[Morgoth]

@Silencer - from your post I get the impression you vastly underestimate the size of the Black Sea. As to how warships are to get into the Black Sea, I assume they will travel there the same way all the rest of the heavy ship trafic does. From the Mediterranean and past Istanbul.

[Silencer]

Morgoth, on 04 March 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

@Silencer - from your post I get the impression you vastly underestimate the size of the Black Sea. As to how warships are to get into the Black Sea, I assume they will travel there the same way all the rest of the heavy ship trafic does. From the Mediterranean and past Istanbul.

You mean through the giant bottlenecks known as straits and canals, I presume.

Because my point was less to the size of the Black Sea and more to the fact that getting into it was not going to be easy, given the limited routes. I'd say the same thing about getting into the Med.

[HoosierDaddy]

The USSR never fought fair in proxy wars and I doubt they'd begin now.

That being said, the Mil-Ind Complex could use a new reason for R & D and an excuse to use that budget for once.

[Kanese S's]

Possibly Brent Weeks, on 03 March 2014 - 11:59 AM, said:

Silencer, on 03 March 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

Possibly Brent Weeks, on 03 March 2014 - 10:05 AM, said:

Double posting.

Did you see how the other G8 countries backed out of the scheduled Sochi meeting? Did you see how the mere talk of sanctions on a BRIC economy absolutely causes massive problems?

http://www.theguardi...4b0984a90a9dff0
(Russian Stock Market is dropping like a North Korean Missile)

http://www.theguardi...4b0149dfe8e3958
(Russian Central Bank increases interest rates from 5.5% to 7%.)

Good luck Russia. The economy is dependent on foreign investment and all those foreign investors are pulling straight out of the country at the mere thought of economic sanctions.

I wonder, though.


What if Russia just tells everyone to fuck off?


I.e. "You want us to stop? No." *impose sanctions* "Oh, sanctions? Guess we'll just invade a few other Eastern European nations to compensate" *make threat of war* "Fuck you, *invades more counties*" *carries out threat of war, probably gets kicked the shit kicked out of them by Russia, but let's assume not* "OK, we're losing. FIRE ALL THE NUCLEAR MISSILES! *does so*"

I mean, seriously. It's highly unlikely it comes to that, but what the fuck can the UN actually do if Russia just tells them to fuck off and starts escalating to compensate for any sanctions they like to impose? Who can actually go to war with Russia and WIN, without Putin just throwing a tantrum and nuking someone?
The Russian military is massive. They may not be *quite* as technologically advanced as the US, but they are actually probably the more dangerous force in ground warfare, at the moment (bearing in mind the reason India has Gen4.5 fighters and such is because Russia helped them develop them off a Russian Gen5 platform, making air combat a relatively even field), and they can field plenty of force projection with their fleets.

If they went to war with the Western nations/UN members, they would lose, but...it would be tough. It would be very, very tough. It would also court nuclear conflict. Putin may not be THAT batshit insane now, but if he's backed into a corner by losing a war?

This isn't like North Korea, where their army is a joke and they don't have missiles worth a damn. This Russia-who-have-more-nuclear-missiles-than-the-USA, AND an armed forces who can go toe-to-toe with multiple international forces at once.

I seriously doubt Putin will push the buck that far. But if he, or someone else in Russia, did decide to do that...holy fuck. O.o

Technically, Russia has already attacked a country under the protection of the US, Germany, France, and the UK. Ukraine is/was. It was part of the accord to get them to get rid of their soviet-era stockpile of nukes. Technically, every one of those countries should be preparing for war right now.

Troubling, to me, is that Merkel had a call with Putin and after the call is recorded as saying he isn't living in the same reality as everyone else. That worries me, especially since Germany and Russia are huge trade partners.
http://www.nytimes.c...-russia.html???

Quote

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Mr. Obama by telephone on Sunday that after speaking with Mr. Putin she was not sure he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call said. "In another world," she said.

That could be just wordplay used to describe someone holding opinions/ideas you can't believe they hold, or it could be something else. I don't know.

I don't want war. I especially don't want nuclear war. But the lessons learned in WW2 still resonate. Do you let an aggressive country (and Russia has been aggressive for hundreds of years, it isn't anything new) just continue to take small countries, or do you put your foot down at the first?

I would add that it also makes for a dangerous precedent if one considers nuclear proliferation to be a bad thing.

The treaty Ukraine signed (along with the UK, Russia, France, Germany, and the USA), as you noted, was for Ukraine to voluntarily give up the nuclear weapons it had, in return for an assurance that they would not be attacked.

If no one does anything about the fact that Russia has blatantly violated the treaty by invading Ukraine, I think that kinda sends the message to every other country that either has nuclear weapons, is developing them, or is considering getting them, that giving up such weapons in these types of treaties is a foolish, gullible thing to do. It sends the message that any country that wants to be treated as an actual, real, sovereign nation, needs nukes.

That ain't good.

[HoosierDaddy]

Silencer, on 04 March 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

Morgoth, on 04 March 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

@Silencer - from your post I get the impression you vastly underestimate the size of the Black Sea. As to how warships are to get into the Black Sea, I assume they will travel there the same way all the rest of the heavy ship trafic does. From the Mediterranean and past Istanbul.

You mean through the giant bottlenecks known as straits and canals, I presume.

Because my point was less to the size of the Black Sea and more to the fact that getting into it was not going to be easy, given the limited routes. I'd say the same thing about getting into the Med.

A US led Western fleet would have no use being near the Black Sea for actual operations until they needed it. I believe the Soviet Navy, errr, Russian Navy is as scary as Britain's Battleship fleet during WW's 1 and 2.

[Kanese S's]

Silencer, on 04 March 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

Morgoth, on 04 March 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

@Silencer - from your post I get the impression you vastly underestimate the size of the Black Sea. As to how warships are to get into the Black Sea, I assume they will travel there the same way all the rest of the heavy ship trafic does. From the Mediterranean and past Istanbul.

You mean through the giant bottlenecks known as straits and canals, I presume.

Because my point was less to the size of the Black Sea and more to the fact that getting into it was not going to be easy, given the limited routes. I'd say the same thing about getting into the Med.

The entrance to the Black Sea is controlled by Turkey, not Russia.

The entrances to the Mediterranean are controlled by Spain and Egypt.

[Silencer]

Kanese S, on 04 March 2014 - 08:40 AM, said:

Silencer, on 04 March 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

Morgoth, on 04 March 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

@Silencer - from your post I get the impression you vastly underestimate the size of the Black Sea. As to how warships are to get into the Black Sea, I assume they will travel there the same way all the rest of the heavy ship trafic does. From the Mediterranean and past Istanbul.

You mean through the giant bottlenecks known as straits and canals, I presume.

Because my point was less to the size of the Black Sea and more to the fact that getting into it was not going to be easy, given the limited routes. I'd say the same thing about getting into the Med.

The entrance to the Black Sea is controlled by Turkey, not Russia.

The entrances to the Mediterranean are controlled by Spain and Egypt.

Irrelevant. The BSF can sit on one side and make coming through a pain the ass (reduced maneuverability = not good for ships trying to not get shot by planes and other ships). Who owns the canal is irrelevant, unless the ships are moved into the Sea BEFORE declaring open season on Russian forces, they can use the layout to their advantage and inflict damage on anyone trying to get inside.

HoosierDaddy, on 04 March 2014 - 08:39 AM, said:

Silencer, on 04 March 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

Morgoth, on 04 March 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

@Silencer - from your post I get the impression you vastly underestimate the size of the Black Sea. As to how warships are to get into the Black Sea, I assume they will travel there the same way all the rest of the heavy ship trafic does. From the Mediterranean and past Istanbul.

You mean through the giant bottlenecks known as straits and canals, I presume.

Because my point was less to the size of the Black Sea and more to the fact that getting into it was not going to be easy, given the limited routes. I'd say the same thing about getting into the Med.

A US led Western fleet would have no use being near the Black Sea for actual operations until they needed it. I believe the Soviet Navy, errr, Russian Navy is as scary as Britain's Battleship fleet during WW's 1 and 2.

Again; this is not about pure operational range. This is about viable hours in the combat zone, before you have to refuel and rearm. I.e. proximity is a massive advantage.

As far as the Russian navy...er, they are not exactly cutting-edge, but they do have home-turf advantage and are not as obsolete as you think. Again, it's less to do with "can they win" than "can they make winning too costly" - never mind that the main reason the navy would even need to be in combat is to keep the NATO side further away from Crimea, not to sink ships.

[Morgoth]

Silencer, on 04 March 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

Morgoth, on 04 March 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

@Silencer - from your post I get the impression you vastly underestimate the size of the Black Sea. As to how warships are to get into the Black Sea, I assume they will travel there the same way all the rest of the heavy ship trafic does. From the Mediterranean and past Istanbul.

You mean through the giant bottlenecks known as straits and canals, I presume.

Because my point was less to the size of the Black Sea and more to the fact that getting into it was not going to be easy, given the limited routes. I'd say the same thing about getting into the Med.

The Straits of Gribraltar is one of the busiest ship trafic lanes in the world. The entire US fleet could travel through there in a day and still not make out anywhere near the majority of trafic going through. As for the Bopsherous I've not found quite as detailed information, but I have found that in the last 10 hours 8 supertankers went through. Then you'll have to consider how many ships transporting other goods go through in a day. Getting a fleet of war ships through would be an inconvenience, but to imagine it to be more than that would be to a massive underestimate of how much trafic the strait is capable of.

[HoosierDaddy]

Silencer, on 04 March 2014 - 08:48 AM, said:

Kanese S, on 04 March 2014 - 08:40 AM, said:

Silencer, on 04 March 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

Morgoth, on 04 March 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

@Silencer - from your post I get the impression you vastly underestimate the size of the Black Sea. As to how warships are to get into the Black Sea, I assume they will travel there the same way all the rest of the heavy ship trafic does. From the Mediterranean and past Istanbul.

You mean through the giant bottlenecks known as straits and canals, I presume.

Because my point was less to the size of the Black Sea and more to the fact that getting into it was not going to be easy, given the limited routes. I'd say the same thing about getting into the Med.

The entrance to the Black Sea is controlled by Turkey, not Russia.

The entrances to the Mediterranean are controlled by Spain and Egypt.

Irrelevant. The BSF can sit on one side and make coming through a pain the ass (reduced maneuverability = not good for ships trying to not get shot by planes and other ships). Who owns the canal is irrelevant, unless the ships are moved into the Sea BEFORE declaring open season on Russian forces, they can use the layout to their advantage and inflict damage on anyone trying to get inside.

HoosierDaddy, on 04 March 2014 - 08:39 AM, said:

Silencer, on 04 March 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

Morgoth, on 04 March 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

@Silencer - from your post I get the impression you vastly underestimate the size of the Black Sea. As to how warships are to get into the Black Sea, I assume they will travel there the same way all the rest of the heavy ship trafic does. From the Mediterranean and past Istanbul.

You mean through the giant bottlenecks known as straits and canals, I presume.

Because my point was less to the size of the Black Sea and more to the fact that getting into it was not going to be easy, given the limited routes. I'd say the same thing about getting into the Med.

A US led Western fleet would have no use being near the Black Sea for actual operations until they needed it. I believe the Soviet Navy, errr, Russian Navy is as scary as Britain's Battleship fleet during WW's 1 and 2.

Again; this is not about pure operational range. This is about viable hours in the combat zone, before you have to refuel and rearm. I.e. proximity is a massive advantage.

As far as the Russian navy...er, they are not exactly cutting-edge, but they do have home-turf advantage and are not as obsolete as you think. Again, it's less to do with "can they win" than "can they make winning too costly" - never mind that the main reason the navy would even need to be in combat is to keep the NATO side further away from Crimea, not to sink ships.

Proximity is quite different when you reel in the allies of Turkey and Greece, floating naval bases, and the ability of B2s out of the Indian Ocean and B-52s out of anywhere. Home turf advantage does nothing when all RADAR is shot down within 72 hours and it picks and chooses armor targets on the Ukraine front.

Frankly, the Russian military is vastly overestimated as an afterglow of its Soviet brilliance 20 to 30 years ago when it might have had technological equality. They have numbers and would have to rely on it. No supposed missile defense system has had an actual decent affect against the US Air Force since Vietnam despite being armed by the USSR/Russia.

As for the Navy, "home-turf" is laughable. You think that NATO forces haven't mapped that to exhaustion? Unless they want to mine entrances there is nothing they can do unless they want to trade salvos where they will overwhelmingly lose.

Yes, you are right, it comes down to acceptable losses. Odds are the West won't want to make that trade, yes, but I don't think it's as far away as you think.

[Cause]

Depending on how much NATO or the US want victory just remember Russia is the target not the Ukraine. It dropping bombs on Military targets outside Moscow is what it takes why wouldn't they? They don't even need to actually do it, but similar to Russia's brinkmanship if THE USA parks ten aircraft carriers around Russia, russia will have to think twice. Russia is surrounded by nations who have every reason to check their imperialist advances. That means allowing air traffic through them, supporting refuelling. Also attacking Traffic in the Suez Canal would be a major no no! No country on earth could allow it. Similarly attacking ships at the Gibraltar or Bosporus straits risks angering the neighbouring nations and would flip on its head your ideas of their home field advantage?

I'm also struggling to think of a moment of soviet military brilliance? They won world war 2 with 18 million casualties. The more they pretend the finish war never happened the better for them.

Still I say this will never happen! America can't risk losing billions of dolars worth of aircraft carriers and SUBS! One aircraft carrier would be more casualties in a day than the USA has faced in over a dcade at war. Similiary Russia can't afford to have its territory bombed!

[D'iversify]

Morgoth, on 04 March 2014 - 06:50 AM, said:

Most of that comes from the Economist, which keeps its articles behind a pay wall. I did however find an article from the BBC talking about the issue.

If you register, you can read about three articles a week for free (though my university computer seems to allow me to read a lot more for some reason).

I think frankly that whatever short-term gains Russia makes from this conflict will be undermined by the fact that Russian economic prosperity is both fragile and poorly distributed, growth is heavily dependent on a high trading price for hydrocarbons (which are beginning to come down due to the expansion of American fracking), and what's more the country has some serious social demographic issues which are not going away overnight (the death rate is considerably higher than the US due to alcoholism, poor health care and a lack of safety legislation, the birth rate has been rising again in recent years but remains low outside of areas dominated by non-Russian minorities [compare http://en.wikipedia...._rates_2012.PNG and http://en.wikipedia....egions_2010.png ; the death rate is also higher in the Russian heartland: http://en.wikipedia...._rates_2012.PNG] and the number of Russian migrants from ex-Soviet states is drying up). So I think that given that Putin and his party's appeal is based on Russian nationalism, social stability and economic growth that it will become difficult for them to hold onto power long-term, as economic growth cannot continue based on this model and because there is a need for a more pluralistic Russian politics if the tensions between Russians and ethnic minority groups are not to become more dangerous than they already are.

This post has been edited by D'iversify: 04 March 2014 - 09:48 AM

[Silencer]

HoosierDaddy, on 04 March 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

Silencer, on 04 March 2014 - 08:48 AM, said:

Kanese S, on 04 March 2014 - 08:40 AM, said:

Silencer, on 04 March 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

Morgoth, on 04 March 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

@Silencer - from your post I get the impression you vastly underestimate the size of the Black Sea. As to how warships are to get into the Black Sea, I assume they will travel there the same way all the rest of the heavy ship trafic does. From the Mediterranean and past Istanbul.

You mean through the giant bottlenecks known as straits and canals, I presume.

Because my point was less to the size of the Black Sea and more to the fact that getting into it was not going to be easy, given the limited routes. I'd say the same thing about getting into the Med.

The entrance to the Black Sea is controlled by Turkey, not Russia.

The entrances to the Mediterranean are controlled by Spain and Egypt.

Irrelevant. The BSF can sit on one side and make coming through a pain the ass (reduced maneuverability = not good for ships trying to not get shot by planes and other ships). Who owns the canal is irrelevant, unless the ships are moved into the Sea BEFORE declaring open season on Russian forces, they can use the layout to their advantage and inflict damage on anyone trying to get inside.

HoosierDaddy, on 04 March 2014 - 08:39 AM, said:

Silencer, on 04 March 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

Morgoth, on 04 March 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

@Silencer - from your post I get the impression you vastly underestimate the size of the Black Sea. As to how warships are to get into the Black Sea, I assume they will travel there the same way all the rest of the heavy ship trafic does. From the Mediterranean and past Istanbul.

You mean through the giant bottlenecks known as straits and canals, I presume.

Because my point was less to the size of the Black Sea and more to the fact that getting into it was not going to be easy, given the limited routes. I'd say the same thing about getting into the Med.

A US led Western fleet would have no use being near the Black Sea for actual operations until they needed it. I believe the Soviet Navy, errr, Russian Navy is as scary as Britain's Battleship fleet during WW's 1 and 2.

Again; this is not about pure operational range. This is about viable hours in the combat zone, before you have to refuel and rearm. I.e. proximity is a massive advantage.

As far as the Russian navy...er, they are not exactly cutting-edge, but they do have home-turf advantage and are not as obsolete as you think. Again, it's less to do with "can they win" than "can they make winning too costly" - never mind that the main reason the navy would even need to be in combat is to keep the NATO side further away from Crimea, not to sink ships.

Proximity is quite different when you reel in the allies of Turkey and Greece, floating naval bases, and the ability of B2s out of the Indian Ocean and B-52s out of anywhere. Home turf advantage does nothing when all RADAR is shot down within 72 hours and it picks and chooses armor targets on the Ukraine front.

Frankly, the Russian military is vastly overestimated as an afterglow of its Soviet brilliance 20 to 30 years ago when it might have had technological equality. They have numbers and would have to rely on it. No supposed missile defense system has had an actual decent affect against the US Air Force since Vietnam despite being armed by the USSR/Russia.

As for the Navy, "home-turf" is laughable. You think that NATO forces haven't mapped that to exhaustion? Unless they want to mine entrances there is nothing they can do unless they want to trade salvos where they will overwhelmingly lose.

Yes, you are right, it comes down to acceptable losses. Odds are the West won't want to make that trade, yes, but I don't think it's as far away as you think.

*shrug* I think you underestimate Russian technological progress. They have built railguns which are as functional as the US ones. They have Gen5 fighter jet programs. Their navy is woefully outdated but so what? This isn't about fighting across the globe, it's their backyard.

As for the missile defense systems, I think, again, you underestimate the quality of what Russia can field versus what Russia sells/gives away to other people. But we won't know unless someone flies over Russian airspace during war.

Honestly, the US can shoot down ICMBs without exploding them. Which makes nukes less of an issue (still an issue, but less). If the US was that thoroughly superior to Russia that they could knock out all air defense, air force, and naval forces as easily as you are implying, they wouldn't bother pussy-footing around Russia all the time. Because they do. And it's because there's more than enough technological parity between the two nations to make victory uncertain, and any victory which does come is going to be at such a high cost as to be untenable.

Cause, on 04 March 2014 - 09:25 AM, said:

Depending on how much NATO or the US want victory just remember Russia is the target not the Ukraine. It dropping bombs on Military targets outside Moscow is what it takes why wouldn't they? They don't even need to actually do it, but similar to Russia's brinkmanship if THE USA parks ten aircraft carriers around Russia, russia will have to think twice. Russia is surrounded by nations who have every reason to check their imperialist advances. That means allowing air traffic through them, supporting refuelling. Also attacking Traffic in the Suez Canal would be a major no no! No country on earth could allow it. Similarly attacking ships at the Gibraltar or Bosporus straits risks angering the neighbouring nations and would flip on its head your ideas of their home field advantage?

I'm also struggling to think of a moment of soviet military brilliance? They won world war 2 with 18 million casualties. The more they pretend the finish war never happened the better for them.

Still I say this will never happen! America can't risk losing billions of dolars worth of aircraft carriers and SUBS! One aircraft carrier would be more casualties in a day than the USA has faced in over a dcade at war. Similiary Russia can't afford to have its territory bombed!

And, see, that last bit about what America can't risk...is exactly why Russia is still a massive threat. They CAN sink aircraft carriers, planes, subs, etc. They have nuclear-powered submarines, too, you know. XD

As I said, half their shit comes from the 70s. The other half is new, and bloody effective. And most of the stuff that is still around from the 70s is still around because it STILL WORKS. No point in sinking billions into new R&D when a rocket is still a rocket.

But I agree, more or less. However, Russia has, imo, a more demonstrable lack of regard for their potential losses than the US. Which is why the US is backed into a corner here - and why Russia can play that to its advantage. The fact that if they DO come to blows, America will be almost as badly crippled in practice as Russia will, is more than enough to call the powers roughly equal.

[Kanese S's]

Silencer, on 04 March 2014 - 08:48 AM, said:

Kanese S, on 04 March 2014 - 08:40 AM, said:

Silencer, on 04 March 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

Morgoth, on 04 March 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

@Silencer - from your post I get the impression you vastly underestimate the size of the Black Sea. As to how warships are to get into the Black Sea, I assume they will travel there the same way all the rest of the heavy ship trafic does. From the Mediterranean and past Istanbul.

You mean through the giant bottlenecks known as straits and canals, I presume.

Because my point was less to the size of the Black Sea and more to the fact that getting into it was not going to be easy, given the limited routes. I'd say the same thing about getting into the Med.

The entrance to the Black Sea is controlled by Turkey, not Russia.

The entrances to the Mediterranean are controlled by Spain and Egypt.

Irrelevant. The BSF can sit on one side and make coming through a pain the ass (reduced maneuverability = not good for ships trying to not get shot by planes and other ships). Who owns the canal is irrelevant, unless the ships are moved into the Sea BEFORE declaring open season on Russian forces, they can use the layout to their advantage and inflict damage on anyone trying to get inside.

HoosierDaddy, on 04 March 2014 - 08:39 AM, said:

Silencer, on 04 March 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

Morgoth, on 04 March 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

@Silencer - from your post I get the impression you vastly underestimate the size of the Black Sea. As to how warships are to get into the Black Sea, I assume they will travel there the same way all the rest of the heavy ship trafic does. From the Mediterranean and past Istanbul.

You mean through the giant bottlenecks known as straits and canals, I presume.

Because my point was less to the size of the Black Sea and more to the fact that getting into it was not going to be easy, given the limited routes. I'd say the same thing about getting into the Med.

A US led Western fleet would have no use being near the Black Sea for actual operations until they needed it. I believe the Soviet Navy, errr, Russian Navy is as scary as Britain's Battleship fleet during WW's 1 and 2.

Again; this is not about pure operational range. This is about viable hours in the combat zone, before you have to refuel and rearm. I.e. proximity is a massive advantage.

As far as the Russian navy...er, they are not exactly cutting-edge, but they do have home-turf advantage and are not as obsolete as you think. Again, it's less to do with "can they win" than "can they make winning too costly" - never mind that the main reason the navy would even need to be in combat is to keep the NATO side further away from Crimea, not to sink ships.

The Bosphorous isn't a "canal." And no, Russia's navy can't just sit on one side and shoot whoever comes through. Not without entering Turkey's territorial waters. Turkey is a member of NATO. The Black Sea is just as much their "home turf" as it is Russia's.

I think you somewhat overestimate the importance of home turf in naval combat.

As for "making winning too costly," Russia has to wrestle with that one, too. Cost of hostilities, versus how much it wants Crimea.

[Silencer]

I feel I should point out; "home turf" is more to do with things like land-based airfields, and missile emplacements, than anything to do with actual, you know, terrain. XD


As for entering Turkey territorial waters...this is a crazy scenario where NATO is ALREADY at war with Russia, so that's not exactly going to change much.

[HoosierDaddy]

Silencer, on 04 March 2014 - 09:40 AM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 04 March 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

Silencer, on 04 March 2014 - 08:48 AM, said:

Kanese S, on 04 March 2014 - 08:40 AM, said:

Silencer, on 04 March 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

Morgoth, on 04 March 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

@Silencer - from your post I get the impression you vastly underestimate the size of the Black Sea. As to how warships are to get into the Black Sea, I assume they will travel there the same way all the rest of the heavy ship trafic does. From the Mediterranean and past Istanbul.

You mean through the giant bottlenecks known as straits and canals, I presume.

Because my point was less to the size of the Black Sea and more to the fact that getting into it was not going to be easy, given the limited routes. I'd say the same thing about getting into the Med.

The entrance to the Black Sea is controlled by Turkey, not Russia.

The entrances to the Mediterranean are controlled by Spain and Egypt.

Irrelevant. The BSF can sit on one side and make coming through a pain the ass (reduced maneuverability = not good for ships trying to not get shot by planes and other ships). Who owns the canal is irrelevant, unless the ships are moved into the Sea BEFORE declaring open season on Russian forces, they can use the layout to their advantage and inflict damage on anyone trying to get inside.

HoosierDaddy, on 04 March 2014 - 08:39 AM, said:

Silencer, on 04 March 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

Morgoth, on 04 March 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

@Silencer - from your post I get the impression you vastly underestimate the size of the Black Sea. As to how warships are to get into the Black Sea, I assume they will travel there the same way all the rest of the heavy ship trafic does. From the Mediterranean and past Istanbul.

You mean through the giant bottlenecks known as straits and canals, I presume.

Because my point was less to the size of the Black Sea and more to the fact that getting into it was not going to be easy, given the limited routes. I'd say the same thing about getting into the Med.

A US led Western fleet would have no use being near the Black Sea for actual operations until they needed it. I believe the Soviet Navy, errr, Russian Navy is as scary as Britain's Battleship fleet during WW's 1 and 2.

Again; this is not about pure operational range. This is about viable hours in the combat zone, before you have to refuel and rearm. I.e. proximity is a massive advantage.

As far as the Russian navy...er, they are not exactly cutting-edge, but they do have home-turf advantage and are not as obsolete as you think. Again, it's less to do with "can they win" than "can they make winning too costly" - never mind that the main reason the navy would even need to be in combat is to keep the NATO side further away from Crimea, not to sink ships.

Proximity is quite different when you reel in the allies of Turkey and Greece, floating naval bases, and the ability of B2s out of the Indian Ocean and B-52s out of anywhere. Home turf advantage does nothing when all RADAR is shot down within 72 hours and it picks and chooses armor targets on the Ukraine front.

Frankly, the Russian military is vastly overestimated as an afterglow of its Soviet brilliance 20 to 30 years ago when it might have had technological equality. They have numbers and would have to rely on it. No supposed missile defense system has had an actual decent affect against the US Air Force since Vietnam despite being armed by the USSR/Russia.

As for the Navy, "home-turf" is laughable. You think that NATO forces haven't mapped that to exhaustion? Unless they want to mine entrances there is nothing they can do unless they want to trade salvos where they will overwhelmingly lose.

Yes, you are right, it comes down to acceptable losses. Odds are the West won't want to make that trade, yes, but I don't think it's as far away as you think.

*shrug* I think you underestimate Russian technological progress. They have built railguns which are as functional as the US ones. They have Gen5 fighter jet programs. Their navy is woefully outdated but so what? This isn't about fighting across the globe, it's their backyard.

As for the missile defense systems, I think, again, you underestimate the quality of what Russia can field versus what Russia sells/gives away to other people. But we won't know unless someone flies over Russian airspace during war.

Honestly, the US can shoot down ICMBs without exploding them. Which makes nukes less of an issue (still an issue, but less). If the US was that thoroughly superior to Russia that they could knock out all air defense, air force, and naval forces as easily as you are implying, they wouldn't bother pussy-footing around Russia all the time. Because they do. And it's because there's more than enough technological parity between the two nations to make victory uncertain, and any victory which does come is going to be at such a high cost as to be untenable.

It comes down to acceptable losses. There are no acceptable losses for the US or Western forces until it becomes a NATO action. At that point, I think we'd see where the rubber meets the road. Up until that point, the Russian Armed Forces are as formidable as we can pretend them to be seeing as how they have not been in action for the longest time.

[D'iversify]

An interesting article that suggests we may have less reason to worry about this conflict escalating: http://www.abc.net.a...ato-win/5295076

[Kanese S's]

Silencer, on 04 March 2014 - 09:47 AM, said:

I feel I should point out; "home turf" is more to do with things like land-based airfields, and missile emplacements, than anything to do with actual, you know, terrain. XD


As for entering Turkey territorial waters...this is a crazy scenario where NATO is ALREADY at war with Russia, so that's not exactly going to change much.

You know that Turkey, Greece, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, etc. all have land based airfields, and missile emplacements, right?

And yes, this is a crazy scenario, given that we're not even at war and some NATO-aligned naval assets have been heading to the area.

[Kanese S's]

Since there seems to be some confusion, here is a map of current NATO members. No, the countries aren't labeled, but it should be pretty easy to figure out.

[Nicodimas]

I for one don't think it's going to escalate into anything huge.

Russia most likely will take it's national interests on this one and this may begin a military mobilization when the European nations crash they will probably offer "humanitarian "assistance in the future.

Interestingly the topol-m is supposed to be the quickest ICBM which they test fired with very little warning (mach21?) and 4 hours.

This violates the 1988 treaty on missile launches.. Not sure if that invalidates a ton of progress made on this subject.

I think Putin wants to return them to soviet glory.

Furthering of any sanctions would be a terrible idea by both parties. The interesting blurb I hear is china allied itself with Russia on this, versus saying nothing

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 04 March 2014 - 10:59 PM

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

Interesting to read a thread on the discussion boards about Russian agression in the Ukraine and see it devolve into discussions about military capabilities. I was expecting more discussion about self determination and maybe some references about how the main target of Russian aggression has been the autonomous region of Crimea, where the majority of the people would prefer to be part of Russia from what I have read. Maybe a bit of talk about how the difference in preference of closer ties to the EU or Russia depends strongly on where one lives within the Ukraine.

This was a great line from that article Kaneses

"The US supports the right of the Ukrainian people to determine their own future, as long as that future is democratic and broadly consistent with Western consumerist individualism." 'Cause we all need mose consumerist individualism.