Russia deploys strategic nuclear bombers to Venezuela, builds up troops on the Ukraine border.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/wrodl/a ... venezuela/

Two Russian nuclear-capable strategic bombers arrived in Venezuela on Monday, a deployment that comes amid soaring Russia-U.S. tensions.

Russia’s Defence Ministry said a pair Tu-160 bombers landed at Maiquetia airport outside Caracas on Monday following a 10,000-kilometre (6,200-mile) flight. It didn’t say if the bombers were carrying any weapons and didn’t say how long they will stay in Venezuela.

The ministry said the bombers were shadowed by Norwegian F-18 fighter jets during part of their flight. It added that a heavy-lift An-124 Ruslan cargo plane and an Il-62 passenger plane accompanied the bombers to Maiquetia.

The Tu-160 is capable of carrying conventional or nuclear-tipped cruise missiles with a range of 5,500 kilometres (3,410 miles). Such bombers took part in Russia’s campaign in Syria, where they launched conventionally-armed Kh-101 cruise missiles for the first time in combat.

Code-named Blackjack by NATO, the massive warplane is capable of flying at a speed twice exceeding the speed of sound. Russia has upgraded its Tu-160 fleet with new weapons and electronics and plans to produce a modernized version of the bomber.

The bombers’ deployment follows Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s visit to Moscow last week in a bid to shore up political and economic assistance even as his country has been struggling to pay billions of dollars owed to Russia.

Russia is a major political ally of Venezuela, which has become increasingly isolated in the world under growing sanctions led by the U.S. and the European Union, which accuse Maduro of undermining democratic institutions to hold onto power, while overseeing an economic and political crisis that is worse than the Great Depression.

Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said at last week’s meeting with his Venezuelan counterpart Vladimir Padrino Lopez that Russia would continue to send its military aircraft and warships to visit Venezuela as part of bilateral military co-operation.

Russia sent its Tu-160 strategic bombers and a missile cruiser to visit Venezuela in 2008 amid tensions with the U.S. after Russia’s brief war with Georgia. A pair of Tu-160s also visited Venezuela in 2013.

Russia-U.S. relations are currently at post-Cold War lows over Ukraine, the war in Syria and allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election. Russia has bristled at U.S. and other NATO allies deploying their troops and weapons near its borders.



Asked about the Russian bombers, Pentagon spokesman Col. Rob Manning said he had no specific information about the deployment.

However, Manning cited the humanitarian assistance provided in Central and South American by a U.S. Navy hospital ship, the USNS Comfort, in the past eight weeks. Numerous Venezuelan migrants were among the people who received medical and dental treatment.

“Contrast this with Russia, whose approach to the man-made disaster in Venezuela is to send bomber aircraft instead of humanitarian assistance,” Manning said.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/ukraine-ci ... -1.4200733

KIEV, Ukraine -- Russia is building up its land forces and weapons along the border, Ukraine's president said Saturday as German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned Russia not to block Ukrainian ports in the Sea of Azov.
Tensions between Russia and Ukraine were still escalating a week after a naval clash in the Black Sea on Nov. 25 in which Russia fired on three Ukrainian naval ships then seized them and their 24 crew members.
Across the world in Argentina, foreign leaders grilled Russian President Vladimir Putin about Russia's actions, but he remained firm, squarely blaming Ukraine for the confrontation, saying its vessels violated Russian territorial waters. He didn't address Ukraine's accusations of a Russian military buildup.

RELATED STORIES
Ukraine bars entry to Russian males, upping ante in conflict
Ukraine urges NATO to deploy ships amid standoff with Russia
Trump cancels Putin meeting over Russia-Ukraine sea dispute
PHOTOS
ukraine soldiers on high alert
Ukrainian soldiers move to position in a APC during military drills in base Honcharivske, Chernihiv region, Ukraine, Monday, Dec. 3, 2018. (AP Photo/Efrem Lukatsky)
Speaking at a Ukrainian military event, President Petro Poroshenko said Russia has deployed "more than 80,000 troops, 1,400 artillery and multiple rocket launch systems, 900 tanks, 2,300 armoured combat vehicles, 500 aircraft and 300 helicopters" along their common border.
These numbers, which have not been verified, would account for the vast majority of men and hardware assigned to Russia's Western Military District.
The naval clash came as the Ukrainian ships sailed to the Kerch Strait, the only waterway leading into the Sea of Azov and the site of a new key Russian bridge linking occupied Crimea with the Russian mainland.
Russia accused the Ukrainian vessels of violating Russian territorial waters, a charge Ukraine has denied. Ukrainian officials say Russia has now imposed a de facto blockade on its two main ports in the Sea of Azov by allowing only ships destined for Russian ports through the strait.
Merkel criticized that Russian move, speaking to reporters Saturday on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit in Buenos Aires after holding a bilateral meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"Free shipping into the Sea of Azov to the Ukrainian coast and harbours must be ensured" by Russia, she said.
Putin, also speaking in Buenos Aires, said he told foreign leaders "how the situation unfolded" and then accused Ukraine's government of stoking the conflict "to cover up one's failures in economic and social policy."
A 2003 Russia-Ukraine agreement designates the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait as shared internal waters. But following Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea, Moscow has asserted greater control over the passage.
"The Kremlin is further testing the strength of the global order," Poroshenko said Saturday, alleging that Moscow is waiting to see whether the international community will allow Russia to assert that the Sea of Azov and Black Sea are Russian territorial waters.
Poroshenko said Russia is also increasing its presence at sea.
"In the waters of the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Aegean Sea, more than 80 ships and 8 submarines are on patrol -- including 23 combat vessels and 6 submarines," he declared.
In response to the seizure of the ships, Poroshenko convinced the Ukrainian parliament to implement martial law in ten border regions. Many in Ukraine and abroad have criticized the martial law order, noting that playing up the Russian threat is politically beneficial to Poroshenko, who faces re-election in March.
The martial law order included a ban on entry to Ukraine of all Russian males aged 16 to 60, a move Poroshenko said is designed to prevent undercover Russian military units from infiltrating the country.

Poroshenko said this tactic was used after Russia seized Crimea and began to support separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine, sparking a conflict that has left more than 10,000 people dead. An unsteady cease-fire has been in place there since 2015.
The Ukrainian border service said Saturday that around 100 Russian citizens had been denied entry since the border restrictions went into effect Friday.
"The vast majority of (them) could not confirm they purpose of their trip to Ukraine," Ukrainian border guard spokesman Andrei Demchenko told Ukrainian television on Saturday.

Even CNN was talking today about the risk of a military clash between the US and Russia. They're not saying the words "World War III" yet, but this certainly seems to be being viewed as a serious crisis with a real risk of military escalation.

We made it through the Cold War intact because the leaders on both sides weren't willing to rush past the point of no return. Can we trust either Putin or Trump to show that kind of restraint? Putin has thus far profited with little personal consequence from violating the most basic international norms, and probably thinks that with Trump in, he can keep pushing ever-further. And Trump... Trump is completely volatile, unpredictable, ignorant, thinks posturing is the same as strength, and quite possibly would welcome a manufactured crisis to escape the closing vise of the Mueller probe.

[Elheru Aran]

"Strategic nuclear bomber" does not mean, de facto, that they ARE carrying nukes. Nukes are expensive pieces of equipment and tend to be heavily secured when moved. If they were brought along to Venezuela, people would notice.

Effectively it's not too dissimilar to us putting B-52s in, say, Turkey.

Bear in mind as well that pretty much any warplane capable of carrying a bomb can carry a nuke. "Strategic" in this context just means they're long-range planes capable of carrying a large quantity of bombs. Which, I do admit, are overkill for Venezuela, it's not that big of a country.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

They're also used in anti-surface warfare operations, IIRC. In particular, to counter US carrier air power.

[Sea Skimmer]

The buildup by the Ukranian border is concerning, though I suspect, not a serious indication of intent, only capability.

As for the bombers...

The Soviets used to endlessly fly Tu-95 bombers to Cuba, turn them around and go home after 1-2 days. The US never raised much fuss over that being a violation of the Cuban Missile Crisis agreement as long as the planes were not actually based out of Cuba and not blatantly carrying nuclear missiles as external stores. But it was long routine for Soviet bombers to patrol off the US coastline, Russia stopped this for a while, but resumed them back in 2007. So overall, this is not a new subject.

Like noted in the article the Tu-160 visited Venezuela before, in 2013 when relations were a lot better, and while it is blusterous it probably has as much to do with actually showing support to Maduro in front of his own generals as it does about annoying the US.

As far as actual military capabilities go Russia only has 16 actual Tu-160 aircraft in service, less then even the US B-2 force, and while they can bomb the US without inflight refueling, it's not exactly the top end of the Russia nuclear threat compared to all the ICBMs. The Russians primarily see them as a cruise missile platform, at which point a Tu-95MS with it's turboprops of doom is a similar level of actual threat. Only 8 missiles instead of 12, but the Russians have 60 of these bombers vs 16 in service. They use the same types of very long range subsonic cruise missiles.

In theory the Tu-160 is under new production, and a new Russian bomber is coming at some point, but both projects move at a snail's pace due to lack funding.

They're also used in anti-surface warfare operations, IIRC. In particular, to counter US carrier air power.

In the case of the Tu-160 not really, though on paper, yes. They launched some conventional cruise missiles against targets in Syria but that appears to have largely been a case of 'does this even work' being demonstrated then a serious intention to use them for conventional strikes in a major war. The Russian force is just too small to use for more then the nuclear role if a big crisis is on.

They still do have a fairly serious number of Tu-22M bombers though for anti ship work and more general purpose missile launching roles, and while the Su-34 isn't all that numerous it's a lot more capable in both range and payload of anti ship missiles over the Atlantic then the Su-24 it replaces ever was.

But these platforms are held back by Russia's limited ability to conduct inflight refueling, most of the planes the USSR used are long since retired and not replaced.

This is also why the Russians are now so interested in long range land based cruise missiles that violate the INF treat. They've had a serious overall erosion of their long range strike capabilities in the air, and undersea, with the Oscar class SSGNs progressively retiring without replacement. Land based missile is much cheaper to field.

[Sea Skimmer]

What's interesting BTW is a non trivial portion of the Russian building near the Ukraine includes obsolete equipment, particularly T-62M tanks in large numbers. These are grossly inferior to what Russian normally has used in the Donbas fighting, various marks of T-72, but it is what they typically send to Assadist Syria to keep spam fighting with. This makes me very much question how serious this buildup is and if they may not be inflating equipment counts as a large scale deception operation. Which would be right up the alley of Russia.

[The Romulan Republic]

What's interesting BTW is a non trivial portion of the Russian building near the Ukraine includes obsolete equipment, particularly T-62M tanks in large numbers. These are grossly inferior to what Russian normally has used in the Donbas fighting, various marks of T-72, but it is what they typically send to Assadist Syria to keep spam fighting with. This makes me very much question how serious this buildup is and if they may not be inflating equipment counts as a large scale deception operation. Which would be right up the alley of Russia.

It would indeed.

That's the optimistic interpretation- that this is all so much theatre. But there's still the risk that it might be misinterpreted, lead to an excessive response, and escalate due to a miscommunication or itchy trigger fingers.

[Zaune]

It's also possible that the Russians just wanted to carry out a training exercise to give their pilots and ground-crew some experience with operating at the far end of a very long supply line, and Venezuela offered them the best rate on leasing a couple of hangars and/or was least bothered by the idea of mildly annoying the US State Department.

[The Romulan Republic]

Maybe, but given Trump's recent threats towards Venezuela, it comes across more like Russia saying "Don't do it or else." You could probably make parallels to the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the US was threatening to invade Cuba, and the Soviets deployed nuclear missiles to Cuba.

[Zaune]

If so, good on the Russians. If there's one thing we really don't need between now and the next US election it's Trump deciding he's going to boost the economy, create employment and above all appeal to his base with a short victorious war. (Which won't be short and will only meet a very selective definition of "victorious", but try telling him that.) Not only would it create mass death and destruction and human misery in return for accomplishing Sweet Fanny Adams, it'd probably win him the sodding election.

[The Romulan Republic]

If so, good on the Russians. If there's one thing we really don't need between now and the next US election it's Trump deciding he's going to boost the economy, create employment and above all appeal to his base with a short victorious war. (Which won't be short and will only meet a very selective definition of "victorious", but try telling him that.) Not only would it create mass death and destruction and human misery in return for accomplishing Sweet Fanny Adams, it'd probably win him the sodding election.

I'm certainly not going to defend Trump's posturing towards Venezuela, and I think that there may be a real risk of him thinking a war will salvage his Presidency, but I really don't want Russia to weigh in like this. Partly because Putin may be the single person on Earth who's more dangerous than Donald Trump, and partly because if Russia tells America "back off or else" and Trump doesn't listen, then we're all up radioactive shit creek without a paddle. It may sound cold, and I'm sure it's not this clear cut in real life, but given a choice between the sovereignty of Venezuela and the survival of human civilization, I'd pick the latter. I said the same thing about the US intervening in Syria- I might want Assad gone in principle, but it's not worth burning the world for.

[Zaune]

I see your point, but trying to avoid provoking the vicious idiot is only going to go so far: Even if you go out of your way to avoid giving him an excuse, eventually he'll just make one up. A line has got to be drawn somewhere, and if not Venezuela then where else?

And I'm not entirely sure Putin is more dangerous than Trump, myself. He's a ruthless opportunist with a penchant for tyranny, but he's not a stupid man and tends to think before he acts. Trump is a ruthless opportunist with a penchant for tyranny and an arrogant fool with the impulse control of a badly-socialised pitbull who's just eaten their human's dime-bag of crack.

[The Romulan Republic]

I see your point, but trying to avoid provoking the vicious idiot is only going to go so far: Even if you go out of your way to avoid giving him an excuse, eventually he'll just make one up. A line has got to be drawn somewhere, and if not Venezuela then where else?

And I'm not entirely sure Putin is more dangerous than Trump, myself. He's a ruthless opportunist with a penchant for tyranny, but he's not a stupid man and tends to think before he acts. Trump is a ruthless opportunist with a penchant for tyranny and an arrogant fool with the impulse control of a badly-socialised pitbull who's just eaten their human's dime-bag of crack.

On the flip-side, Trump is undisciplined enough that he doesn't follow through all that effectively on some of his worst ideas.

But I partly say that because I hold Putin partially responsible for putting Trump in power. I'm not sure you can say who is worst, as they both enable each other's worst qualities.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

If so, good on the Russians. If there's one thing we really don't need between now and the next US election it's Trump deciding he's going to boost the economy, create employment and above all appeal to his base with a short victorious war. (Which won't be short and will only meet a very selective definition of "victorious", but try telling him that.) Not only would it create mass death and destruction and human misery in return for accomplishing Sweet Fanny Adams, it'd probably win him the sodding election.

Of course it will. Even Trump knows Arsericans never change out Presidents in wartime. And, I suspect the presence of two Blackjack bombers are an insufficient deterrent should Trump and his backers be inclined to...liberate...Venezuela with a carrier group and the FIrst Marine Division.
(and Halliburton representatives, of course).

[Patroklos]

Remember when Russia sent a Kirov-class ship to Venezuela several years back and all the same people were fear mongering about how impressive and important that was? No, because the thing is one ancient obsolete ship versus the hundreds of allied vessels that make similar cruises yearly. The fact that it broke down constantly made even the normal alarmists write the thing off as an embarrassing demonstration of lack of capability.

The story here is not how much Russia is doing, its how little. That a handful of planes doing something we do daily is supposed to be impressive. We had a good laugh about this at work today, and concluded this is just Russia wasting the little working platforms and resources they do have on demonstrations of their impotence. We will of course use it to get funding from Congress, who react in a manor similar to TRR on such things. In reality, its an argument for US military downsizing (taken in isolation).