Weapons that are not: how Russian military deceived Putin and themselves

"The more I read Russian military works and articles written before February 24, 2022, the more understandable becomes a modern picture of what is happening. The Russians lived in the fictional world. " Opinion. The more I read Russian military works and articles written before February 24, 2022-the more clearly the modern picture of what is happening. The Russians lived in a fictional world.

Here, for example, now I disassemble the new text from the 19th year, not written for the purpose of propaganda: it is closed from the military-for the military. It would seem that everything should be careful and critical, and no - the feeling that they were prepared for the text for Skabeva, not for the internal use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.

Recalling modern American doctrines (let's leave the brackets the fact that they describe the scheme of the Convention War of the Russian Federation against the US on equal footing, not asymmetrical conditions), Russian officers give their recipes to counteract these doctrines and repent in them from allegedly availability weapons. They are about the "toy".

That is, they do not write about him as an ordinary "Iskander", only air launch, namely - as a hypersonic weapon (!) For those in the tank: "Dagger" is not a hypersonic weapon. Well, that is, he technically overcomes hypersvushka, but it is overcome by any ballistic rocket. The German auxiliary FUU-2 in this approach is also a "hypersonic rocket complex".

It is unclear then why Americans and Chinese have been fighting over this new type of weapons with very dubious or limited successes for a long time. His Germans invented almost a hundred years ago. It was sarcasm, yes. That is, the Russian soldiers were supposed to understand that that the "toy" was called a hypersonic complex is a propaganda move, it has nothing to do with reality. Still your posts are closed, and you write it from your own. And no - they really believed in this delusions.

Or the bosses demanded to believe. Summary: You build doctrines based on weapons that you do not have. It can be anything, but it is not preparation for war. If you read the military texts of the US or Israel, then there is always everything that is right there: this approach is correct, because the military should always start from the worst scenario, and not from the desired or optimistic one.