World War III.2 - Military Balance
Will there be a war between Russia and NATO? This issue worried the public, both Russian and other countries, for many years. Without much difficulty, it is possible to find dozens of articles and publications on this burning topic, in which attempts are made to predict this possible armed clash, perhaps the most armed countries in the world. These forecasts are different and predict different things. Some - the defeat of Russia within almost hours, some - an honorable victory over NATO, whose military capabilities are no longer the same as during the Cold War.
Of course, the public wants to get a fairly clear answer to the question: what will happen if ...? The reason for this interest lies on the surface and is the fear that such a war could affect everyone and everyone. After all, in the USSR, an important part of the public outlook was the expectation of a war with an opposing military-political bloc, and preparation for it. War, possibly nuclear. However, such fears exist not only in Russia. Europe thinks about it too, and shudders when Russian submarines ply the waters of the Baltic Sea, and Russian planes approach the planes of NATO countries. In Europe, too, they still remember what happens when an innumerable horde of Russian tanks appears.
The forecasts already published bear a clear imprint of one-sidedness. They usually analyze one aspect of a possible war. This is either a clash of opposing troops in some particular theater of operations. Recently, there have been a particularly large number of such forecasts, including military games held in NATO and command and staff exercises that develop the issues of a clash between Russia and NATO in the Baltics. These forecasts for NATO turned out to be disappointing and showed that Russia is likely to win. It also analyzes the use of missile weapons and the actions of the NATO missile defense system; these forecasts usually spell failure for Russia. There were forecasts of military operations by aviation, the use of high-precision weapons.
Historical experience shows that in any major war there are political, economic, military-economic factors, military operations between coalitions are usually conducted in several theaters at once. In other words, it is necessary to analyze the situation as a whole, from the causes of a possible armed conflict to what all this could lead to.
But this is a difficult task, which requires taking into account in the analysis of numerous facts, trends and opportunities, the experience of wars that have already taken place. Moreover, it is difficult because such an analysis involuntarily proceeds from fragmentary information available in open sources, since very, very much information about the state of the armies, about the plans and intentions of the parties is strictly classified. The complexity of the problem is indicated by the fact such a general and versatile analysis is not public. It is possible that they are in the development of staffs and closed analytical works, but they are not available to the public.
Secondly, a lot of myths and prejudices have already woven around this probable collision, which greatly disorientate anyone who wishes to understand this topic. Nothing surprising, no one has yet canceled the good old propaganda war and the spread of disinformation. For example, in very many cases, the tactical and technical characteristics of military equipment are systematically overestimated, from which various far-reaching conclusions are drawn, such as the fact that the latest American aircraft and high-precision weapons are so good that they themselves guarantee an easy victory. Like, the F-22 and F-35 will beat "Russian plywood" and this will end the war. However, the Russians are also not far behind in similar propaganda. The same can be said about the latest tanks, ships, missiles. There are reasons for such propaganda: it is the desire to intimidate a potential enemy in order to force him to make concessions without a war, it is also the desire to put his military equipment in the best possible light. War is war, and the arms trade goes on as usual. Of course, for the sake of a more or less objective analysis, we will have to part with such myths and prejudices.
Thirdly, the published forecasts are mostly dominated by partiality and a passionate desire to prove the inevitability of the victory of one side or the other. Therefore, such biased forecasts usually focus on the strengths and point-blank do not want to see the weaknesses of a particular military machine. But this is good if it is, so to speak, the partiality of an exaggeration of military capabilities. Some examples of the fact that a biased author generally denies his potential opponent any strengths, the ability to make rational decisions and use effective tactics are encountered. Simply because this potential enemy is so vile, miserable and miserable that it simply cannot be crushed by any "forces of good".
Any war carries a fairly strong element of unpredictability. Whatever plans and forecasts are drawn up, even if they are completely objective, it is still impossible to take into account all the random circumstances that arise in the course of hostilities and influence its outcome. This is true even for local conflicts, and even more so for a big war between military blocs. It's hard to say exactly how it will turn. This factor also exists in the forecast of a possible war between Russia and NATO, and this factor is Chinese. After all, it is difficult to say on which scale China will throw its military and economic power. Even if the Chinese leadership does not go for it and remains neutral, not participating in the war, then the side that has achieved a military victory, especially in a long and exhausting war, may then fall into dependence on China. In addition, the Chinese factor forces us to go far beyond the analysis of a possible clash between Russia and NATO, in fact, this means an analysis of the likelihood of a world war.
In general, it is quite difficult to say in advance which side will be advancing and which will be defending at the beginning of the war. The pre-war period is always distinguished by its complex nature, tension, and dynamic aggravation of the situation. The choice: to attack or defend, is influenced by many factors that can develop in the most whimsical way. And there is not always a situation of complete clarity, who fired first, like the fact that Germany attacked the USSR in the early morning of June 22, 1941. For example, about the beginning of the Korean War of 1950-1953 and who then fired first, there are still disputes and there are diametrically opposed points of view. Then, already during the war and after it, the fait accompli of an attack by one of the parties is actively used for the needs of politics and block building.
|Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list|