It is difficult for our radicals to criticize the Ministry of Defense. Oh, it's difficult … And any radicals. And left, and right, and "middle" …
On the one hand, there is a huge ministry, with a huge number of people, with huge money, with huge tasks … On the other hand … Shoigu. It seems not a hero. Even anger in the face is not noticed. But they listen to him. And they do not just obey, but carry out the tasks assigned to them. And for some reason the dirt does not stick to it. And the subordinates, as if on purpose, are fighting heroically.
Well, sort of found it. Found a topic where the ministry will definitely not get out. Where these generals will answer for the people's money, which we so lack. And always. And that's it! Great theme, in the spirit of Americans and Europeans. I once wrote about the difference in approaches to war between us and “them”. And the Russian Air Force service launched this topic. Launched it qualitatively. Like humanitarian aid to our "fighters against the regime" and "guardians for the people's happiness."
The subject is trivial, at first glance. Where did the Russian Calibers flew from the Admiral Essen frigate and the Krasnodar submarine? Was the reinforcements of the militants or their "shaitan-mobiles" worth that kind of money? The Russian military, and therefore the Russian Minister of Defense, spend people's money on a fictitious war!..
As befits a respectable ministry, Shoigu's department responded with a standard explanation in such cases. The blow was struck at the shelters of ISIS militants (banned in the Russian Federation), which contained heavy equipment and personnel withdrawn from Raqqa. And that's all. The military is doing their job …
And so it began … How justified is the use of such weapons against militants? Why are millions of Russian rubles "thrown away"? Is the Russian army doing as well in Syria as the Russian and Syrian media say? Are "Calibers" so good?
Several "plot lines" of the discussion of our strike can be traced at once.
The first and probably the most "beautiful" version is simple. And it is connected again with … "Tamaghawks". And why did Trump strike them somewhere?.. So majestically lay in the holds of ships and submarines. So "instilled respect" and "instilled fear." And then … they felt freedom and "scattered" somewhere after the launch … And the Russian "Caliber"? Clearly, as befits the soldiers, they flew where they ordered and did what they followed. And that's all. This is what Putin's dictatorship is doing …
I apologize for the somewhat humorous tone, but it is really difficult to discuss this without a smile. But the thought, which is voiced only occasionally, but to which the reader is pushed, is simple. Are "Calibers" so good? Well, think, dear reader, would there be a need to produce expensive cruise missile launches if there was confidence in their full compliance with the tasks?
Are there not enough launches from the Caspian, Black and Mediterranean seas? Are there not enough videoconferencing launches? So much money … Or maybe the problem is that the "Calibers" turned out to be much worse than expected? And new launches were needed only to check the changes made?
Agree, the version is very beautiful. Indeed, it is quite plausible. Moreover, I, for example, really have confidence that after such a combat use, designers are queuing up with suggestions for improvement and refinement. It has always been and will be so. The more often a weapon is used in a combat situation, the more options for modernization arise.
Only will we be able to modernize "Calibers" today? More precisely, to increase funding for such modernization? Doubtful. Rather, it would be correct to speak of an increase in the serial production of these missiles. After all, it is clear that so far we are inferior precisely in quantity. Although, on the other hand, if we proceed from the original purpose of the "Calibers", there is probably a sufficient number to destroy the starting positions of intercontinental ballistic missiles, starting positions of air defense systems, command posts, communication points and other things.
The next version of striking is not so beautiful, but it is also quite promising for "nibbling" at the Russian Defense Ministry. So, the Russian President has repeatedly said that today Russia has quite modern weapons. And, most importantly, there is political will to use it. Simply put, in case of danger, we can "punch" on a brazen overseas or similar muzzle of the face. Without hesitation. The world is developing and the classic biblical example of humility is no longer relevant. We refuse to turn our left cheek after being hit on the right. Moreover, we will "block and strike back" even before the first blow on the right …
What thought are we coming to? If you follow the logic of the above? Why was the blow necessary? The answer can be in two, not very different from each other, options. The strike was nothing more than a demonstration of the strength of Russia and the Russian army. The first option is to show the strength of Russia to other states. One of the ways to prevent or intimidate. In the second variant, the blow was inflicted "for internal use". Show the people of Russia the strength of your army. Show that the funds were spent for good reason. Show the results of the work of not only the military, but also the defense industry.
But what was written above is more likely a "synopsis for liberals". And at the beginning of the article I wrote that there were at least two "abstracts". There is a "synopsis for the patriots."
So why hit? It doesn't matter at all whether it is accurate or inaccurate. During the war in Syria, the Russian army uses a variety of weapons and units of different types and types of the Armed Forces. And the losses, which the Ministry of Defense periodically informs us about, show that not everything is going smoothly. It is necessary to work out the interaction not only of the ships of the fleet, but also the interaction between the fleet and the Aerospace Forces, reconnaissance, space forces and so on.
Simply put, we act well, but we have to act … very well. We must help and encourage in every possible way … We need to bring to perfection … And so on. The Russian army is strong, but … not very.
And now about my own opinion. It is, alas, not original. And voiced repeatedly by other people. Long ago sounded. But it has not lost its relevance.
Remember the discussion about the funds that Russia is spending on the military operation in Syria? Remember the defense minister and president's response to the cost question? The operation is carried out within the accepted budget. So, the additional costs, and it seems to me there are, are not high. But these are just thoughts out loud.
So, the army and the navy must always learn. Is always. And for this there are not only theoretical studies, but also practice. And what is the difference between launching a cruise missile at a real target from launching at a plywood target? For the crew of a frigate or a submarine? Only the coordinates of the target. Isn't it practical training for the Navy? Isn't it a live-fire exercise? Yes, and what I wrote above, the combat coordination of the Black Sea Fleet ships and the space forces?
The fight against terrorism remains a priority for Russia. But nobody canceled other tasks. And nobody canceled the same southern descendants of Bandera. And Turkey with its "oriental" temperament has not been canceled. And NATO … This means that we just need not only to train personnel on mock-ups and simulators, but also to work with real weapons in a real combat situation. Those who served in the army probably remember the first acquaintance with a combat grenade … Not everyone succeeded in throwing it … And today they are far from "throwing" grenades.
And at the end of the article I want to joke a little again. Remind the situation in some families. What does a smart husband do with his "stash"? A smart husband always lets his wife know where his "stash" is. He is smart because he understands: this increases trust in the family, the woman's self-esteem of the wife and … the safety of the main "stash".
Maybe we, too … raise the self-esteem of a potential "partner" and "trust in the family" …
