Yes, whining about hundreds of thousands of civilians being trapped in their homes while your people bomb them like rats.
That's the way how propaganda presents it. [Defenses of NATO-supported genocide against the Serbs living in Kosovo and other complete bs disposed of.]
But when the technology eventually reaches a point where a first strike on Russia would be practical, with systems like lasers and magnetic railguns to shoot down aircraft and missiles alike, having missiles with randomized flight paths won't be much help for you.
Thanks for essentially openly admitting that this is the real aim of the US rocket protection, and that protection against NK or Iran was simply cheap propaganda fake.
Whatever, the US has invested a lot of money into something completely worthless now. And even lasers will not help you much. If based on Earth, you will need a lot of them to create a protection against low-flying missiles. Then, I doubt that one can prevent a quite simple protection - to detonate immediately if hit by too much EM energy. That would mean that even the full US territory full of lasers would not protect you from powerful nuclear explosions all around your coast. Same for submarine drones.
I think modulo something unexpected, security on Earth between the leading military powers can be reached only based on the guarantee of the destruction of the aggressor by retaliation. I doubt that laser weapons will hit through water (not completely sure, maybe its possible, I have not checked this). If correct, given the attack possibilities through water, lasers will not change this. Even in this case, what about hidden bombs planted on the ground don't have to move to explode? They are currently forbidden, and this is, of course, good. But this can be changed easily - as the US has changed it, abrogating the regulation of rocket defense systems.
I laser weapons would change this, fine, Russia is developing them too, and information about that was part of the speech too. Geopolitically, a world where territory far away from the oceans could be protected by those close to the ocean are unprotectable would not favor the US, where the only regions away from the ocean are the flyover states, while the key regions of Russia are very far away from the oceans, and the most important ports are protected by thin straits which can be easily supervised.
US aircraft carriers won't be easy targets for you, because their own capabilities will out-range yours, including initial detection. But I encourage you to follow Wagner's example and pick a fight just to see what happens, since you clearly want one and won't settle until you get it.
US aircraft carriers are considered today easy targets not only for Russia but China too. And, don't worry, Russians regularly pick up fights to see what happens. Given that there is no state of war, this is happening in quite innocent-looking ways. You know, one plane approaching the territory of the other side, the other side reacting by starting their interceptors. And then they do what they would do in a real fight except shooting. Judging from what I read on Russian military forums, from guys who don't care about political correctness and are not at all afraid to tell uncomfortable truths, they are quite satisfied with the results, and with the US whining about Russians behaving "unprofessionally" coming (from the back) too close to the American planes. Another innocent way is comparing how Russian T 90 tanks by the Syrian army compare with Abrams or Leo tanks by Iraq or Turkish army. Of course, not optimal, because not about the latest versions and not with optimally trained crews, which makes a large difference for tanks, but, whatever, the Russians are quite satisfied here too, and think that this shows that T 90 is much superior to Abrams or Leo, and the Twitter community, looking at nice pictures of destroyed Leos and Abrams but none of the T 90s. (Ok, one was left by the crew and caught by the jihadists, and then destroyed by the Russians. But this is nothing Russians have to care about - they have no problem with their anti-tank weapons gaining popularity too.)
BTW, you may not have seen what I have added about the Wagner case. Feel free to google-translate what the
Spiegel, known as a NATO propaganda paper, writes about this.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausla...eschah-wirklich-in-deir-al-sor-a-1195901.html