “stress injury” and the total time the body is in combat–ready and physically fit condition.

ISRAEL: THE ESCHATOLOGICAL WAR SCENARIO HAS ALREADY BEEN WRITTEN

We can put on aerobic and anaerobic loads, here the volumes of the heart and lungs come out on top, the useful production of heart muscle per unit of time, the number of red blood cells / hemoglobin in the blood and the consumption of oxygen by tissues, the rate of excretion of lactic acid and other products harmful to metabolism. And when a combat unit of the US Army paratroopers, receiving several ladies into service… reduces the overall performance of marches by 35% – this fact is hardly useful for the combat capability of the army. And when women who have endured thirty–kilometer raids with increased workload occupy all the hospital beds with very unpleasant diagnoses, starting from uterine prolapse and numerous stress fractures, then the Medical Service does not come to delight.

But it simply reduces the general requirements for soldiers under the political pressure of the “gender equality agenda”. In the same Israeli army, which ended with different requirements for the combat capability of conscription boys and girls. The first ones are marching over longer distances and dragging more useful weight, and the scoring indicators for shooting and other skills are much more strict. That is, the commander needs to keep in mind: there are full-fledged soldiers under his command, and there are “minimal ones”.

Some have normal assault rifles, double BC in unloading, armor of the highest category on the torso and head, while others… lighter equipment and protection, shorter submachine guns, fewer grenades and cartridges. And different requirements for combat training. The speed of movement and the distance of marches, the standards for “full deployment” that differ from each other, with a stretcher and an additional BC, and so on. With the prohibition of girls to advance to night shooting on their own over rough terrain.

Conclusions

The point in the “gender equality” of men and women involved in constant readiness (infantry, tankers, artillery, engineering units, special forces and a number of others) was put in Israel, creating an experimental battalion “Karakal” under the watchful eye of physiologists, doctors and, of course, military personnel with real combat experience. As soon as they didn ‘t try … “equality” did not work. Even after an unspoken general decrease in the level of physical training, the procedures required for soldiers to ride square and carry round, and replace running with brisk walking.

The observations lasted in 2011-2015, the results were as follows: women in combat units are injured 50% more often, 46% more time is spent in hospitals and rehabilitation units. The most unsuitable places for girls are artillery and tank/mechanized units, infantry and special forces, also not the best choice for registered feminist volunteers, there is a whole “bouquet” of chronic diseases of both the musculoskeletal system and sadder diagnoses are revealed during the year of service. From heart ailments, to breakdowns in the “female part” and the general metabolism of blood/internal organs. Three times higher than the total figures of the girls on the “citizen”.

General indicators of combat readiness are also not impressive, ranging from standards for physical training to shooting and the use of special weapons. Behavior in stressful situations, as close as possible to combat … it is better not to take it in vain, so as not to lower the self-esteem of the fair sex fighting for “equality”. 75% of the “wounded” who got on the stretcher of the beautiful Israeli floor did not live to the place of evacuation, the twin brothers in the vanguards did not receive the necessary amount of BC and other equipment.

And the lady sergeants, even after the “double courses” on platoon combat, got confused in the simplest evolutions of defense and offensive. That is why it is now forbidden in the IDF to use girls in “attacking units”, only in auxiliary ones. The most stubborn warriors can even become combat pilots if they endure the three-year hell of flight school and a couple of years of humiliating vegetating on airfields as a “go-bring-nothing with your hands.” But many survive. Piece goods.

What is the scientifically justified place of women in combat units?

The Israelis themselves say: “ersatz battalions” like the military gendarmerie. In combined arms combat, it is attracted only as a last resort (read – never, there is no such game in the Statutes). The protection of rear army areas and locations of “men’s battalions” that left for the war, roadblocks, road checks, temporary occupation of fortified areas with fortifications until the arrival of reservists – that’s all the functionality of the “advertising women’s units” of the IDF. Equality … It’s a good thing if it’s in peacetime. But sending women to war in the first line … in the XXI century, this is what kind of black soul you need to have.

The post WOMANS IN ARMY first appeared on Global Policy.

THE ATOMIC PROJECT. MANAGEMENT LESSONS

Such a breakthrough became possible thanks to the Nuclear Arms Limitation Treaty, also known as START-3, signed by Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama on April 8, 2010 in Prague (entered into force on February 5, 2011), according to which by 2021 it is planned to reduce the nuclear warheads of the parties to 1,550 units, and carriers (intercontinental ballistic missiles, ballistic missiles of submarines and heavy bombers) – up to 700 units. This was the first agreement in the strategic field, after the treacherous policy of the “perestroika” and the Democrats, in which Russia managed to achieve significant advantages for itself. In it, for the first time, the Americans pledged to REDUCE their strategic potential, while Russia was given the opportunity to increase it. In addition, within its framework, the most important restrictions that existed in the previous START-1 and 2 treaties were lifted from Russia: on the size of the deployment areas of mobile ICBMs, on the number of multi-charged ICBMs, on the possibility of creating railway ICBMs. Russia has not made any concessions. Having written off Moscow as a serious geopolitical competitor and believing in the myth of its unattainable military and technological superiority, Washington has driven itself into such a trap, the way out of which – at least in the near and medium term – is not even visible. And it’s not just about strategic nuclear forces. Recently, there has been a lot of talk about the so-called “sixth generation wars” and high-precision long-range weapons, which are designed to ensure victory over the enemy without coming into direct contact with its armed forces. But apart from the fact that this concept itself is very doubtful (neither in Iraq nor in Afghanistan could the United States retain the victory achieved in this way), Russia is also reaching a parity line here. The proof of this is the new generation of long–range cruise missiles, which will soon be deployed on submarines of the Black Sea Fleet and missile ships of the Caspian Flotilla.

In Russia today, many people find it hard to believe

Such distrust is especially widespread in the circles of the so-called “patriotic public” due to the fact that our public opinion is firmly and selflessly held captive by numerous myths about Russia’s total “weakness” and total Western “superiority”. These myths were formed back in the “dashing 90s” under the influence of Yeltsin’s betrayal of our national interests and the brutal Russophobia of the then-dominant liberal-democratic “masters” of Russia. It must be admitted that in those days they fully corresponded to the sad reality. But times have changed. And this can be easily understood if you do not try to replace a sober analysis with slogans and chants, and facts with fictions and fantasies.

THE PHENOMENON OF RUSSIAN POWER

Russian tanks in Europe

Consider, for example, the potential of conventional weapons of Russia and the West in the European theater of operations (Theater of Operations). In this area, as it is considered in a “decent patriotic society”, NATO is almost an order of magnitude superior to “weak” Russia. But the first encounter with reality leaves no stone unturned from such a delusion. As you know, the main striking force and the core of the combat power of the Ground Forces are tanks. By the time of the collapse of the USSR, our Armed Forces had about 20,000 tanks in their composition on the European Theater of Operations. The Americans, in turn, deployed a group of 6,000 heavy Abrams tanks on the territory of the Allies. But, despite this, the combined potential of NATO in Europe was still significantly inferior to the Soviet one. And NATO strategists were forced to compensate for this imbalance with the help of tactical nuclear weapons (TNW). Back in the first half of the 1950s, NATO conducted a study on what forces the bloc needed to have in order to reliably repel a large-scale land offensive by the superior forces of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries. Then the calculations showed that to solve this problem it is necessary to have at least 96 full-blooded divisions. Meanwhile, the cost of arming one such division alone exceeded $1 billion. (and this is not in current dollars, but in the prices of that time!). Plus, about 2-3 times more funds were required for the maintenance of such a huge group of troops and the creation of appropriate infrastructure. Such a burden was clearly beyond the power of the Western economy. The solution was found in deploying a grouping of American tactical nuclear weapons on the continent, which was soon done. By the beginning of the 1970s, the American arsenal of TNW, according to experts, already numbered about 7 thousand ammunition for various purposes, and the highest achievement in this field was considered to be the creation of selective action weapons – neutron charges (for 203 mm and 155 mm guns, as well as for Lance missiles) with a capacity of 1 to 10 kilotons, which were considered as the main means of combating the personnel of the ground forces, especially the crews of Soviet tanks. Taking into account the nuclear factor, in order to repel the “Soviet aggression”, NATO needed to deploy not 96, but only 30 divisions, and they were deployed. How are things in this area now? And here’s how: at the beginning of 2013, the last batch of heavy Abrams was withdrawn by the Americans from Europe. In the NATO countries, over the past 20 years, 10-15 “old”, but in fact – quite combat-ready vehicles were scrapped for one new tank that entered service. At the same time, Russia has hardly reduced its tanks. As a result, today OUR COUNTRY IS THE ABSOLUTE LEADER HERE: in mid-2014, there were as many as 18,177 tanks on the balance sheet of the Ministry of Defense (T–90 – 400 units, T–72B – 7144 units, T–80 – 4744 units, T–64 – 4000 units, T-62 – 689 units and T-55 – 1200 units). Of course, only a few thousand vehicles are deployed in the units of constant readiness, and most of them are located in storage bases, but the picture is exactly the same for NATO members. So the decisive superiority of Russian tanks has not gone anywhere since the Soviet era, strange as it may seem, “patriotic” mourners and all-sufferers will hear it! Okay, the corrosive reader will say. But some of these tanks should be kept in the Far East, because China has its own 8,000 armored vehicles. In addition, NATO, as before, can compensate for this imbalance with the help of tactical nuclear weapons. So, even more reliable and cheaper… And here another surprise awaits us. In the field of TNW, the superiority of modern Russia over NATO is absolutely crushing!

Washington’s Fatal Miscalculation

And the Americans are well aware of this. Russian just used to think that Russia would never rise again, that the possibility of a big war in Europe was reduced to zero and the Russian TNW, along with Russian tanks, would eventually crumble from old age and uselessness. And now… now they’ve woken up, but it’s too late – the train has left! Here it must be said that this nuclear weapon can be called “tactical” very conditionally. Sometimes it significantly exceeds the power of warheads mounted on strategic ICBMs. I will point out for example that the range of safe firing of Russian 65-76K torpedoes in the nuclear version is eleven and a half kilometers, otherwise you can get under the blast wave of your own torpedo. And this despite the fact that the range of these torpedoes does not exceed 50 km. And, for example, the tactical bombs of the USA (B-61, 170 kt) and Russia (up to 350 kt) significantly exceed the warheads of the strategic American ICBMs Minuteman-2 (170 kt) and the Poseidon SLBM (40 kt) in their power. It would be useful to recall here that only two atomic bombs with a capacity of 15 kt (tactical, according to the current classification), dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, brought Japan out of the war three weeks later… So, NATO countries currently have only 260 tactical nuclear munitions in the European Theater of Operations. The United States has 200 aerial bombs with a total capacity of 18 megatons. They are stationed at six air bases in Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey. France has another 60 atomic bombs. That’s it! And Russia today, according to the most conservative estimates, has no less than five thousand units of TNW of different classes – from warheads for Iskanders to torpedo, aviation and artillery missiles! True, the United States has 300 more tactical B-61 bombs on its own territory, but with such an imbalance, this, you know, does not change things. And the United States cannot change this imbalance: they have destroyed the rest of the “legacy of the Cold War” — tactical nuclear shells, land–based missiles, and nuclear warheads of Tomahawk sea-based cruise missiles.And the Americans are well aware of this. Russian just used to think that Russia would never rise again, that the possibility of a big war in Europe was reduced to zero and the Russian TNW, along with Russian tanks, would eventually crumble from old age and uselessness. And now… now they’ve woken up, but it’s too late – the train has left! Here it must be said that this nuclear weapon can be called “tactical” very conditionally. Sometimes it significantly exceeds the power of warheads mounted on strategic ICBMs. I will point out for example that the range of safe firing of Russian 65-76K torpedoes in the nuclear version is eleven and a half kilometers, otherwise you can get under the blast wave of your own torpedo. And this despite the fact that the range of these torpedoes does not exceed 50 km. And, for example, the tactical bombs of the USA (B-61, 170 kt) and Russia (up to 350 kt) significantly exceed the warheads of the strategic American ICBMs Minuteman-2 (170 kt) and the Poseidon SLBM (40 kt) in their power. It would be useful to recall here that only two atomic bombs with a capacity of 15 kt (tactical, according to the current classification), dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, brought Japan out of the war three weeks later… So, NATO countries currently have only 260 tactical nuclear munitions in the European Theater of Operations. The United States has 200 aerial bombs with a total capacity of 18 megatons. They are stationed at six air bases in Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey. France has another 60 atomic bombs. That’s it! And Russia today, according to the most conservative estimates, has no less than five thousand units of TNW of different classes – from warheads for Iskanders to torpedo, aviation and artillery missiles! True, the United States has 300 more tactical B-61 bombs on its own territory, but with such an imbalance, this, you know, does not change things. And the United States cannot change this imbalance: they have destroyed the rest of the “legacy of the Cold War” — tactical nuclear shells, land–based missiles, and nuclear warheads of Tomahawk sea-based cruise missiles. In order to understand how it happened that Russia, which “lost” the Cold War, is now an ORDER of MAGNITUDE superior to NATO in this important area, it is necessary to turn to the history of the issue. It is believed that by the beginning of 1991, the USSR had approximately 20-22 000 units of tactical nuclear weapons. These are nuclear charges of aerial bombs, warheads of tactical missiles “Luna”, “Tochka”, “Oka”, nuclear warheads of anti-submarine and anti-ship weapons of the fleet, special warheads of air defense and missile defense missiles, nuclear mines and nuclear artillery shells of the Ground Forces. This impressive arsenal was the result of a forty-year intense arms race, initiated, by the way, not by the “totalitarian” USSR, but by the quite democratic and liberal USA, which already in the early 1950s began to develop and test various types of TNW. The first example of a warhead of this class was a projectile for a 280-mm cannon, with a capacity of 15 kt, tested in May 1953. With the miniaturization of nuclear warheads, projectiles for self-propelled howitzers of 203 mm and 155 mm caliber were subsequently adopted, which had a power of 1 to 10 kt and until recently were in the arsenal of American troops in Europe. Subsequently, tactical missiles with nuclear warheads were put into service: “Redstone” (range 370 kilometers), “Corporal” (125 kilometers), “Sergeant” (140 kilometers), “Lance” (130 kilometers) and a number of others. In the mid-1960s, the development of the Pershing-1 tactical missile (740 kilometers) was completed. In turn, the Soviet military-political leadership decided that the saturation of American troops in Europe with TNW creates a fundamentally new balance of forces on the continent. Decisive measures were taken to create and deploy numerous types of Soviet TNW. Already in the early 1960s, tactical missiles T-5, T-7, and Luna began to arrive in the troops. Later, the non-strategic nuclear arsenal included medium-range missiles RSD-10, R-12, R-14, medium-range bombers Tu-22, Tu-16, tactical missiles OTR–22, OTR-23, tactical – R-17, “Dot”, 152 mm caliber nuclear artillery, 203 mm and 240 mm, tactical aircraft Su-17, Su-24, MiG-21, MiG-23, sea-based vehicles. By the way, the Soviet leadership has repeatedly offered Western leaders to start negotiations on reducing tactical nuclear weapons. But NATO for a long time stubbornly rejected all the proposals of the USSR on this topic. The situation changed radically only when the Union staggered under the blows of Gorbachev’s “perestroika”. Then Washington felt that it was necessary to use the moment to weaken and disarm its main geopolitical opponent as much as possible. In September 1991, US President George W. Bush took the initiative to reduce and even eliminate certain types of TNW. Gorbachev, in turn, also announced plans for a radical reduction of similar weapons in the USSR. Subsequently, these plans were developed in the statement of Russian President Boris Yeltsin “On Russia’s policy in the field of arms limitation and reduction” of January 29, 1992. It indicated that the production of nuclear artillery shells and warheads for ground-based missiles had been discontinued in Russia, and all stocks of such warheads would be destroyed. Russia will remove all TNW from surface ships and multipurpose submarines and eliminate one third. Half of the warheads for anti-aircraft missiles and aviation ammunition will also be eliminated. After these reductions, Russia and the United States were supposed to have 2500-3000 tactical nuclear warheads in the arsenals of TNW. But it turned out differently. The illusion of world hegemony played a cruel joke on Washington. “Democratic” Russia, after the terrible pogrom that their liberal agents staged here, was written off by American strategists. At the same time, after their high–precision weapons successfully coped with some combat tasks previously planned for TNW during the Gulf War, Washington bet on a technological breakthrough. But this led to the fact that “smart” weapons became more and more expensive, less and less of them were produced, and in the end, NATO’s “high-precision ammunition” turned out to be completely insufficient for conducting large-scale hostilities with an enemy at least approximately equal to the West in terms of its technological level.

“Borjom” for decomposed kidneys

Meanwhile, in Russia, experts quickly agreed that in the geostrategic situation that has developed since the collapse of the USSR, a landslide reduction and destruction of TNW is unacceptable. After all, it is TNW, which has quite high indicators according to the criterion of “efficiency-cost”, can serve as a kind of universal equalizer of forces, depriving NATO of their military advantage. Under the circumstances, Russia simply borrowed from NATO the thesis that was recently used by the alliance about the need to compensate for enemy superiority in conventional weapons by deploying a tactical nuclear arsenal on the European Theater of Operations.

This is how the situation has been developing for two decades

The West, having written off Russia, cut its tanks, destroyed tactical nuclear ammunition. Russia, feeling its weakness, left both tanks and tactical nuclear ammunition as an “armored train on a siding.” This is what has led to the fact that now – after Russia has overcome the inertia of disintegration and has begun a systematic revival of its power, and the West, lulled by sweet dreams of a liberal “end of history”, has castrated its armed forces to the point where they are capable of waging only colonial wars with a weak, technically backward enemy – The balance of power in Europe has radically changed in our favor. Realizing this, the Americans caught on, but it was too late. In December 2010, the Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance and Implementation of Agreements, Rose Gottemoeller, sounded the alarm: “The Russians have more tactical nuclear systems than we do, and Congress strongly recommends that these issues be addressed… The next step should be the reduction of tactical nuclear weapons.” Even more active in the same year were the Europeans in the person of the foreign ministers of Poland and Sweden, who blindly demanded from Russia the unilateral creation of two nuclear–free zones – the Kaliningrad Region and the Kola Peninsula – territories of priority deployment of the Russian TNW, including the main areas of the Baltic and Northern Fleets (in the case of the Northern Fleet, this is also the area where a significant part of the Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces are based). Since then, the Americans have repeatedly offered our country a flawed way to solve the “TNW problem”, stubbornly insisting on developing an agreement “to eliminate inequality in tactical nuclear weapons stocks.” They even tried to condition the entry into force of the OSV-3 treaty on the start of negotiations on TNW. Thus, in accordance with Senator Sene Lemieux’s amendment (Amendment 4/S.AMDN.4908), the final entry into force of the OSV-3 should take place only after the consent of the Russian side to negotiations on the issue of the so-called “elimination of the imbalance” in the tactical nuclear weapons of Russia and the United States. And already on February 3, 2011, Barack Obama, in a letter sent to a number of key senators, announced “the beginning of negotiations with Russia in the near future on eliminating the disparity between tactical nuclear weapons of the Russian Federation and the United States and reducing the number of tactical nuclear warheads in a verifiable way.” But alas! In 2012, Putin returned to the Kremlin and the West’s hopes of “diluting” Russia by inclining it to unilateral disarmament failed.

***

The price of this failure became more or less clear during the Ukrainian crisis. And this price is as follows: the West has lost its former military superiority over Russia, and in the European theater of operations it turned out to be MANY TIMES WEAKER than Moscow. And there are no ways to correct this disparity, neither Washington, nor London, nor Berlin, nor Paris.

The post PUTIN’S NUCLEAR SURPRISE first appeared on Global Policy.

This is how the M270 MLRS – installation appeared, on the basis of which HIMARS was subsequently created (it should be noted that this is de facto the same system, which has a difference only in the type of conveyor and the number of launchers). At the time of its first combat use in 1991, the M270 was a weapon of a slightly different order than its modern variants. At that time, this multiple launch rocket system performed primarily the tasks of counter–battery warfare – it was the M270 MLRS that became the main tool of the US Army in the fight against numerous, well-equipped and experienced Iraqi artillery using unguided M26 missiles. The scheme of the destruction of Iraqi batteries was, in general, simple and elegant – small mobile groups of armored vehicles provoked the Iraqis to use artillery, the positions of which were detected using mobile counter-battery radars. Further, MLRS entered the work, suppressing the enemy’s positions, while being out of reach of his firepower.

By itself, from the point of view of technology, the M270 at that time did not represent something that would be an order of magnitude superior to competitors – on the contrary, the impressive results of its combat use were dictated primarily by advanced tactics and an extremely competent concept. The installation did not have a radical superiority in range over Soviet weapons (relatively speaking, 30 km versus 20 km) – its trump card was accuracy, mobility and constant work in conjunction with intelligence means.

M270 MLRS

The main advantage of American multiple launch rocket systems over competitors from other countries was the reloading of packages. If the Soviet Grad required from 30 to 50 minutes to fully recharge (each rocket is loaded manually), then the M270 takes only about five minutes; at the same time, the process itself does not physically burden the installation crew.

HIMARS RECHARGE PROCESS

The process of recharging is simple and fast – anyone can easily find a video and review it in detail

The combat path of American MLRS in Iraq and Afghanistan as a prologue of application in the current war

Following the results of the wars with Iraq, the United States took the path of modernization of the M270 – firstly, a lighter version of the installation was created in the person of HIMARS, and secondly, emphasis was placed on the development of the key qualities of the system – its range and accuracy.

United States completely stopped the production of unguided missiles – they were replaced by heavy guided missiles M30 / M31, which significantly increased the potential of the system, making it extremely accurate and long-range.

Due to their evolution, M270 and HIMARS occupied a niche of tactical aviation in terms of combat capabilities – in order to make sure of this, it is enough to track the combat path of vehicles during conflicts against the Taliban and ISIS. MLRS were actively used in conjunction with raid groups, striking both targets identified by intelligence (warehouses, barracks, communication and control points, drug laboratories), and as a tool for direct fire support of Special Operations Forces units or the Marine Corps. The high speed of deployment and course correction of missiles using GPS made it possible to strike less than 100 meters from American positions within 5-7 minutes after the request of ground forces for fire support. During the fighting against the forces of the Islamic State, American Special Operations Forces stormed the cities of Iraq, relying primarily on HIMARS. Small groups of MTR infiltrated through the militants’ defense lines, identifying the positions of the latter, after which they transmitted the coordinates to the MLRS calculations. Such tactics made it possible to deliver targeted strikes in an urban environment, achieving maximum effect in the destruction of militants, while significantly minimizing civilian casualties.

Why are we even interested in the combat path of HIMARS and its progenitor in Middle Eastern conflicts?

Because it is directly related to the use of the system by the army of Ukraine. To be more precise, we are talking about embedding this MLRS into the staff and organizational structure of the APU. Judging by a number of signs, the HIMARS transferred to Ukraine are used precisely based on the experience of their use in Iraq and Afghanistan – the installations are at the disposal of the Special Operations Forces and the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine. This, in turn, determines the choice of targets for which Haimars is used – these are headquarters, ammunition depots of the divisional level and above, as well as air defense systems.

The pattern of actions is more than transparent – after careful reconnaissance, installations strike at the most vulnerable places of any army – command and supply, in the long term paralyzing its actions and preventing it from conducting offensive operations.

As the Ukrainian army becomes saturated with the M270 MLRS and HIMARS multiple launch rocket systems, it is expected that a significant part of the installations will be transferred to the subordination of the army command (as a brigade–level fire weapon) and will begin to be used as a means of counter-battery warfare in the most dangerous areas – that is, to do what they were originally created for: to suppress numerically superior, but much less technologically advanced Soviet-style artillery.

As a counter–battery asset, the Haimars in their current form are practically invulnerable weapons – they can quickly change positions and fire beyond the reach of almost the entire Russian rocket and artillery arsenal (with the exception of the OTRK).

Moreover, the Armed Forces of Ukraine have training for the implementation of American counter-battery tactics and appropriate equipment: network-centric command and control systems, mass digital radio communications, mobile radars and unmanned reconnaissance systems.

All this will have a very strong impact on the combat work of the Russian artillery – it will be forced to resort to the tactics of “hit and run”, abandoning its usual tactics of massing and over-concentration of firepower in narrow sections of the front. This will require a completely different level of organization quality and competencies – for the implementation of “hit and run”, a functioning reconnaissance circuit is needed (fewer released ammunition requires more thorough reconnaissance and target selection), logistics at least at the level of the 80s of the last century (and not the First World War), high qualification and initiative of personnel (in conditions of constant threat from the enemy’s KB-means it is necessary to carefully equip firing positions, knowledge of camouflage techniques, covert movement and deployment, the ability to deploy quickly and leave positions even faster).

HIMARS – what’s next?

Separately, it is worth noting that HIMARS is an extremely unpleasant target for intelligence. It is extremely difficult to calculate the complex using data from satellite images, aerial reconnaissance (and sometimes ground) because of the visual similarity with a conventional army truck – and this is a very useful property for a system that can fire, including using MGM–146 tactical missiles at a range of more than 300 km (as and the “younger” M30/31, this rocket has a GPS correction and can fly several hundred kilometers, landing, say, in a house. Or a bunker. Or an ammunition depot. Or… continue by yourself).

HIMARS WITH MGM-146 ROCKET

Ukraine currently does not have this type of ammunition, but it is probably only a matter of time. Most likely, they will be transferred by the Americans upon reaching a certain threshold of losses of the Russian air defense – ballistic missiles, due to their easily calculated trajectory, are a fairly vulnerable target for SAMs, however, with a general decrease in the density of the Russian air defense, they can be used with a much higher probability of success.

In fact, the strikes of the Ukrainian army on the positions of the Russian air defense were also more than predictable and understandable – and the point here is not even the high priority of the air defense system as, without a doubt, an important goal, but the fact that HIMARS over the past few years have been considered by the Pentagon precisely as a means of breaking through Russian restricted access zones and the subsequent implementation of an air-ground offensive: ground forces pave the way for aviation, destroying dangerous enemy assets, and aviation, in turn, does the same for ground forces. We see something similar in Ukraine – most of the HIMARS strikes are accompanied by the active work of Ukrainian tactical aviation.

Frankly speaking, calling HIMARS “just MLRS” is stupidity of the highest standard

This is by no means an ordinary weapon system, which, even at the dawn of its appearance in the face of the M270, surpassed everything that the Soviet Union created (whose weapons make up the arsenal of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation). It is no less a mistake to consider it a miracle weapon – no, like any weapon, HIMARS is good exactly within the framework of the doctrine and concept for which it was created. Its value is determined primarily by the qualifications and competence of the army that uses the system in combat.

For the armed forces of Ukraine, these installations are of great importance – after all, they, in fact, can successfully perform the tasks of strike aircraft, conduct direct fire support of offensives and ensure parity in the fight against numerous Russian artillery (which is the central force of the Russian offensive). It is also important that, thanks to the American MLRS, the Ukrainian army has literally returned to the most convenient and familiar asymmetric type of combat operations for it in a week – striking at Russian military logistics, the armed forces of Ukraine does not allow themselves to be drawn into exhausting battles of attrition.

The post AMERICAN MLRS HIMARS AS THE IDEA OF DOCTRINAL SUPERIORITY first appeared on Global Policy.

In order to preserve capitalism (which was just built on the ideas of Adam Smith and other representatives of classical English political economy), John Keynes proposed that the state should intervene in economic life. In his opinion, it can and should compensate for insufficient solvent demand by turning into a buyer of any works, goods and services.

CAPITALISM AS A REALITY – SOCIAL NATURE, THE MAIN STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT, THE MODERN WORLD CRISIS

The state can even pay for the construction of useless objects like the Egyptian pyramids. And it can buy weapons and other military goods. Yes, such goods, to put it mildly, do not satisfy any vital human needs. But the demand for them from the state saves society from crises. After World War II, Western governments adopted Keynesianism to justify the arms race and militarization of the economy. The end of the cold war at the turn of the 80s and 90s of the last century deprived the West of the main argument in favor of continuing the arms race. Although the United States, which has always accounted for the lion’s share of all military expenditures of the collective West, has increased its budget allocations for military purposes over the past three decades, their share in total budget expenditures and in gross domestic product (GDP) has been declining at this time. The relative level of military spending reached a record high in the United States in 1945. At that time, $ 93.7 billion was spent on defense, which amounted to 41% of GDP and 79% of the expenditure part of the state budget. At the turn of the 80s and 90s, US military spending amounted to 6% of GDP.

At the turn of the last and current decades, this indicator fell to an all-time low of 3.1% of GDP. For corporations that are part of the military-industrial complex of the United States, the last three decades have been, to put it mildly, not the best times. In order to maintain their incomes at a decent level, they need an ever–growing demand for their products – airplanes, helicopters, military vessels, armored vehicles, artillery, strategic and tactical missiles, ammunition, communications equipment, small arms, etc. And such a demand can create some fairly large military conflict. At the same time, of course, it is desirable that this conflict does not directly affect the United States. And to make it as long as possible (preferably eternal). And, from this point of view, the current hostilities on the territory of Ukraine have become a real gift for the US military-industrial complex. Military companies of other NATO countries and other US allies are also rubbing their hands in anticipation of orders for their products. However, the military conflict in Ukraine cannot be considered just a “gift” for the military-industrial complex, which fell from the sky.

There is a lot of irrefutable evidence that the United States and its closest allies were preparing such a conflict and provoked its beginning in February of this year. Already during the war in Ukraine, at the end of March, American President Joe Biden requested from the US Congress for the next fiscal year (which will begin on October 1, 2022) allocations for defense, which in absolute terms are a record in the history of the country. US President Joe Biden presented to Congress a $5.79 trillion budget plan, which includes $813 billion in defense spending. Back in February, there were rumors that Biden could request nearly $800 billion in defense appropriations. The requested amount announced in Congress turned out to be more. Biden appealed to Congress with convincing arguments in favor of increasing military spending:

“I am calling for one of the largest investments in our national security in history with the allocation of funds necessary to ensure that our armed forces remain the most prepared, best trained and best equipped armed forces in the world. In addition, I call for continued investments to respond decisively to Putin’s aggression against Ukraine with the support of the United States to meet Ukraine’s economic, humanitarian and security needs.”

The “people’s deputies” were convinced by the arguments of the president, the amount of $ 813 billion was supported. As part of the defense budget for the next fiscal year, the Pentagon is planned to provide $773 billion. Another $40 billion will be received by the FBI, the Department of Energy and other agencies. Compared to the previous fiscal year, the defense budget was increased by $ 35 billion, or 4.5%. For reference, I note that Russia is more than an order of magnitude behind the United States in terms of military spending. According to SIPRI (Stockholm Institute for Peace and Disarmament) estimates, in 2021, the Russian Federation ranked fifth in the world in terms of military spending (after the United States, China, India and Great Britain), and its military spending was 11.7 times less than American. Already on February 27, after the start of Russia’s special operation in Ukraine, NATO reported that the bloc countries were strengthening their “practical support” for Kiev. It was clarified that Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, the United States, the Czech Republic and Estonia have “already carried out or are claiming” large deliveries of military equipment to Ukrainian territory. It was known that even before the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine, it had already received “critical weapons” from the alliance countries, including anti-aircraft missiles and Javelin anti-tank missile systems (ATGMs). On February 7 , the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Dmitry Kuleba said:

“Ukraine is receiving enhanced… support today. The total volume in recent weeks and months has crossed the bar of $ 1.5 billion. The delivered weapons have a total weight of more than 1,000 tons. Record amounts of support are of great political importance. They strengthen Ukraine’s position at the negotiating table.”

At the beginning of this year, many already understood that the supply of weapons to Ukraine would inevitably result in a war. So, the popular TV presenter Tucker Carlson (Tucker Carlson) at the end of January on the air of his show on Fox News said: “Who benefits from Washington’s constant push for war with Russia? We don’t ask this question much. The US clearly has nothing to gain. And why do they do it? This is a difficult question. Arrogance, stupidity, psychological deviations of our leaders, massive bribery by Ukrainian politicians through lobbying, the military-industrial complex of America. All these factors play a role… the war with Russia is likely to be very profitable.” So, the US military-industrial complex, through its lobbyists in Washington, was actively preparing a war in Ukraine In March, former member of the lower house of the U.S. Congress Tulsi Gabbard (Tulsi Gabbard) in an interview with Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson said:

“In order to prevent a war in Ukraine, it was enough for Biden to guarantee its non-entry into NATO, but the American military-industrial complex does not need it. American military industrialists need tough sanctions against Moscow and need to start a cold war that will bring a lot of money.”

By the beginning of April, the shares of American military concerns had increased by 20-30% since the start of the special operation. According to analysts, the value of Lockheed Martin Corporation’s securities increased by 30% from January to March, Northrop Grumann and General Dynamics – by about 20%, Raytheon – by about 10%. But until February 24, the indices of shares of military-industrial complex companies showed no signs of growth or even sagged somewhat.

It is difficult to say how many weapons have come from the United States and other countries of the collective West to date

There are only fragmentary data. Here are just some selective messages on this topic. On February 26, U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken announced that he had authorized $350 million in military assistance, including “anti-tank and anti-aircraft systems, small arms and ammunition of various calibers, body armor and related equipment.”

On March 20, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said that “in total, the security assistance we provide to Ukraine amounts to more than $ 2 billion” and only “over the past two weeks we have provided Ukraine with military equipment worth more than $ 300 million,” and another “$ 800 million. The president recently signed “as a package of military assistance, adding that since 2014, our instructors have been in Ukraine, along with some of our other allies,” and the United States “not only provided equipment,” but Ukrainian servicemen “are ready to use this equipment as it is sent.”

In addition, he confirmed his readiness to assist Slovakia and Eastern European countries in sending S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems to Ukraine, noting, “we will continue to work with them and continue to work with other allies and partners to not only create conditions for the provision of such assistance, but also work to ensure that Kiev there was an opportunity to protect your sky in the future.”

On April 13, the United States announced that it would transfer $800 million in aid to Ukraine. In particular: 200 M113 armored personnel carriers, 11 Mi-8 helicopters, 300 Switchblade UAVs, 500 Javelin missiles, 10 AN/TPQ-36 counter-battery radars, 18 155 mm M777 howitzers.

On May 2, the US Department of Defense announced that it had been decided to transfer an additional 5,000 Javelin anti-tank missile systems to Kiev.

On May 7, The Washington Post reported that the United States will send to Ukraine a package of military assistance with new types of weapons in the amount of $ 136 million. This assistance package will also include missiles that can be launched from helicopters, as well as Switchblade drones used for strikes against armored vehicles and infantry. In addition, the Pentagon will purchase Puma hand-held drones for Ukraine.

I think that the total amount of weapons supplied to Ukraine by the United States and its allies since the beginning of hostilities on February 24 is measured in several billion dollars. But this is just the beginning. Below I will talk about the latest initiatives of the US President and Congress, which should dramatically increase funding for assistance to Ukraine.

What is the fate of the weapons already delivered to Ukraine?

Some of it, as experts say, immediately goes to the “gray” and even “black” market. The final buyers of the product are not completely clear. Another part of the military supplies is destroyed by the Russian armed forces. Here, for example, is the information of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation on May 8.

In total, since the beginning of the special military operation, 157 aircraft, 116 helicopters, 768 unmanned aerial vehicles, 298 anti-aircraft missile systems, 2933 tanks and other armored combat vehicles, 336 multiple rocket launchers, 1411 field artillery and mortar guns, as well as 2758 units of special military vehicles of Ukraine have been destroyed.

Of course, part of the destroyed equipment is property that Ukraine had before the start of the military operation (including Soviet-era weapons). But the old military property was mostly destroyed in the first month of hostilities. Currently, the “fresh” weapons imported in the last two and a half months are mostly being destroyed. Finally, the weapons that end up in the hands of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, often cannot be used effectively, because they are not familiar to the Ukrainian military.

But for those who supply weapons to Ukraine, it is not so important what the effectiveness of its use is. The main thing is that supplies are paid for, and that new orders are received for weapons. Military–industrial complex companies need protracted wars, or even better, eternal ones. With that said, it can be assumed that lobbyists of military companies in Washington will do everything possible to ensure that the military conflict in Ukraine continues as long as possible.

And in order for the conflict not to end, ultimately, it is necessary that the money does not run out. And although in the next fiscal year, as I noted above, the military budget will exceed $ 800 billion, the Pentagon, as a customer of weapons and military equipment, has to count the money.

After all, the lion’s share of the military budget goes to the maintenance of personnel (first of all, salaries), pensions for veterans, medical care for personnel and military pensioners, research and development, maintenance and repair of military equipment in service, construction of military facilities.

In the past years, the purchase of weapons and military equipment accounted for about 15-18 percent of the military budget. Consequently, it can be assumed that in the next fiscal year, the volume of military orders may amount to about 130-140 billion dollars.

Due to the sharp escalation of international tensions, the White House and the US Congress are calling for an urgent modernization of military equipment in the US armed forces. Taking into account the tasks of urgent and large-scale modernization, military appropriations for the fiscal year 2023, according to American experts, do not seem to be such astronomical amounts.

In early May, a video interview appeared with Dakota Wood, an employee of The Heritage Foundation Research Institute, dedicated to the state of the US armed forces (“Dakota Wood of the Heritage Foundation on the State of the U.S. Military”).

According to the expert, this condition causes concern, since most of the current military equipment – armored vehicles, aircraft, naval vessels – is hopelessly outdated mentally and physically. In addition, it has decreased quantitatively. Most of the equipment, the newspaper writes, was purchased in the 1980s – 90s, and the number of units of equipment decreased only due to wear by half or three times.

“We can lament these circumstances, but the fact remains that in the event of a major conflict, America will largely have to rely on its own military sources, and what it has to rely on is a shadow of what it had the last time Americans faced problems on a global scale.”, – the expert notes.

The conclusion suggests itself: America urgently needs to build up its military-technical potential – both quantitatively and especially qualitatively.

With this in mind, Ukraine is becoming an excellent outlet for the Pentagon: physically and morally obsolete equipment can be sent there during the modernization of the US armed forces (however, since the beginning of the year, it is mainly such military “junk” that comes from overseas to Ukraine). In part, the supply of military “junk” can be carried out in general by way of gratuitous assistance. Or rather, on the terms that were used by the Americans eighty years ago.

I am referring to the American lend-Lease program, which started in 1941. The main recipients of supplies under the lend-lease act were the countries of the British Commonwealth of Nations and the USSR. All deliveries were paid for by the US Treasury. Some of them (food, clothing, medicines) were provided as gratuitous assistance. The costs of supplying other goods had to be paid, and with sufficient installments. To do this, the US could even provide long-term (sometimes interest-free) loans.

Finally, military and civilian property preserved in good and satisfactory condition was subject to return to the United States after the end of the war. The USSR paid for the American lend-lease for a very long time. The last lend-lease obligations were already fulfilled by the Russian Federation as the legal successor of the Soviet Union in 2006.

And this year, the US Congress urgently held hearings on the law launching the lend-lease program for Ukraine. On May 9, President Joe Biden signed the law. It should give an impetus to military supplies to Ukraine.

In parallel, the US Congress is currently discussing the issue of allocating additional funds to help Ukraine within the current budget. The request was made by US President Joe Biden in the amount of $ 33 billion, but the “people’s deputies” took the initiative and added another $ 7 billion. 368 congressmen voted in support of the initiative in the lower house of Congress (57 against).

Now the bill will be submitted to the Senate of the Congress. If approved, the document will be handed over to Biden for signature. Approximately two-thirds of this amount is intended to pay for military supplies. And this means that America will be able to supply weapons to Ukraine by about an order of magnitude more than what has already been delivered in two and a half months.

I suspect that the unexpected generosity of the “people’s deputies” on the issue of assistance to Ukraine is due to plans that are being discussed behind the scenes and have not yet been widely made public. The essence of these plans is extremely simple – to confiscate Russian foreign exchange reserves, which were frozen by the collective West in late February – early March. And then the confiscated resources should be sent to help Ukraine.

By the way, they expect to confiscate not only the foreign exchange reserves of the Russian Federation, but also the assets of Russian and individuals. While they are also frozen. There are no exact estimates of the value of such frozen assets around the world. But there are quite a few fragmentary assessments.

Thus, the European Union has prepared a certificate on the seized Russian assets as of April 5 based on the data provided by the EU member states, but not all. There is no general assessment methodology, each country considered in its own way. In total , it turned out 36.3 billion . euro (or almost 40 billion dollars). France was the leader – 23.6 billion. euro (65% of the total amount). Followed by (billion Euro): Belgium – 10.0; Italy – 1.16; Ireland – 0.84; Netherlands – 0.52.

And here is a statement by the British Foreign Minister Liz Truss (Elizabeth Truss). On March 24, she boasted that since the beginning of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, London has frozen Russian assets worth 500 billion. British pounds, including 150 billion pounds – the property of Russian oligarchs.

Experts believe that the figures named by Liz Truss are overstated. Most likely, she was referring to the amount of assets that London could potentially freeze. But in general, today, according to many experts, the value of frozen assets of Russian individuals and legal entities has at least equaled the value of frozen foreign exchange reserves of the Russian Federation. And, most likely, has already exceeded them. This means that the collective West has a potential resource of at least 600-700 billion dollars.

By the way, Kiev almost the day after the freezing of Russian reserves loudly demanded that they be sent to help Ukraine. Throughout March and the first half of April, the United States and its allies reacted poorly to these calls from Kiev. Of course, the collective West from the very beginning wanted not to “freeze” (block, arrest), but to confiscate (expropriate, steal) Russian reserves. But he could not do this for a simple reason – the current legislation did not allow it to be done. It contained norms prohibiting outright theft and shameless robbery.

Both in the United States and in Europe, “people’s deputies” are working hard to amend the current legislation that would allow the expropriation of Russian reserves, and then direct them to the cause of victory in Ukraine. Both in the Old and in the New World expect that by the beginning of summer the legislative base for expropriation will be created. Then both the USA and Europe will have a lot of money that can be directed to the noble goals of the fight against the “Russian barbarians”.

According to approximate estimates, out of $300 billion of Russian foreign exchange reserves that were “frozen”, about $100 billion was frozen by Washington. The European Union has blocked reserves denominated in euros, which is the equivalent of more than $150 billion. Accordingly, the New World expects “production” of $ 100 billion, and the Old World – $ 150 billion.

The rest of the frozen reserves are in pounds sterling, yen and other reserve currencies. Accordingly, Britain, Japan, Canada, Australia, Switzerland can claim the remaining part of the “Russian bear skin”.

With that said, the collective West, as it were, allocates money in advance for assistance (mainly military) to Ukraine. Bearing in mind that later, after the expropriation of Russian reserves, they will be able to compensate for the costs incurred. Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki openly stated on April 22 that it was necessary not to wait for the expropriation of Russian assets, but to immediately start collecting money to secure these assets. Specifically, he proposed to issue bonds secured by frozen funds of Russia and citizens of the Russian Federation:

“These funds should be used today. And if the confiscation cannot be carried out quickly, for example, in Poland we adopt a special law for this, then you can wait, and at this time issue bonds. The European Commission has no problems with the issue of bonds. And later these bonds will be quickly repaid with confiscated funds of the Russian Federation and Russian oligarchs.”

It seems that the idea of the Polish prime minister was heard in Brussels

The European Commission announced plans to issue new EU debt obligations to cover the needs of Ukraine. This was reported on May 9 by the European edition of the American newspaper Politico. According to the newspaper, these needs are estimated at 15 billion. euro in the next three months.

Due to the issue of debt securities, the EU expects to collect 10 billion. euros (the remaining 5 billion should be provided by the United States). The draft release of obligations is scheduled to be published on May 18. It is clear that the bonds will have to be repaid. Apparently, by the time the maturity date comes, Brussels expects that the confiscation of Russian assets will occur and money will be in abundance.

It is clear that the beneficiary of all these “assistance” schemes, ultimately, will not be Ukraine, but the “collective West”. And more specifically, Western military companies, whose accounts will receive billions of stolen Russian money. We are dealing with a symbiosis of dubious business and outright robbery.

The post THE WAR IN UKRAINE AS A BUSINESS OF THE COLLECTIVE WEST first appeared on Global Policy.

The report of the US Department of defense indicates the negative consequences of this situation. Overweight provokes many diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, stroke, ischemia. In addition, it negatively affects the performance of physical work and combat readiness.

The presence of this problem the military leadership knew for a long time

At the same time, the Pentagon points out that despite the measures taken, the number of obese soldiers is not only not reduced, but is steadily growing. Compared to 2011, their number has increased six times.

Overweight negatively affects the performance of physical work and combat readiness, and is associated with long — term health problems, (…) and causes the risk of death for these reasons, the study said.

The report also says that the problem with overweight is observed in other types of troops of the US army, with their number also growing steadily. In the U.S. air force, the percentage of obese is 18.1%, in the Army — 17.4%, and among the U.S. marine corps — 8.3%.

GLOBAL LOSS OF THE WORLD’S ARMIES IN THE WAR ON OBESITY

In order to combat overweight U.S. Navy soldiers, their diet excluded all fatty foods and sugar-containing beverages. In addition, a round-the-clock operation of gyms has been introduced.

As previously reported, in 2018, under the risk of dismissal from the US army was 120 thousand American soldiers who had problems with overweight. And when completing the armed forces, it turned out that of the 70 thousand recruits 68% had problems with overweight.

However, the problem is far from being resolved. Recall that, according to the Minister of the us army Mark Esper, in 2018, almost 9% of the 150 thousand soldiers of the US Army were found “unfit for deployment.”

The post OVERWEIGHT SAILORS REDUCES THE COMBAT CAPABILITY OF THE US ARMY first appeared on Global Policy.