In general terms, strategic weapons are systems capable of delivering warheads (usually nuclear) to targets located at an intercontinental range from the launch site, i.e. launch a nuclear strike.

So it is known that there are three ways of possible global use of strategic weapons.

Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor Yuri Grigoriev talks about the possible use of strategic weapons on the pages of the Russian Arms news agency.

Nuclear explosion

Results of the Nuclear Bombing

The pilots who carried out the first nuclear bombing

First (pre-emptive) nuclear strike, the purpose of which is to destroy, first of all, all strategic weapons of the enemy, thereby eliminating any possibility of a retaliatory nuclear strike.

When American President Truman ordered a nuclear strike on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, he was well aware that there would be no retaliatory strike and therefore demonstrated such heroism in conditions of complete impunity.

The subsequent targets were Moscow and other major cities of the USSR, but the rapid creation of an atomic and then a hydrogen bomb in the USSR put everything in its place - the fear of retaliation cooled the hotheads.

It became clear to everyone that in real life, a nuclear power that has been attacked will retain some of its strategic weapons for a retaliatory strike, after which the aggressor side will find itself in approximately the same position as its victim.

Therefore, launching a nuclear strike against a state that has nuclear weapons is tantamount to suicide, since a crushing retaliatory nuclear strike will turn the aggressor's largest cities into nuclear dust.

Russia is developing a new ICBM in a highly secure silo

Retaliatory strike (strike of retaliation, intimidation) inflicted by missiles that remained after the aggressor launched the first nuclear strike.

The technical basis for an effective retaliatory strike is, first of all, the high survivability of strategic weapons, ensuring the combat effectiveness of such a number of missiles after an attack by the aggressor that is sufficient to inflict unacceptable damage on him.

With all the reductions, the USSR had the most important parameter of strategic weapons - the throwable weight was 2.8 times greater than that of the United States, which guaranteed a crushing retaliatory strike to the aggressor in any development of the situation.

The thrown weight is understood as the total weight of everything that the missile is capable of placing on the trajectory of the maximum firing range.

This is the weight of the last stage of the rocket, which carries out the operation of disengaging warheads, means of overcoming missile defense, engines, fuel, control system equipment and structural elements inseparable from this stage.

Throw weight is the main and main parameter that determines the combat effectiveness of a missile.

Mobile missile systems are the main combat means of a retaliatory strike

Mobile ground-based missile system (PGRK) "Yars"

Combat railway missile system

Counter strike is launched upon receipt of a signal from a missile attack warning system, while our missiles must launch and leave position areas before the aggressor’s warheads approach these areas, and the aggressor, who actually fired at already empty launch silos, receives almost simultaneously a nuclear strike on his military and industrial objects.

Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, candidate member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, Minister of Defense of the USSR Dmitry Fedorovich Ustinov

Discussions regarding the priority of these three types of nuclear strikes began a long time ago, back in the USSR, and they were conducted at the highest level. Then some of the highest military officials reported to the Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, candidate member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee D.F. Ustinov, who coordinated the work of all institutions of the military-industrial complex, that there is no urgent need to increase the security of silo launch complexes, because a retaliatory strike can be used, and then our missiles will leave the silo structures even before the arrival of the aggressor’s warheads, which increases their security useless.

At the same time, the director of the head rocket and space institute (TsNIIMASH), Lieutenant General Yu.A. Mozzhorin,

relying on in-depth research of the institute, he reported to D.F. Ustinov that in 10 minutes it is unrealistic to make a decision and press the button to launch nuclear missiles based on the report of some general looking at the cloudy radar screen. What if there is a mistake? After all, behind it stand hundreds of millions of human lives, including women and children, primarily citizens of the Soviet Union, since in the event of a mistake this will be followed by retribution from a potential enemy provoked by us. You can't return the missiles. What if this is radio interference or a provocation?

Our institute, he said, has worked in detail and simulated all cases of combat use of nuclear missile weapons in conditions of preventive (first) and retaliatory strikes. In these cases, victory cannot be achieved.

In a report to the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee L.I. To Brezhnev, Yu.A. Mozzhorin stated that the defense doctrine is interpreted by some major military leaders, at times, loosely and ambiguously. He briefly justified that only the doctrine of guaranteed retaliatory strike will deter aggression and ensure stability and peace. He showed that the doctrine of a pre-emptive (first) strike against an aggressor preparing to attack or retaliatory missile strikes do not ensure the defense of the country and lead only to the mutual destruction of conflicting states.

He substantiated his point of view at the Defense Council, which took place at the end of July 1969 in Crimea, at Stalin’s former dacha near Yalta. When the commander-in-chief of the missile forces, Marshal of the Soviet Union N.I. Krylov stated that the military was not going to sit and wait until they were hit, but would use missiles first or, in extreme cases, in a retaliatory strike, he received a serious reprimand from the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR A.N. Kosygina.

At this Defense Council, the doctrine of a guaranteed retaliatory strike - the doctrine of deterrence - was approved by the highest political and state leadership of the USSR. The priority of nuclear missile strikes was firmly established: only a crushing retaliatory strike, as a means of preventing nuclear war, as a means of deterrence.

Structure of Russia's strategic weapons

Strategic nuclear submarines with missiles

Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN)

Russian strategic aircraft

The entire structure of the USSR's strategic weapons was formed to ensure a guaranteed retaliatory strike. Submarines armed with ballistic missiles were built, which in those years found themselves outside the control zone in the ocean.

Mobile ground-based soil and railway missile systems were deployed, the location of which was impossible using the then existing satellites with optical monitoring equipment.

The security of stationary missile silos was increased, and the missiles themselves were improved so that they could be launched in the event of a nuclear attack on a positional area.

The Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of April 21, 2000 No. 706, states that the Russian Federation maintains the status of a nuclear power to deter (prevent) aggression against it and (or) its allies.

US President Ronald Reagan USA

The United States gradually finally came to a similar decision. Back on February 26, 1986, US President R. Reagan, in his address to the country, formulated his position as follows: “Our goal must be to deter and, if necessary, repel any attack without resorting to nuclear weapons.” .

In 2013, the US Secretary of Defense, acting on behalf of the President of the country, sent to Congress "Report on the United States Nuclear Employment Strategy".

The purpose of nuclear weapons is defined in report 4 in this form. The US Congress approved this nuclear weapons strategy in August 2013.

Everything seems clear, but in our media various discussions constantly appear about the priority of missile strikes, which are conducted, however, not at the highest level, but at the level of generals and so-called experts.

Of course, in the 21st century the situation has changed in many ways, but these changes should be taken into account wisely, without blindly repeating all the dogmas of the last century, since the world is changing quite quickly, but also without denying everything achieved previously.

PGRK "Yars" takes up combat duty

So it is said in source 1, mobile ground-based missile systems, together with sea-based ballistic missiles, due to their high stealth and ability to disperse, ensure a retaliatory nuclear missile strike, when the launch command is given only after the fact of a massive enemy nuclear missile strike on the territory of one’s country has been recorded , i.e. after the warheads fall on the target.

A similar statement in relation to ground-based mobile missile systems was true in the 20th century, when control over these complexes was carried out by space systems that operated in the optical range and were not able to see through clouds and fogs.

Then our mobile soil and railway systems were truly invulnerable and suitable for delivering a crushing retaliatory strike. For example, our railway missile system, capable of traveling thousands of kilometers, could be under the clouds about 80% of the time and inaccessible to space control.

However, in the 21st century, when space-based all-weather radar reconnaissance systems are widely used, any mobile ground-based soil or railway-based missile system is no longer capable of remaining invisible, and therefore, from a retaliatory strike weapon, it turns into a weapon that can only be used in the first or counter-attack strike, and therefore becomes unnecessary for us, and its production and installation on combat duty is meaningless.

Over the years, as space and other control systems improve, this senselessness will become more and more obvious.

Massive missile strike

Many people understood this, but drew strange conclusions. Thus, source 3 states: “The task of placing the first regiment of a mobile ground complex with standardized missiles on combat duty is now being solved. The task is very difficult, because this is also the first year of mass production of these weapons. But overall, national defense will benefit from having one of the components of strategic weapons that has greater survivability in the face of a retaliatory strike.”

Source 1 also states that silo-based missiles in protected launchers operate in a retaliatory strike, when the decision to launch is issued by the political leadership after recording a mass launch of missiles from enemy territory, even before the bulk of the warheads reach their targets .

It is impossible to agree with such statements, but it is also impossible to imagine that such statements by the authors are simply the result of their illiteracy. Of course, they understand everything, but, apparently, they do not see other ways to justify the huge costs of deploying new mobile missile systems, and therefore are silent about their original purpose for delivering a retaliatory strike, which they are currently, and even more so in the future, pursuing. not suitable.

That is why they are proposing a retaliatory strike, which could lead to a worldwide catastrophe. Of course, the technical level of modern strategic weapons, in principle, makes it possible to carry out a retaliatory strike, but the concept of such puts the top leadership of the state in an extremely difficult position, faced with the need to make a decision of an unusually high level of responsibility in conditions of acute shortage of time, possible technical problems in the missile early warning system attacks and operator errors.

A new ballistic missile is being tested in Russia

The flight time of missiles from another continent is about 30 minutes, and when launching missiles flying along flat trajectories from submarines located near our territory, it takes no more than 10-15 minutes. Under these conditions, it is unrealistic to carry out a retaliatory strike, and also dangerous, because in such a turmoil, various kinds of errors are not excluded, both in determining the reliability of the very fact of the launch of enemy missiles, and in the implementation of a retaliatory launch.

This does not exclude the possibility of an inadequate assessment of the situation by the leader of the attacked state and his adoption of a decision leading to a worldwide catastrophe. The Americans have repeatedly reported various types of malfunctions and errors in their early warning systems, we also had similar cases, but they were not reported, but such information is available in foreign sources.

For example, source 2 states that on September 26, 1983, shortly after midnight at a nuclear attack early warning center near Moscow, equipment issued a warning that the United States had fired 5 ballistic missiles into the territory of the Soviet Union.

However, the operational duty officer did not believe the new automation; he contacted his superiors and reported a false alarm. A subsequent investigation into such an act by the operational duty officer confirmed the correctness of his actions, and he was awarded. Any kind of speculation about the power of our strategic weapons in a retaliatory strike is senseless and dangerous.

And what will we achieve by launching a retaliatory strike? We will not be able to somehow reduce, or even more so eliminate, the destructive power of the aggressor’s first nuclear strike with our retaliatory strike. It will be exactly the same as with our orientation towards a retaliatory strike. Of course, during a retaliatory strike, more of our missiles will reach targets on the territory of the aggressor, and the nuclear dust there will be smaller than during a retaliatory strike, but can this have any significance in the light of the death of civilization?

Beginning of negotiations on the reduction of strategic offensive weapons

Adopted in the USSR, and now in the USA, the priority of methods of delivering nuclear strikes should remain unchanged in our time: only a crushing retaliatory strike, as a means of preventing nuclear war, as a means of deterrence, a means of intimidation.

Focusing on a retaliatory strike does not mean that in this case we do not need early warning systems about the launch of the aggressor’s missiles. On the contrary, we certainly need such systems, but not so that the leadership would have time to give the order to launch our missiles in a retaliatory strike, but so that they could have time to give the order to take the necessary measures to deliver a retaliatory strike after the explosion of nuclear weapons. charges of the aggressor on our territory.

We must develop a strategic weapons structure and implement it in a short time, which is capable of delivering an effective retaliatory strike, in any development of the situation, including if the aggressor has effective missile defense systems. To do this, it is urgent to develop and deploy missile systems with air-to-ground ballistic missiles (ASBMs), as reported in source 5 and source 6, since heavy bombers with cruise missiles with nuclear warheads or with atomic bombs are unsuitable for a retaliatory strike.

Aircraft with air defense systems, following a signal from early warning systems, will be able to leave the permanent airfield in a few minutes and, once outside the affected area, wait for either an order to retaliate or to return to base if the signal from the early warning system turns out to be erroneous.

The creation of ASBMs was prohibited by the SALT-2 and START-1 Treaties, however, currently, due to the expiration of these treaties, this prohibition has lost force.

It is also possible to use non-aerodrome aircraft of the EKIP type to deploy missiles, the fundamental principles of which were developed under the leadership of Professor Lev Shchukin. Such a device with a carrying capacity of up to 100 tons is capable of not only flying like an airplane, but also moving near the surface of the earth and water in ekranoplane mode.

It is also necessary to create heavy liquid-propellant strategic missiles with a large throw weight, capable of launching in a retaliatory strike, for which the positional areas of these missiles must be covered with effective missile defense systems of the S-500 type to intercept aggressor missiles, as well as engineering structures protecting missile silos from high-precision non-nuclear weapons weapons.

We live in an era of strategic stability, which is based on two specific traits of human character: distrust of another person and fear of retaliation. The world has been balancing on these two pillars for many decades, maintaining the so-called strategic balance. Only absolute confidence in the inexorable inevitability of one’s own death as a result of a retaliatory nuclear strike is guaranteed to keep any aggressor from launching a first strike and save the world from nuclear madness.

Used Books:

1. The commander of the Strategic Missile Forces spoke about the structure of the nuclear shield.

http://ria.ru/analytics/20111216/518396383.html

2. Russian who prevented nuclear war.

The Cold War ended more than two decades ago, and many people have never lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation. However, nuclear attack is a very real threat. Global politics are far from stable and human nature has not changed in recent years or in the last two decades. “The most constant sound in the history of mankind is the sound of the drums of war.” As long as nuclear weapons exist, there is always the danger of their use.

Is it really possible to survive after a nuclear war? There are only forecasts: some say “yes”, others say “no”. Keep in mind that modern thermonuclear weapons are numerous and several thousand times more powerful than the bombs dropped on Japan. We really don't fully understand what will happen when thousands of these munitions explode at the same time. For some, especially those living in densely populated areas, trying to survive may seem completely futile. However, if a person survives, it will be someone who is morally and logistically prepared for such an event and lives in a very remote area of ​​no strategic importance.

Steps

Preliminary preparation

Make a plan. If a nuclear attack occurs, you will not be able to go outside, as it will be dangerous. You should remain protected for at least 48 hours, but preferably longer. With food and medicine on hand, you can at least temporarily not worry about them and focus on other aspects of survival.

Stock up on foods that are not perishable. These foods can last for several years, so they should be available to help you tide over an attack. Choose foods that are high in carbohydrates so you can get more calories for less money. They should be stored in a cool, dry place:

• White rice
• Wheat
• Beans
• Sugar
• Pasta
• Powdered milk
• Dried fruits and vegetables
• Build up your supply gradually. Every time you go to the grocery store, buy one or two items for your dry rations. You'll end up stocking up for several months.
• Make sure you have a can opener for opening cans.

1. You must have a supply of water. Water can be stored in food-grade plastic containers. Clean them with a bleach solution and then fill them with filtered and distilled water.

   • Your goal is to have 4 liters per person per day.
   • To purify water in the event of an attack, keep regular chlorine bleach and potassium iodide (Lugol's solution) on hand.

2. You must have means of communication. Staying informed, as well as being able to alert others to your location, can be vital. Here's what you might need:

   • Radio. Try to find one that is crank operated or solar powered. If you have a radio with batteries, don't forget to have spares. If possible, tune into a radio station that broadcasts weather forecasts and emergency information 24 hours a day.
   • Whistle. You can use it to call for help.
   • Mobile phone. It's unknown whether cell service will work, but if it does, you should be prepared. If possible, find a solar charger for your phone model.

3. Stock up on medications. Having the necessary medications and the ability to administer first aid is a matter of life and death if you are injured in an attack. You will need:

   Prepare other items. Add the following to your survival kit:

   • Flashlight and batteries
   • Respirators
   • Plastic film and adhesive tape
   • Garbage bags, plastic ties and wet wipes for personal hygiene
   • Wrench and pliers to turn off gas and water.

4. Follow the news. A nuclear attack is unlikely to happen out of the blue. It will most likely be preceded by a sharp deterioration in the political situation. If a conventional war breaks out between countries that have nuclear weapons and does not end quickly, it could escalate into a nuclear war. Even isolated nuclear strikes in one region can escalate into an all-out nuclear conflict. Many countries have a rating system to indicate the imminence of an attack. In the USA and Canada, for example, it is called DEFCON.

   Assess the risk and consider evacuation if a nuclear exchange looks likely. If evacuation is not an option, then you should at least build a shelter for yourself. Rate your proximity to the following targets

   • Airfields and naval bases, especially those housing nuclear bombers, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, or bunkers. These places for sure would be attacked even with a limited exchange of nuclear strikes.
   • Commercial ports and airstrips over 3 km long. These places, probably for sure
   • Government buildings. These places, probably, would be attacked even with a limited exchange of nuclear strikes and for sure would be attacked in an all-out nuclear war.
   • Large industrial cities and most populated regions. These places, probably, would be attacked in the event of an all-out nuclear war.

5. Learn about the different types of nuclear weapons:

   • Atomic bombs are the main types of nuclear weapons and are included in other classes of weapons. The power of an atomic bomb is due to the fission of heavy nuclei (plutonium and uranium) when they are irradiated with neutrons. When each atom splits, a large amount of energy is released and even more neutrons. This results in an extremely fast nuclear chain reaction. Atomic bombs are the only type of nuclear bomb still used in warfare today. If terrorists are able to capture and use a nuclear weapon, it will most likely be an atomic bomb.
   • Hydrogen bombs use the ultra-high temperature of an atomic charge as a "spark plug". Under the influence of temperature and strong pressure, deuterium and tritium are formed. Their nuclei interact, and as a result, a huge release of energy occurs - a thermonuclear explosion. Hydrogen bombs are also known as thermonuclear weapons because the deuterium and tritium nuclei require high temperatures to interact. Such weapons are usually many hundreds of times stronger than the bombs that destroyed Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Most of the American and Russian strategic arsenal are just such bombs.

   This page has been viewed 36,032 times.

   Was this article helpful?

Home Encyclopedia Dictionaries More details

Nuclear missile attack (RNSS)

Strike with nuclear missiles; form of use of military formations armed with nuclear missile weapons. According to the number of participating RNU facilities: single, group, massive. A single nuclear weapon is applied by one missile with a monoblock warhead or a multiple warhead against one or a group of objects (targets). A group nuclear attack is delivered by several missiles to one or more objects (targets). Massive nuclear weapons are applied simultaneously or in an extremely short period of time by a large number of missiles to destroy large groupings of troops, objects of military-economic potential, and other strategic targets of the enemy. According to the time of application of RAU, m.b. - proactive, reactive, counter, reactive. Pre-emptive nuclear weapons are launched at the enemy before the launch of their nuclear weapons carriers. Counter-counter nuclear weapons are launched in response to the enemy’s launches of its nuclear missiles before they approach the targets, based on information from the nuclear missile attack warning system. A retaliatory nuclear weapon is launched against the enemy during or after the end of the impact of his nuclear weapons on the objects of the opposing side. According to the sequence of U.R.-I. m.b.: first (first massive) and subsequent RNU. The first massive nuclear attack is inflicted by all or most of the combat-ready nuclear missile weapons to inflict unacceptable (predetermined) damage to the enemy; the main content of the strategic operation of nuclear forces and combat operations of the Strategic Missile Forces and Naval Strategic Nuclear Forces. Subsequent nuclear weapons are delivered by reserve and restored missiles to reliably destroy previously planned and newly identified enemy targets.

According to their purpose, RNU can be point or area. A targeted nuclear weapon is applied to destroy a small-sized object that has a high degree of protection from the damaging effects of a nuclear explosion. Area nuclear weapons are applied to destroy a set of weakly protected objects located at a considerable distance from each other, as well as mobile objects, the location of which is unknown at the time of the strike.

In terms of its content, nuclear weapons cover the actions of troops in the direct preparation and conduct of combat launches of missiles, the spatio-temporal formation of nuclear missile weapons on flight trajectories, the detonation of nuclear charges of warheads (see Nuclear explosion) and the direct impact of damaging factors on enemy targets. Troop actions for the direct preparation and conduct of combat missile launches are carried out with the receipt of appropriate orders (signals) through combat control means. Considering the national importance of the tasks being solved, the Strategic Missile Forces and the strategic nuclear forces in general have taken special measures to ensure guaranteed delivery of orders (signals) to the troops, as well as guaranteed protection from unauthorized actions with nuclear missile weapons. The spatio-temporal construction of strategic nuclear forces on flight trajectories is carried out taking into account ensuring high reliability of overcoming the enemy missile defense system. The detonation of nuclear warheads is carried out at specified points of the flight trajectory, taking into account the prevention of their mutual destruction and ensuring the infliction of the required level of damage on enemy targets.

The high readiness of the Strategic Missile Forces for nuclear weapons is ensured by the correct organization of the quality of control of a group of stationary and mobile-based missile systems, and the high combat training of personnel. Stationary-based missile systems have a high combat readiness, a degree of protection and are intended primarily for delivering a counter-strike. Units armed with mobile-based missile systems have high survivability, which allows them to be highly effective in a retaliatory strike.

The effectiveness of a nuclear missile strike is determined by the quality and method of use of combat and support systems used in the strategic operation of nuclear forces in specific environmental conditions. The result of nuclear weapons is usually assessed by the characteristics of the damage caused to the enemy in a strategic operation of nuclear forces.

Research into the effectiveness of nuclear reactors is carried out using models. The nuclear missile strike model is a simplified representation (description) of the conditions of the strike and its results. Used for planning and assessing the effectiveness of the impact of Strategic Missile Forces assets on enemy targets. The RAU model can be verbal and mathematical. The verbal model is a description in natural language of the conditions for striking. The mathematical model establishes the dependence of strike effectiveness indicators on the quantity and quality of weapons (warhead power, accuracy, reliability, security, etc.) and the conditions of its combat use (combat use plan, characteristics of targets and enemy actions).

For a more detailed description of methods for modeling nuclear weapons, see the article Modeling in military affairs.

Planning of nuclear weapons of the main group of the Strategic Missile Forces is carried out in advance, in peacetime directly by the General Staff of the Armed Forces, with the assignment of a target and type of explosion for each combat unit. Next, flight missions are calculated and, according to relevant instructions, they are entered into the automation systems of missiles and warheads. Planning for nuclear weapons of a reserve group can be carried out during military operations.

Considering the complexity, significant labor intensity and special significance of the task of planning nuclear weapons, highly qualified military specialists who are fluent in modern computers and special software are involved in solving it. Based on the results of planning the nuclear forces, corresponding plans for the combat use of groups of missile troops (forces) are developed, which are approved by the highest state and military officials of the state. Only the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, the President of the country, has the right to make a decision to put these plans into effect.

Let's continue to analyze the hypothetical one-day war of NATO and Israel against Iran, Syria and Russia, which I described. In short, Iran and Russia are clearing Syria of ISIS and the opposition, Israeli intelligence is spamming the CIA with information about a ready-made weapon of mass destruction (atomic bomb), then Iranian missiles are discovered located in Syria under the cover of a Russian military base, meanwhile, in the United States it has been a couple of months already the stock market has collapsed and the government is looking for a way out of the crisis, everyone is putting pressure on the president, and he finally gives the go-ahead for the operation in Syria and Northern Iraq.

Israeli and American air forces destroy a Russian base in Syria, Israel launches an invasion of Syria, and the Arab coalition operates in Iraq. In the Middle East theater, strictly speaking, the war lasts more than one day, but in fact everything is decided in one day. At the same moment, the British and American Air Forces are striking at Russian troops in the Donbass (if by this time Putin is fighting in other countries, then at them too), and large bases on the border with Ukraine. Hundreds, if not thousands of victims. In response, Putin launches a non-nuclear missile attack on London and other cities and NATO bases. At this point, the active phase of the war unexpectedly ends, Russia falls into isolation.

In this scenario, you might find it counterintuitive that Russia would not launch a thermonuclear attack. In fact, everything will be very logical and actually according to the Kremlin’s plan. Putin is not ready and does not want to wage a thermonuclear war, but he is ready and wants to wage a non-thermonuclear war, knowing that he can prevent any invasion of the Russian Federation with the threat of using thermonuclear weapons. That is, Putin really needs a Patriotic War, but without a bunch of fronts and millions of casualties. The war will be fought in make-believe.

Yes, now Vova does not see the scenario that I described here. But he is already seeking such a provocation from the West. All these aircraft incursions into Turkey, underwater saboteurs in Sweden, cutting cables in the Atlantic - all these are acts pushing the West towards aggression. However, Putin does not understand that the West cannot strike by chance, it will strike only when it needs to, then it will do it without provocation.

What are Putin's plans? He sees that he cannot manage the economy, but he really wants to remain the richest and most influential man in Europe. And this can be achieved in the long term only by rallying the population around GDP. As soon as the West shows real aggression, Putin thinks that it will be a couple of downed planes or a sunken boat, the GDP immediately announces to the people that the Patriotic War has begun, carries out mobilization, puts the economy on a planned track, and Russia is fixed in this state for an unlimited period.

In the version of the war that I described, there will indeed be an attack, and a delighted Putin will finally be able to carry out an anti-capitalist coup. Moreover, the fact of aggression will be obvious and Putin’s opponents will not be able to argue with the facts. And those who can will be silenced according to the laws of war.

Our people do not like lost wars, so the media will present an essentially lost one-day war as the greatest triumph of Russian weapons. Fortunately, in the age of information, numerous real destructions of London and other European cities will be spread across social networks, from where Soviet propagandists will draw them for decades. It is obvious that in Britain and other countries there will be forces blaming their own governments, but not Russia. They are the ones who will be shown in the Russian media. And as a result, people will have this picture in their heads. Western cities are in ruins, everyone is afraid of us, they were the first to attack us, ordinary people blame capitalist governments for everything, all this will be flavored with propaganda videos about our equipment and brave soldiers. Real losses from a one-day war will be hushed up or downplayed.

On the day of war, there will be sirens in all cities, people will actually be forced to crawl into basements and bomb shelters, everyone should feel the aggression against Russia first-hand, although in reality there will be no bombing or air attack on cities. The next day there will be general mobilization. A huge number of the population will end up in the army, where they will also be processed politically. The formed troops will gradually move to the borders, but nothing significant will happen. The war will be approximately the same as in the current Sands near Donetsk. That is, regular mutual artillery duels, shelling and forays, but only on the scale of our entire western border. So it’s not in vain that the Balts are building a wall; they will still really need it.

There will still be some local operations. And not to NATO countries, but to dependent countries. If NATO does not enter Ukraine, then there will be military operations with the capture of cities, but if it does enter, then there will be hurricanes, for example, in Georgia or Azerbaijan. Short tactical operations will break out here and there. Successes in which will be inflated to the skies, and failures will be hidden. The picture of the world in the TV box and the real one will eventually diverge. They will lie to the extent of contradictory information about the fate of the cities. For example, the Russians were driven out of Baku, Yerevan fell, and for a couple of years the news will talk about the liberation of Baku and the siege of Yerevan. Then this news will gradually disappear.

Naturally, Russia will be cut off from world trade. China will be our main trading partner, but it will not and will not be able to buy as much oil and gas as we currently sell to Europe. Rather, there will be supplies of valuable and rare raw materials, of which China has little. The United States will put pressure on China to also declare an embargo, but it will refuse, then the United States will simply offer the Chinese the same thing, but for ridiculous money.

Imports in Russia will virtually disappear, only Chinese smuggled goods of the same quality will remain, but at prices much higher than current prices even for European goods, if calculated as a percentage of the average salary. Food and other cards will be introduced, not only for the poor, but for everyone. A powerful nationalization of both industry and raw materials, as well as trade, will be carried out. It is clear that people will live much poorer. As vehicles break down, traffic jams will clear up, and it will again be possible to drive around Moscow calmly even during rush hours.

Then demobilization will gradually take place, Russia will actually freeze in a semi-mobilized phase. The elite will live as they always did, only without trips to the West. Although gradually the West will begin to restore ties and the offspring of elite men and women will rush with terrible force into enemy countries as ambassadors and other secretaries at embassies.

Why was the path of Northwesternization of Russia chosen? According to the elites around Putin, this is the optimal way to maintain power. The government itself, like the top of the DPRK, will live in grand style, driven into an eternal war, the people will eke out a miserable existence. Under this regime, new generations of Russian people will grow up (neo-pioneers to help), who will not think about anything other than the war with the West. Moreover, unlike the current generation, they will not have any personal impressions about the West at all, because they will draw information from propaganda media. I don’t know how all this will end, but for Putin it will end relatively well. No one will touch his palaces, mistresses and other attributes of an alpha male, at least while he is alive. Well, what else does an aging dictator need? What will happen after his death is not clear. Either the elite will continue this pattern, as happened in the DPRK, or they will begin to contact the West for détente and restructuring. Which path the elites will take depends on us. If the people silently endure all these outrages, then they can sit like this forever, but if after Putin’s death there are unrest, riots and uprisings, then the elite may be afraid of losing control over the slaves, then they will begin the Perestroika 2 project.

PS
Do not think that a one-day war will be a complete surprise for our authorities. The US never attacks on the sly. There is always a series of threats and show-offs. Saddam was threatened with the gallows for a long time. So ours also receive detailed pictures of our future defeat. It is difficult to say whether they believe in this defeat during a one-day war, most likely not. They are accustomed to the fact that the West is sluggish, no matter how much you kick it, there will be no answer. They forgot the fate of Milosevic and Saddam and Osama.

“Israeli fighter jets entered Syrian airspace and attacked the positions of the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah in the country - this statement appeared in the Syrian media on Saturday, October 31. According to the information provided, about a dozen Israeli military aircraft carried out this mission near the border between Syria and Lebanon in the area of ​​Mount Qalamoun."

Back at the end of May, at the economic forum in St. Petersburg, I constantly asked high-ranking government speakers: “Does the country control currency risk and the risk of investing in American assets?” Officials mostly avoided answering, laughed it off, and said that the United States would not agree to financial sanctions, since this would hit America itself. And only A. Kudrin said that no, the Russian Federation does not control this risk.

As it turned out, by the time of the St. Petersburg forum, the country had actually removed US Treasury bonds (Treasuries) from its balance sheet. A portfolio of $100 billion has been liquidated at an accelerated pace since April of this year. Probably, our financial authorities only sold securities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac faster in 2008, by the way, for almost the same amount.

Obviously, in addition to market conditions, which really force many to play for lower treasury prices and higher yields, there were other reasons that forced the authorities to hastily sell US Treasury securities.

Probably, already then preparations began for the most unfavorable scenario of relations with the United States. As an element of preparation, simultaneously with the sale of treasuries, Russia demonstrated missiles, submarines, new laser weapons and other non-life-affirming things.

However, the main, most difficult question remained the currency component of relations - what to do if the American authorities deal the most powerful, I would say, thermonuclear blow to Russian finances, namely, they begin to freeze the assets and transactions in dollars of Russian banks? Given the current state of the Russian economy, this step is the most painful for the financial system; even sanctions on government bonds look like a minor nuisance against this background. Few people believed in such a development of events.

And now in the US Congress lies a draft law, which was initiated by both Democrats and Republicans, in which it is written in black and white about the freezing of the assets of the seven largest Russian banks, a ban on transactions in dollars and the blocking of all accounts. This is not even a disconnection from SWIFT, but a complete blocking of the movement of dollars for our banks and, more importantly, for the clients of these banks, for companies and citizens.

It feels like our financial authorities still don’t believe this. They pretend that nothing is happening. The Ministry of Finance continues to take dollars on the market, even on August 8, when the whole world was already making noise about freezing the dollar transactions of our banks and the ruble went into free float, or rather into free immersion, the Central Bank dealer calmly completed his task - he bombed the ruble for 16.7 billion.

For what? Why? Where do they store the dollars they buy? Well, maybe they can at least change it to euros? Maybe cash in the USA is ordered by plane. Even if the rats eat up 3 percent of the cash, at least something will remain for the population, who will inevitably go to demand their dollars, which they were saving for a wedding or funeral. What the people don’t understand at all is that all non-cash dollars are in the United States and, on the command of the same Trump, the American authorities close all correspondent accounts of our banks in 2 minutes.