Instagram @ soldat.pro
military experts
EnglishРусский
 Edit Translation

"Why didn't the US destroy an equal number of its planes??» – Chinese press about cutting the Tu-160 in the 90s

«Why the US didn't destroy an equal number of its planes?» - Chinese press about cutting the Tu-160 in the 90s
Chinese news outlet Sina decided to remind its readers that, what could an agreement with the United States of America cost. In particular, an excerpt from the speech of Russian President Vladimir Putin during a press conference, where Putin reminded a Western journalist about promises made by the West not to expand NATO. No NATO, as is known, expanded, already close to the borders of the Russian Federation.

The Chinese edition also reminds of, how the CIS countries and the United States agreed on strategic forces. In particular, we are talking about the destruction of several supersonic strategic bombers Tu-160 in Ukraine in the 90s. The Chinese press notes, what 19 Tu-160 aircraft ended up on Ukrainian territory at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Part of the "White Swans" was sent to Russia to account for debts for energy supplies, and some were destroyed in front of American observers – ostentatiously.

From Sina material:

On the Internet you can find those photos, on which the excavator literally cuts the "neck" of the Tu-160 "White Swan" with its bucket, transforming advanced Soviet technologies into a heap of metal. Then many in Russia, first military, had bitter feelings.
Notably, that the material of the Chinese edition does not mention that, what did you feel, destroying strategic aircraft, in Ukraine. But then in Ukraine, many pilots literally cried.

At the same time, the Chinese media adds, what if it was about the destruction of strategic bombers (Nunn-Lugar program), inherited from the USSR, why did the US not destroy an equal number of its aircraft of the same class? That fact, that the United States did nothing of the kind with its aircraft, says, as they say in the Chinese media, that an equal partnership with the United States is hardly possible by definition.

A source