Russia to quadruple ICBM output

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Now, the US does have good reason to deploy a blue water navy to safeguard Taiwan. As for the Sprats, they're not really a hot issue... yet. But I can easily see the need for the US to project its force in the region in the near future, if China's navy gets stronger and if it goes to the Sprats and bullies smaller nations like the Philippines. We'll have to come crying to you for help.

It is not in America's interest to have Taiwan rejoin China.

[Shroom Man 777]

Now, the US does have good reason to deploy a blue water navy to safeguard Taiwan. As for the Sprats, they're not really a hot issue... yet. But I can easily see the need for the US to project its force in the region in the near future, if China's navy gets stronger and if it goes to the Sprats and bullies smaller nations like the Philippines. We'll have to come crying to you for help.

It is not in America's interest to have Taiwan rejoin China.

Yes, the US does have good reason to deploy a blue water navy to safeguard Taiwan.

The region I was talking about was the Sprats. But I guess the region encompassing the Sprats and the Philippines includes Taiwan too... it's a small place.

You are fucking dense aren't you? Russia needs its ports to stay open to trade with the world, or did you just handwave all those ports in Vladivostok and St. Petersburg and others away? Which in turn mean that you need to defend other sea lanes where you goods flow. Long range power projection itself allows one to defend larger bodies of water.

By the same arguments you give, then Europe as a whole should not get a blue water navy. But hey, France and Britain do for the expressed purpose of defending their bodies of water and their trade routes.

There is also the expansion of NATO into Eastern European nations and their support of violent regimes like that of Georgia, which destabilizes the region and threatens allies like South Ossetia and Abkhazian. The Russians need a stronger (blue water) navy so that all its avenues are not cut out, since it might have to rely on seaways further in the future.

There are threats to the Russian Way of life, things that threaten pravda, свобода, and good old apple pie. In light of these threats, they do reserve the right to have more options available in their homeland's security.

[Kane Starkiller]

Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua. Wow. Shaking in our boots, here.

Chavez has reached the end of the line. His term has a definite end; his budget is in a shambles; and he can’t tear away from dependency on American refineries, as he learned soon after making threats to do just that. Cuba has no leverage; Nicaragua, even less.

Oh sure Venezuela is in for some tough times ahead but that doesn't change Russian motives. Cuba is perfectly positioned for interdiction of any traffic into and from the Gulf of Mexico. Nicaragua and Venezuela are positioned to threaten the Panama Canal. Both are very important for US and Russia can cause major problems there by positioning bombers and warships in the aforementioned countries.

Why do the Russians require long-range power projection? What will a large navy, based on helicopter-carrying cruisers or even supercarriers, help Russia achieve? If the answer is simply “to threaten the U.S. during times of tension,” the next question is, “Why, when the primary fields of probable contest with any foreign enemy – Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Siberia – are on its landward frontiers?”

Precisely because all the primary fields of contest are around Russian borders. As long as US has it's back yard under firm control it will be on the offensive. Russia meanwhile is on the constant defensive. That means that, sooner or later, something on Russia's periphery is going to give. In order to relieve US pressure on it's periphery Russia needs to distract it, put it on the defensive. Stirring shit in it's back yard will do that. And for that you need a navy.

[Patrick Degan]

Oh sure Venezuela is in for some tough times ahead but that doesn't change Russian motives. Cuba is perfectly positioned for interdiction of any traffic into and from the Gulf of Mexico. Nicaragua and Venezuela are positioned to threaten the Panama Canal. Both are very important for US and Russia can cause major problems there by positioning bombers and warships in the aforementioned countries.

We can bring up more than enough force to adequately neutralise threats from those directions far easier than the Russians could build up enough forces to prevent that from happening. Indeed, in the event of a general war, securing control of the Carribean would be amongst the first defensive priorities and we already have the forces in the region to do that.

You also overestimate the present-day military value of the Panama Canal. It was important in World War II, but modern supercarriers cannot navigate the waterway, neither can the largest supertankers. It ceased to be a primary factor in strategic planning at least two and a half decades ago.

Precisely because all the primary fields of contest are around Russian borders. As long as US has it's back yard under firm control it will be on the offensive. Russia meanwhile is on the constant defensive. That means that, sooner or later, something on Russia's periphery is going to give. In order to relieve US pressure on it's periphery Russia needs to distract it, put it on the defensive. Stirring shit in it's back yard will do that. And for that you need a navy.

That logic, I'm afraid, doesn't quite work in the case of Russia. They are used to the periphery giving away in time of war; in fact, it's long been factored into their military strategy. Any potential enemy has to fight it's way through hundreds of miles of somebody else's territory just to get to the frontier, then they have to fight their way into the interior of the country. And in the meantime, occupation forces have to be tied down just to maintain control of ever-lengthening supply lines, which diminishes the force which could be available to conquer anything inside Russia and increases the invasion force's vulnerability. Meanwhile, the Russians have everything inside with them, with defensible lines of transport and communication available, and they've got time on their side. That's how they beat Napoleon and Hitler and one reason why the Western effort to support the Whites failed.

As for a navy, the main thing they need that for is to interdict any invasion force, and a fleet of antiship missile cruisers and destroyers and a large SSGN force will accomplish that function quite adequately. But they don't have to protect overseas supply lines the way the West does in order to defend themselves.

[Axis Kast]

There's no logical argument to show why Russia shouldn't have a blue-water navy if it wants one. If they want one and if they can get one, then everyone should be happy for them and their new toys and congratulations are at hand. [/quote]

There is a very logical argument: they can’t afford it, because there are more important things to do with that money right now. If they’re looking for a place to dump new funds on a waterborne force, it’s got to be the boomers. Russia’s second-strike capabilities have grossly degraded. But, even staying within the realm of defense spending, the Russian Army should take higher precedence – the Russians have used it more frequently in the recent past, and are more likely to require its services again in the near future than those of a blue-water navy.

Really good at safeguarding the lives of Abkhazian and South Ossetian people and to support their valiant fight for freedom and their fight against tyranny and terror, in the defense of their homes and their families. God bless them.

In other words, really good at picking fights and swatting flies.

But when they get the requisitely powerful military force, then they can also be the arbitrary self-appointed deciders of which nations are free and peace-loving.

That could be a direct benefit of building a blue-water navy. But where will Russia gain from employing it? Against whom will they apply the levers of naval power for a gain worth the billions if will take to float aircraft carriers, man them, and learn operate them efficiently?

Because they want to, and no one is in a position to tell them how to spend their roubles?

Just because I don’t have the red and black ink doesn’t mean I can’t call ‘em as I see ‘em.

Western powers, America in particular, doesn't need its overblown navy to protect the sea lanes and to secure its trading avenues or something. You don't need supercarriers and nuclear missile subs for that, there's nothing out there that can threaten your position. But you have it anyway, thus giving you unmatchable power.

The United States has a far more persuasive logic for possession of a blue-water force in the present day. It has treaty commitments to allies overseas. The Russian Federation does not. The United States must secure the energy resources of the Persian Gulf, essentially on behalf of the West. The Russian Federation is a net energy exporter. The United States has deployed military forces far afield. If some have difficulty believing that this is worth the cost even when the United States was already the primary guarantor of Containment in Iraq and felt compelled to invade Afghanistan after 2001, I invite you to identify specific regions where the Russians will readily gain from deploying a cruising fleet.

You mean the Afghans were actually an opportunity when the Americans fostered a government on them?

The Afghan Security Forces have become a client by default. And Afghanistan could not afford anything but old Russian kit, even if the Americans were not breathing necks at Karzaki’s Defense Ministry. If you sell to Afghanistan, it will not be large pieces of new military equipment. Smoke will not rise from any factories.

Since fucking when is it a good idea to defend a large coastline with a huge body of water with a small coastal navy against an enemy with long reach and nukes? Oh wait, it's actually a good idea to send destroyers to fight carriers.

If Russia is worried about blockade, it requires three things: (1) submarines; (2) surface combatants; (3) anti-submarine assets.

A missile-carrying cruiser is not the ideal platform to match against American strengths because Soviet naval air defense capabilities are quite poor. Even the Soviet Union was unable to provide the large fleet carriers for effective CAP against the United States Navy. The Russians can mount their excellent ship-to-ship systems on smaller vessels, multiplying the number of combatants in play.


As for anti-submarine forces, the Russians face a daunting task: they will need large numbers of helicopter-carrying cruisers to form the centerpiece of ASW task forces, or large numbers of fleet carriers. Both are expensive. Russia doesn’t have the money.

[quite] Even China and India want to have blue water navies to secure the huge bodies of water in front of them for the express reason of defending their sealanes against potential threats such as the US. You cannot defend bodies of water without a fucking navy that can project its zone of control over that body of water.[/quote]

That same argument can be applied, weakly, to any large country with a coastline. For India, which matches against Pakistan’s much inferior navy, a two-carrier fleet is an expensive extravagance. This was equally true of the Brazilian and Argentinean programs.

You are fucking dense aren't you? Russia needs its ports to stay open to trade with the world, or did you just handwave all those ports in Vladivostok and St. Petersburg and others away? Which in turn mean that you need to defend other sea lanes where you goods flow. Long range power projection itself allows one to defend larger bodies of water.

That is a luxury you cannot now afford. In the future, perhaps it will be possible to deploy the three or four carriers Russia would require to be able to decisively deter any such blockade.

Oh sure Venezuela is in for some tough times ahead but that doesn't change Russian motives. Cuba is perfectly positioned for interdiction of any traffic into and from the Gulf of Mexico. Nicaragua and Venezuela are positioned to threaten the Panama Canal. Both are very important for US and Russia can cause major problems there by positioning bombers and warships in the aforementioned countries.

Bombers and warships that do what? It would give headaches to war planners in the Pentagon, to congresspersons in Florida, and to those who watch too much 24-hour news. In reality, a Russian presence in the Caribbean would probably just occasion a great deal of loud noise and maybe a defense supplemental before Raoul and Chavez went the way of the dodo and new leadership was prevailed upon to try money-making for a while.

Russia meanwhile is on the constant defensive. That means that, sooner or later, something on Russia's periphery is going to give. In order to relieve US pressure on it's periphery Russia needs to distract it, put it on the defensive.

That’s an intelligent strategy, but, in the Caribbean, Moscow would be working with unreliable “allies” with virtually no capability to support the few military forces it could send. In other words, it’d be a sacrifice play for very little obvious gain. The Russians have done a small bit of "stirring up" in Venezuela, without significant outcome.

[Shroom Man 777]

Mmm... yeah, I guess the Russians can't afford anything extravagant right now. But I do hope that they end up having enough money to make all of their military branches awesome again, in the near future.

Axis, would you be alright with Russia getting a blue water navy if it had enough monies to afford them?

[Kane Starkiller]

We can bring up more than enough force to adequately neutralise threats from those directions far easier than the Russians could build up enough forces to prevent that from happening. Indeed, in the event of a general war, securing control of the Carribean would be amongst the first defensive priorities and we already have the forces in the region to do that.

You also overestimate the present-day military value of the Panama Canal. It was important in World War II, but modern supercarriers cannot navigate the waterway, neither can the largest supertankers. It ceased to be a primary factor in strategic planning at least two and a half decades ago.

I'm not talking about passage of military ships but general ship traffic. Gulf of Mexico contains major US ports as well as being a major energy source for the US. Hostile Cuba with a Russian fleet could threaten the traffic to and from the gulf. The same goes for Panama. US could counter, sure, but that means diverting attention and resources from Russian periphery and to an area which, so far, was considered under undisputed US control by default.

That logic, I'm afraid, doesn't quite work in the case of Russia. They are used to the periphery giving away in time of war; in fact, it's long been factored into their military strategy. Any potential enemy has to fight it's way through hundreds of miles of somebody else's territory just to get to the frontier, then they have to fight their way into the interior of the country. And in the meantime, occupation forces have to be tied down just to maintain control of ever-lengthening supply lines, which diminishes the force which could be available to conquer anything inside Russia and increases the invasion force's vulnerability. Meanwhile, the Russians have everything inside with them, with defensible lines of transport and communication available, and they've got time on their side. That's how they beat Napoleon and Hitler and one reason why the Western effort to support the Whites failed.

That strategy is simply the result of Russian inability to dominate the neighboring powers so instead they rely on putting as much land between them and their adversaries. The buffers saved them but not before they lost entire cities and millions of people to the enemy. Russia also lost most of it's buffers to NATO, it's troops have been thrown from the middle of Germany to the borders of Belarus at best. US on the other hand doesn't need buffers or rather it's buffers begin in Europe and extend over the Atlantic enforced by it's navy. As long as US is completely secure in it's own backyard it can focus it's attention at gnawing away at Russian periphery while Russian attention is completely occupied by putting out fires on it's borders.

[Patrick Degan]

We can bring up more than enough force to adequately neutralise threats from those directions far easier than the Russians could build up enough forces to prevent that from happening. Indeed, in the event of a general war, securing control of the Carribean would be amongst the first defensive priorities and we already have the forces in the region to do that.

You also overestimate the present-day military value of the Panama Canal. It was important in World War II, but modern supercarriers cannot navigate the waterway, neither can the largest supertankers. It ceased to be a primary factor in strategic planning at least two and a half decades ago.

I'm not talking about passage of military ships but general ship traffic. Gulf of Mexico contains major US ports as well as being a major energy source for the US. Hostile Cuba with a Russian fleet could threaten the traffic to and from the gulf. The same goes for Panama. US could counter, sure, but that means diverting attention and resources from Russian periphery and to an area which, so far, was considered under undisputed US control by default.

Um, if we can prevent the Russians from interfering with military ship traffic, it follows they will have no ability to interfere with commerical ship traffic either, and we don't even need the entire U.S. Navy to do that. As for "hostile Cuba", the more likely result is that Cuba gets occupied and there's isn't dick their military could do to prevent that, and it would occur far faster than the Russians could ever get reinforcements out to protect Cuba.

That logic, I'm afraid, doesn't quite work in the case of Russia. They are used to the periphery giving away in time of war; in fact, it's long been factored into their military strategy. Any potential enemy has to fight it's way through hundreds of miles of somebody else's territory just to get to the frontier, then they have to fight their way into the interior of the country. And in the meantime, occupation forces have to be tied down just to maintain control of ever-lengthening supply lines, which diminishes the force which could be available to conquer anything inside Russia and increases the invasion force's vulnerability. Meanwhile, the Russians have everything inside with them, with defensible lines of transport and communication available, and they've got time on their side. That's how they beat Napoleon and Hitler and one reason why the Western effort to support the Whites failed.

That strategy is simply the result of Russian inability to dominate the neighboring powers so instead they rely on putting as much land between them and their adversaries. The buffers saved them but not before they lost entire cities and millions of people to the enemy. Russia also lost most of it's buffers to NATO, it's troops have been thrown from the middle of Germany to the borders of Belarus at best. US on the other hand doesn't need buffers or rather it's buffers begin in Europe and extend over the Atlantic enforced by it's navy. As long as US is completely secure in it's own backyard it can focus it's attention at gnawing away at Russian periphery while Russian attention is completely occupied by putting out fires on it's borders.

Because you say so? The Russians have been able to dominate or intimidate their neighbours without having a blue-water navy, and the new NATO members don't have the force to stop any Russian effort to interdict them or even seize territory for buffer space. Meanwhile, the equation inside Russia proper still applies, and they've not only got a very large army but also a very large air force to back that equation up. Strategically, it makes more sense to make any attempt at conquest by land as costly and draining as possible. Russia's strategy is based on the fact that they have no significant overseas committments or necessary sources of import goods to have to protect. That is why a blue-water navy has never been a high priority for Russia and even the fleet the Soviet Union fielded was designed as a deterrent rather than for power-projection. Their form of global power-projection has been in the form of the threat carried by their strategic nuclear forces —which still exist and is another reason why no war with Russia is ever going to reach the stage of one power attempting to physically conquer the other. Which also obviates against the alleged pressing need for a U.S. style blue-water navy.

[K. A. Pital]

Really good at what? Instigating puny Georgia, with a military optimized for light duties and almost no air force, into firing the first shot of a long-anticipated war?

"Puny"? The Georgians had an $1,5 billion military buildup - hardly something orderly for a nation of it's size and incredibly inept economy, done mostly through foreign aid.

Moscow has been pretty loud-mouthed about who it blames for Georgia’s blunder, despite early revelation that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice explicitly counseled the Georgian president not to take aggressive action.

US citizens trained and armed Georgian troops. Who the fuck even fucking cares if your "secretary" called them and said something to "not take agressive action"? Why the fuck should we? "The US has been pretty loud-mouthed about Russian anti-tank weapons spreading to the Middle East, despite Russia not directly controlling any Middle Eastern government." Heh.

To call Russia “free” is to do disservice to the very word. To call it “peace-loving,” equally laughable.

Yeah, Russia is not much more militant than the US.

Chavez has reached the end of the line. His term has a definite end; his budget is in a shambles; and he can’t tear away from dependency on American refineries, as he learned soon after making threats to do just that. Cuba has no leverage; Nicaragua, even less.

What "leverage"? They just need to buy Russian arms; until they do so, they are viable clients.

I was ticking off reasons one might decide to develop a blue-water force.

No, you were rationalizing the USN ex-postfacto. End of story. Other reasons were brushed off by your fiat statements. Which are incidentally purest bullshit.

Last time I turned on the news, tens of thousands of American and NATO troops were still on Afghan soil. Coalition forces were still responsible for development of the Afghan security force and reorientation of the Afghan economy.

"Afghan economy"? Afghan fucking "economy"? I really thought you were kidding.

Why do the Russians require long-range power projection?

Because we might get new allies which are overseas? No?

What will a large navy, based on helicopter-carrying cruisers or even supercarriers, help Russia achieve? If the answer is simply “to threaten the U.S. during times of tension,” the next question is, “Why, when the primary fields of probable contest with any foreign enemy – Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Siberia – are on its landward frontiers?”

The answer is: because the US is actively intervening in Eastern Europe, up to the point of buildint their strategic shit their. So then.

If you think Russia will fulfill goals worth tens or hundreds of millions by rebuilding its navy (beyond restoring a boomer fleet large enough to assure Second Strike capability and floating some destroyers and support ships for general anti-piracy worldwide, and zone-control duties in the Black Sea, do tell.

A fleet large enough to ensure second-strike capability depends on carriers to ensure the survivability of key assets: ship combatants and submarines, which are crucial to fighting an enemy navy efficiently.

If you still don't get it, the USN is pretty much THE definition of "enemy Navy" for Russia, China and anyone concerned with a large war.

[Axis Kast]

Georgians had an $1,5 billion military buildup - hardly something orderly for a nation of it's size and incredibly inept economy, done mostly through foreign aid.
[/quote]

I repeat. Russian armored columns steamrolled a light infantry force without credible mechanized support or air cover. The Georgians were trained for counter-insurgency, not mobile warfare.

US citizens trained and armed Georgian troops. Who the fuck even fucking cares if your "secretary" called them and said something to "not take agressive action"? Why the fuck should we? "The US has been pretty loud-mouthed about Russian anti-tank weapons spreading to the Middle East, despite Russia not directly controlling any Middle Eastern government." Heh.

Your president has implied that the United States gave Tbilisi a wink and a nod, as well as the means to pursue wrongheaded policy. That is a steaming pile of bullshit. Intervention at the secretarial level should have been more than enough.

Yeah, Russia is not much more militant than the US.

But it is certainly less free. Political violence and media manipulation, anyone?

What "leverage"? They just need to buy Russian arms; until they do so, they are viable clients.

They buy arms in drips and drabs. And Venezuela’s patronage is linked specifically to the Chavez presidency. The country has tended to use Western kit.

You’re anyway missing the point, which is that Russia is unlikely to find external clients for an expanded defense industry.

No, you were rationalizing the USN ex-postfacto. End of story. Other reasons were brushed off by your fiat statements. Which are incidentally purest bullshit.

I am explaining to you why the United States possesses a blue-water navy: to project power to other parts of the world. Why is this necessary? To fulfill security pledges that affect our international standing, and to secure strategic resources. Russia has not made security pledges to overseas allies. It does not need assured access to the Persian Gulf. Why is this possible? Because the United States cannot afford the alternative. Russia can. Moreover, the United States has the infrastructure to support a large blue-water navy, and a defense budget that can stretch rather far. Russia’s military is decrepit, and money is more sorely needed by the strategic and ground arms than by the navy, which can only ever be a sacrificial lamb in the best of times.

"Afghan economy"? Afghan fucking "economy"? I really thought you were kidding.

It’s called opium, and we’re trying to change that.

Because we might get new allies which are overseas? No?

Name them. Then explain how they will support a Russian fleet. Then explain what they will provide Russia that is of such important as to justify the moneys spent and the lives lost.

The answer is: because the US is actively intervening in Eastern Europe, up to the point of buildint their strategic shit their. So then.

We’ve been over this before. The United States is not building any system that will neutralize Russia’s strategic capabilities in the near future. Any such threat, the Russians will see coming for years before it materializes, as such. Because building new nuclear weapons is cheaper than building maneuverable kinetic-kill or nuclear interceptors, the Russians will be able to outbuild the United States even if they do discern any intention to expand the current program (which is even now in danger of being scrapped).

The United States is certainly making new allies in Eastern Europe that make the Russians uncomfortable. But building a navy will not give Russia comparable sway on the American periphery.

A fleet large enough to ensure second-strike capability depends on carriers to ensure the survivability of key assets: ship combatants and submarines, which are crucial to fighting an enemy navy efficiently.

Rubbish. The Soviet submarine fleet required no such shepherds. Armed with powerful anti-ship missiles, smaller destroyers and frigates could do equally effective diversionary work. A missile-carrying cruiser is powerful, but also highly vulnerable.

If you still don't get it, the USN is pretty much THE definition of "enemy Navy" for Russia, China and anyone concerned with a large war.

If you still don’t get it, there’s not much that Russia can afford to do about the United States Navy, and no justification for one beyond preventing blockade/diverting ASW assets during wartime.

[K. A. Pital]

The Georgians were trained for counter-insurgency, not mobile warfare.

Who the fuck cares what they were "trained for" when they steamrolled into SO with armor and artillery, barraging everything around with MRLS? That's not COIN. If they started an operation they could not execute, it's a problem of Georgia's military planning and their intellectual inadequacy.

Your president has implied that the United States gave Tbilisi a wink and a nod, as well as the means to pursue wrongheaded policy.

He did. He repeatedly claimed the US will "stand by" it's "allies" and such. Georgia went batshit insane and didn't care when they were told to stop. What did you expect? If you repeatedly tell someone he'll be supported, becomes harder to contain him.

Political violence and media manipulation, anyone?

Political violence is common for less well-off nations, that's no secret I believe. And media manipulation - oh boy, the US will give Russia a huge handicap in the race here The way US media spin things (like the complete blackout of the attack on South Ossetia in the media), Russia should be fucking envious it can't spin shit around on the world stage so fast.

The country has tended to use Western kit.

Until you said a huge fuck you to their requests for munition spares, and the shift to Russian ordnance will be completed now, but not easily reversed considering the amount of money invested. Especially the Kalashnikov building factories in Venezuela proper.

Because the United States cannot afford the alternative.

I'm sure it can. I'm sure if the situation is bad enough, it will "afford the alternative". I'm also sure that Russia can do whatever it wants with a military buildup - it's not something US armchair generals should be explaining the necessity of. Russia's ability to defend against foreign incursions and diversions depended a lot on the strength of it's Navy in the past. What is different in the present? Nuclear weapons? They do not exclude local conflicts and proxy wars.

Name them. Then explain how they will support a Russian fleet. Then explain what they will provide Russia that is of such important as to justify the moneys spent and the lives lost.

Syria, Venezuela, Cuba. What they will provide: (a) naval bases (b) infrastructure and fuel support for the ships (c) possibly airfields for strategic bombers. How is that important and what lives are "lost"? Well, quite simple: in case of a proxy conflict, this will give additional leverage in the talks against the US. Also, placing offensive weapons closer to the US/Europe and giving the Russian Navy extended range naval bases in Mediterranean and the Atlantic Ocean means more freedom in war planning, including naval operations.

A flexibility of the naval and aerial arms of the Nuclear deterrent is an important goal on it's own.

But building a navy will not give Russia comparable sway on the American periphery.

Russia will get some military assets and a greater freedom for the oceanic Navy. It is important.

The Soviet submarine fleet required no such shepherds.

In fact they did. I suggest you learn why the USSR finally started building a carrier fleet in the 1980s - because the survivability of SSBNs and SSGNs was undermined by the lack of aerial groups.

[Axis Kast]

Who the fuck cares what they were "trained for" when they steamrolled into SO with armor and artillery, barraging everything around with MRLS?

This argument of yours would be a lot more impressive if not for the fact that you spend your next breath admitting that this use of heavy weapons was unable, utterly, to save Georgia from dismemberment and military collapse. You also forget to mention that the Russians had the much superior tank battalions, even while using antiquated equipment.

The really funny thing is that you repeat this pattern of hoisting yourself on your own petard throughout the remainder of your post.

Georgia went batshit insane and didn't care when they were told to stop.

In other words, you admit that they were told what would happen – told not to expect backing -- and persisted for reasons of their own.

Political violence is common for less well-off nations, that's no secret I believe.

It’s also a terrible blight on any claim that Russia is a land comparable to the United States in terms of the social protections available to its citizens.

And media manipulation - oh boy, the US will give Russia a huge handicap in the race here

Predictable. I talk about how the Russian government has neutered the media, and you talk about failures in reporting. Newsflash: In the United States, the information may not always reflect objective truth, but the news is published without the prior consent of the government.

Until you said a huge fuck you to their requests for munition spares, and the shift to Russian ordnance will be completed now, but not easily reversed considering the amount of money invested. Especially the Kalashnikov building factories in Venezuela proper.

Completed? The Venezuelans still fly American aircraft along with Russian, and use armored vehicles acquired from the West. A new government may very well choose to halt Russification of their military where Chavez left off. Probably will, if the past is any indication.

Russia's ability to defend against foreign incursions and diversions depended a lot on the strength of it's Navy in the past. What is different in the present?

It did? When? How? Why are these thrilling chapters been missing from all of my history books?

Syria, Venezuela, Cuba. What they will provide: (a) naval bases (b) infrastructure and fuel support for the ships (c) possibly airfields for strategic bombers. How is that important and what lives are "lost"? Well, quite simple: in case of a proxy conflict, this will give additional leverage in the talks against the US.

The Russian Navy cannot realistically expect to operate in the Mediterranean in the event of a globe-spanning conflict. Gibraltar and the Turkish Straits can be easily closed to it, and any fleet-in-being already active in those waters would be easily dispatched by the Allied navies, if not the United States alone.

Syria is the only viable Soviet client amongst your list of three. You have yet to rebut my arguments – made several times, for your benefit – that Venezuela’s receptivity to Russia is dependent on an individual rather than a factor of long-term duration and that Cuba cannot be relied upon as a future ally in light of the economy gains to be had by collaboration with the United States, rather than faraway Russia.

The United States would not tolerate strategic bombers in Russia, and it is probable that it could inflict direct punishment on Cuban and Venezuelan targets, at least, without actually incurring Russian wrath, in spite of Russian promises to the contrary. The simple fact is that neither of those allies is robust enough to support a large Russian presence, while Russia itself is too insolvent and too many years away from being able to dispatch one.

A flexibility of the naval and aerial arms of the Nuclear deterrent is an important goal on it's own.

The same level of strategic flexibility could be obtained by deploying more nuclear submarines and mobile land-based systems, which are more dependable delivery vectors than aircraft.

Even in the sunniest of circumstances, Russia could, at best, spare one of four battlegroups for Caribbean service. As Deegan pointed out, they’d be operating far from home, with the backing of dubious allies, in an American lake, against a superior foe.

Russia will get some military assets and a greater freedom for the oceanic Navy. It is important.

Those bases are not guaranteed at all. And the idea that a navy will provide greater freedom for an ocean-going navy is tautological and nonsensical, to say the least. “Russia must build a navy so that the navy can go places!”

In fact they did. I suggest you learn why the USSR finally started building a carrier fleet in the 1980s - because the survivability of SSBNs and SSGNs was undermined by the lack of aerial groups.

And the Soviet Union, with greater resources than Russia, was unable to finish on that promise. It built a series of big ships with poor service records.

Today, a bigger problem is the vulnerability of submarines in port, which must be addressed before the Russians begin to worry about whether they need new naval assets to “tie up” or hunt down American ASW task forces that could keep Russian subs from sinking ground forces meant for Western Europe.

[erik_t]

Why do the Russians require {naval} long-range power projection?

Because we might get new allies which are overseas? No?

I take issue with this. I don't think Axis, or anyone else, is suggesting that the Russian Federation would not find uses for a blue-water navy. I think the question is whether or not the opportunity cost of such a navy would be prohibitive.

I think you yourself were mentioning earlier the prodigious number of tanks that Russia should have managed "in brighter days"; do you really think it would be wise to build up an entire military arm predicated on the idea that you might acquire some as-yet-unnamed allies overseas, when most would agree that the in-use forces are suffering from underfunding and insufficient new equipment?

[Axis Kast]

A quick correction.

I typed, by mistake, that the United States would not tolerate strategic bombers in Russia. I meant to say that they would not tolerate Russian bombers on Venezuelan or Cuban soil, and could make both those nations pay, forcing them to ask the Russians to leave.

[K. A. Pital]

It’s also a terrible blight on any claim that Russia is a land comparable to the United States in terms of the social protections available to its citizens.

Such a claim has never been presented. Foreign policy-wise, Russia is much less interventionist than the USA.

This argument of yours would be a lot more impressive if not for the fact that you spend your next breath admitting that this use of heavy weapons was unable, utterly, to save Georgia from dismemberment and military collapse.

The failure of strategic planning which brought Georgia to war does not rest on the hands of the military. It rests on the hands of the Tie-Muncher. Georgian military was quite adept for a nation of it's size.

I talk about how the Russian government has neutered the media, and you talk about failures in reporting.

Failures in reporting? A fucking media blackout is too massive a failure in reporting to just chalk it up to "incompetence" - there must have been intent. The issue is simple - the US media cartels have long learned to self-censor themselves, and let stories which are uncomfy to slide into obscurity - sure, they are issued and told about in some fuck-nobody cares TV channel or newspaper (much like in Russia), but good luck getting a reportage from CNN or BBC on Georgian misconduct in Ossetia. "Failure"? Self-censorship is more than a failure. It means the media is rotten and it's "freedom" means fuck nothing.

A new government may very well choose to halt Russification of their military where Chavez left off.

It may, or may not. Our hardware is cheaper, and we share common interests in the oil market (price gouging). The US has interests directly contrary to the interests of Russia and Venezuela as petroleum sources.

It did? When? How? Why are these thrilling chapters been missing from all of my history books?

The defeat of Sweden was possible with the great Navy Peter the Great built. The defeat of Turkey once again was brought by the Navy. There were a lot of battles where the Russian Navy was a critical element of war. XX century let the Russian Navy slide into obscurity first with the Tsushima defeat and then with the irrelevance in WWII. Now, we face a problem with messing up the communications of a superior enemy. A stronger Navy is more capable to pressure fucktards in our surrouding - yes, including the Tie-Muncher and his buddies. Including everyone who has any Naval assets.

The Russian Navy cannot realistically expect to operate in the Mediterranean in the event of a globe-spanning conflict. Gibraltar and the Turkish Straits can be easily closed to it, and any fleet-in-being already active in those waters would be easily dispatched by the Allied navies, if not the United States alone.

All I hear is "blah blah blah". Same can be said for the Black Sea - it's even worse since the Black Sea is so small and offers no operative freedom. The Mediterranean is wider and allows for greater operative depth. And it means, with given assets and Mediterranean base, the Russian Navy is becoming more threatening than it was without such a base and access.

The United States would not tolerate strategic bombers in Russia

I'm sure it won't tolerate them anywhere. Except they already flew to Venezuela for a test redislocation after the war with Georgia. If the US "won't tolerate" Russian bombers in LA, it clearly hasn't shown itself to be willing to do crap about it.

The simple fact is that neither of those allies is robust enough to support a large Russian presence, while Russia itself is too insolvent and too many years away from being able to dispatch one.

The "simple fact" is a problem that requires change: political pressure on the allies, buildup of a Navy - instead of saying "well crap, we can't threaten them in the oceans now, so we never should!"

The same level of strategic flexibility could be obtained by deploying more nuclear submarines and mobile land-based systems

Bullcrap. No one ever said "fleet in being" is not a working principle. A stronger Navy with greater number of strongpoints will cause the other Navies to be more cautios in their "exploits". For example, if Russia would have a carrier group somewhere in the Mediterranean, quite a few thoughts would be crossing the minds of people who would be sending reinforcements to Georgia.

And the Soviet Union, with greater resources than Russia, was unable to finish on that promise.

The collapse prevented it. Modern Russia is so far pretty stable, so engaging in a fleet programme now is important. Otherwise we will be even more lagging behind other powers. The 1980s tech base should be re-invigorated, and now we have the chance to do it.

You are saying Russia's strategic options would not look better with a stronger Navy, better bases and facilities? Well, good luck proving it.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

As for a navy, the main thing they need that for is to interdict any invasion force, and a fleet of antiship missile cruisers and destroyers and a large SSGN force will accomplish that function quite adequately. But they don't have to protect overseas supply lines the way the West does in order to defend themselves.

As Stuart pointed out a few times (perhaps not necessary in the public forums but in the user-groups), the USN has worked hard to defeat mass saturation attacks and they can do it quite well. The above mean squat when a carrier battlegroup can assert control over a huge radius of control (~300km or more) and are equiped with Tomahawk missiles with ~2500km range which are potentially nuclear armed (in the Cold War), and also carry nuclear tipped ASROCs (in the Cold War).

An enemy navy will thus have to intercept an incoming enemy navy as far away as 2500km from the coastline, bereft of any aerial support (because Russia's fighters can't possibly travel over the Baltics unscathed). You do not send surface warships against a CVBG without aerial support. You still need a carrier battlegroup really to provide support such as over the horizon targeting etc.

[Axis Kast]

Such a claim has never been presented. Foreign policy-wise, Russia is much less interventionist than the USA.

The argument is that Russia is not more free.

The failure of strategic planning which brought Georgia to war does not rest on the hands of the military. It rests on the hands of the Tie-Muncher. Georgian military was quite adept for a nation of it's size.

But it was nothing more than a bad hair day for the Russian military, which though old and creaky, broke barely a sweat.

Failures in reporting? A fucking media blackout is too massive a failure in reporting to just chalk it up to "incompetence" - there must have been intent. The issue is simple - the US media cartels have long learned to self-censor themselves, and let stories which are uncomfy to slide into obscurity - sure, they are issued and told about in some fuck-nobody cares TV channel or newspaper (much like in Russia), but good luck getting a reportage from CNN or BBC on Georgian misconduct in Ossetia. "Failure"? Self-censorship is more than a failure. It means the media is rotten and it's "freedom" means fuck nothing.

Except, in the United States, there were plenty of media outlets in newsprint that spoke to the opening Georgian offensive, while broadcast news keyed to it several days in. In Russia, the media reports what it is told to report, with little deviation, and dangers to those who don't toe that line. Your bloviating is just embarrassing now.

It may, or may not. Our hardware is cheaper, and we share common interests in the oil market (price gouging). The US has interests directly contrary to the interests of Russia and Venezuela as petroleum sources.

But there is only one nation that can refine Venezuelan crude. And that nation is not Russia, which is rather faraway.

The defeat of Sweden was possible with the great Navy Peter the Great built. The defeat of Turkey once again was brought by the Navy. There were a lot of battles where the Russian Navy was a critical element of war. XX century let the Russian Navy slide into obscurity first with the Tsushima defeat and then with the irrelevance in WWII. Now, we face a problem with messing up the communications of a superior enemy. A stronger Navy is more capable to pressure fucktards in our surrouding - yes, including the Tie-Muncher and his buddies. Including everyone who has any Naval assets.

In other words, your naval power was significant in dealing with regional competitors that today are a non-entity and a minor irritant, respectively. And that's being generous to the Turks (who do have an excellent military, but no reason to turn it on Russia, or to expect good things if they do). More important, both Sweden and Turkey could be dealt with by cheaper methods.

You also claim that your goal is partly to "mess" with our communication. That's untrue. You want to mess with our shipping, during a war, not our communication.

A stronger Navy with carrier aviation is not needed to pressure Georgia, or anyone else on the Black Sea coast.

All I hear is "blah blah blah". Same can be said for the Black Sea - it's even worse since the Black Sea is so small and offers no operative freedom. The Mediterranean is wider and allows for greater operative depth. And it means, with given assets and Mediterranean base, the Russian Navy is becoming more threatening than it was without such a base and access.

What are the Russians supposed to gain in the confined waters of the Mediterranean? It'd be shooting fish in a barrel for the NATO allies. Russia, operating from a lone Syrian base, swarmed by multiple navies. And for what? As a delaying action? The U.S. already has a base in Turkey. American carrier forces wouldn't be able to harm Russia from that quarter anyway, without Turkish assistance (straits access).

I'm sure it won't tolerate them anywhere. Except they already flew to Venezuela for a test redislocation after the war with Georgia. If the US "won't tolerate" Russian bombers in LA, it clearly hasn't shown itself to be willing to do crap about it.

Because Russia was rattling its saber, not placing jets. And even if Russia did that, today, it would mean very little, for our two nations are not likely to war anytime soon. It'd be an expensive scare tactic, bad for you, and unremarkable for us, if we're smart.

The "simple fact" is a problem that requires change: political pressure on the allies, buildup of a Navy - instead of saying "well crap, we can't threaten them in the oceans now, so we never should!"

You can't afford it. You shouldn't work toward it now on more than the general level of improving naval training and shipbuilding, which would have general benefits. Worry about aviation later.

Bullcrap. No one ever said "fleet in being" is not a working principle. A stronger Navy with greater number of strongpoints will cause the other Navies to be more cautios in their "exploits". For example, if Russia would have a carrier group somewhere in the Mediterranean, quite a few thoughts would be crossing the minds of people who would be sending reinforcements to Georgia.

Do you think it's a worthwhile fear, this potential of a foreign taskforce in Georgia? You're telling me that Russia needs a navy to keep the U.S. from sending troops to the Caucasus? We weren't willing to stick our necks out for Georgia in the first place. We sent them 2,000 of their own men, whom we knew would make no difference, and then sent a hospital ship for purposes of showing solidarity to a people whom we want to like us. Fear of Russian retaliation? Waved aside as unrealistic.

You've begun creating miserable boogiemen to populate the dangerous world necessary to make a navy worthwhile. And you've selected Georgia. The real boogieman laughs at Georgia.

The collapse prevented it. Modern Russia is so far pretty stable, so engaging in a fleet programme now is important. Otherwise we will be even more lagging behind other powers. The 1980s tech base should be re-invigorated, and now we have the chance to do it.

Right now, you haven't the money.

I am not saying at all that Russia's strategic options would look worse with a stronger navy. I am saying that they haven't the money to justify that kind of ambition. Their priorities should lie elsewhere at a time like this one.

[K. A. Pital]

But it was nothing more than a bad hair day for the Russian military

If a proxy war erupted, the Army could be suffering heavy losses. Cutting off naval replenishment of the enemy would be hard without bombing the crap out of harbors with bombers, or naval aviation. The naval aviation however has flexibility for it can attack naval assets en route.

Except, in the United States, there were plenty of media outlets in newsprint that spoke to the opening Georgian offensive, while broadcast news keyed to it several days in

In print? Show me. There's all sorts of media which report anything they want in print in Russia likewise, no one just pays fucking attention. TV is the most important media channel. Tell me also how Russian government censors cesspits like "Echo of Moscow" or "Voice of America". No one just cares for those.

That's untrue. You want to mess with our shipping, during a war, not our communication.

"Communication lines" are shipping lines. Military assets transferred are considered logistical communications, and should be promtly sunk. Including military ships.

It'd be an expensive scare tactic, bad for you, and unremarkable for us, if we're smart.

"Scare tactic"? Why care? Just put the weapons where you like and watch the US scream bloody murder at... a perfectly legal act. Essentially, do the "ABM treaty" in reverse.

Do you think it's a worthwhile fear, this potential of a foreign taskforce in Georgia?

How about Ukraine? Baltic nations? Don't fucking tell me I should be just having a military "enough" to fight "the last war". Fighting the last war is not an option.

Right now, you haven't the money.

Says who, you? If a carrier costs several billion dollars to make and operate yearly, we could do that in several years. It would be costly, but it's doable. You're saying we "don't have the money" when fucking China and India, having less defense spending, are somehow entitled to have such weapons?

Yeah, India, China and Russia should all abandon building large Navies! Only the US has the right to a Navy since it needs it to protect it's imperialist ambitions over all continents, for ever and ever, AMEN.

[Shroom Man 777]

It's a long term ambition, Axis. It's not gonna happen today or tomorrow, but it's a goal that they are looking to fulfill over a period of time. Baby steps and all that.

[Axis Kast]

If a proxy war erupted, the Army could be suffering heavy losses. Cutting off naval replenishment of the enemy would be hard without bombing the crap out of harbors with bombers, or naval aviation. The naval aviation however has flexibility for it can attack naval assets en route.

If a proxy war developed, then, by definition, you’re not going to be dealing with the American Navy as a direct opponent.

In print? Show me. There's all sorts of media which report anything they want in print in Russia likewise, no one just pays fucking attention. TV is the most important media channel. Tell me also how Russian government censors cesspits like "Echo of Moscow" or "Voice of America". No one just cares for those.

How do you think I learned about it? Just go to McClatchy’s, or GlobalSecurity.com, and you can read all about Georgian initiation of the conflict.

Try Freedom House’s index on political freedom; Russia is declining markedly.

"Scare tactic"? Why care? Just put the weapons where you like and watch the US scream bloody murder at... a perfectly legal act. Essentially, do the "ABM treaty" in reverse.

If the United States takes the bait, which it didn’t during your recent naval exercises off the Venezuelan coast, and after announcement of the Iskander deployments. But, by all means. Spend money you don’t have to forward-deploy assets you won’t use.

How about Ukraine? Baltic nations? Don't fucking tell me I should be just having a military "enough" to fight "the last war". Fighting the last war is not an option.

Russia would never be able to sortie a large fleet out of the Baltic during wartime. The Black Sea, too. In other words, you’ve again described potential opponents better dealt with on land than at sea. Face it: the next iteration of your conflict with Georgia will not be decided by ownership of sea lanes; Russia already has mastery of those waters, and nothing will change. Heck, half of Georgia’s coastline was just lost de jure, probably irreversibly.

Says who, you? If a carrier costs several billion dollars to make and operate yearly, we could do that in several years. It would be costly, but it's doable. You're saying we "don't have the money" when fucking China and India, having less defense spending, are somehow entitled to have such weapons?

Have you been on vacation, without telling us? I already detailed why the Chinese have greater need for a blue-water force (they need to secure vital strategic imports and have a growing interest in the fate of direct investment and expatriate populations overseas). I acknowledged that India’s naval program is wasteful and unnecessary before you did.

But China has foreign currency to spare, and hasn’t just watched its budget evaporate. Moscow bet the farm on future oil revenues – and now faces an indeterminate winter period. That general condition of being short on cash is exacerbated, even overshadowed, by the generally piss-poor state of the Russian Army, which needs either to transition to an all-volunteer force, or to revamp its current practices, and could use modernization at all levels. And the Russian Navy is more urgently in need of better maintenance and new missile submarines, more than of a carrier or two. At least you can be contented by the fact that general investments in shipbuilding and training will carry over into any future plan for naval aviation. But now is certainly not the time to be doing more than thinking about big-ticket carrier acquisitions when so much else has been left undone.

[Kane Starkiller]

Um, if we can prevent the Russians from interfering with military ship traffic, it follows they will have no ability to interfere with commerical ship traffic either, and we don't even need the entire U.S. Navy to do that. As for "hostile Cuba", the more likely result is that Cuba gets occupied and there's isn't dick their military could do to prevent that, and it would occur far faster than the Russians could ever get reinforcements out to protect Cuba.

How does that follow? Warships protecting themselves is not the same as protecting commercial ships. Secondly US occupation of Cuba would be a godsend for Russians since it would occupy US resources for years to come and decrease US options in Eurasia.

Because you say so? The Russians have been able to dominate or intimidate their neighbours without having a blue-water navy, and the new NATO members don't have the force to stop any Russian effort to interdict them or even seize territory for buffer space. Meanwhile, the equation inside Russia proper still applies, and they've not only got a very large army but also a very large air force to back that equation up. Strategically, it makes more sense to make any attempt at conquest by land as costly and draining as possible. Russia's strategy is based on the fact that they have no significant overseas committments or necessary sources of import goods to have to protect. That is why a blue-water navy has never been a high priority for Russia and even the fleet the Soviet Union fielded was designed as a deterrent rather than for power-projection. Their form of global power-projection has been in the form of the threat carried by their strategic nuclear forces —which still exist and is another reason why no war with Russia is ever going to reach the stage of one power attempting to physically conquer the other. Which also obviates against the alleged pressing need for a U.S. style blue-water navy.

How have the Russians been able to dominate their neighbors when they have been suffering invasion after invasion? They pulled through but not without massive losses. Look at Mexico and Canada for examples of dominated and intimidated neighbors.
The usual road to power is to completely dominate all neighbors, like US did, and then develop a large navy for global dominance. Russia never managed this, it's land borders are still insecure so they can't concentrate completely on a large navy. But that also doesn't mean they should completely ignore it and leave US on the offensive.
The fact that recent NATO members are not all that tough militarily is not the issue, that they are US allies which were formerly USSR allies or parts of USSR territory is.
The important thing to understand is that Russian "land buffer strategy" is used not because Russians find it optimal but because they couldn't come up with anything better due to geography and that it should be expanded upon when opportunity arises. After all US navy itself makes a buffer out of Atlantic and Pacific.
Similarly you seem to be saying that Russian lack of overseas allies is actually some kind of clever Russian strategy as opposed a symptom of Russian weakness and US strength.
In the end you seem to come up with a very odd conclusion: that instead of reaching outwards and building an array of alliances similar to US Russia should actually bunker up inside it's own borders and wait for a completely secure US to come and keep poking at Ukraine and Georgia.

[Axis Kast]

How does that follow? Warships protecting themselves is not the same as protecting commercial ships.

Because U.S. warships wouldn't just sit around waiting for the Russians to attack.

You're forgetting that in any wartime scenario, the United States would be able to rely also on allied navies for things like convoy duty and anti-submarine support. That means that the USN can "go a-hunting" for Russian squadrons.

Secondly US occupation of Cuba would be a godsend for Russians since it would occupy US resources for years to come and decrease US options in Eurasia.

The Cubans would gain very little from any strategic compact with Russia. Even the thought of occupation or punishment during a war with the United States would prevent them from blundering into a new alliance in the first place.

How have the Russians been able to dominate their neighbors when they have been suffering invasion after invasion? They pulled through but not without massive losses. Look at Mexico and Canada for examples of dominated and intimidated neighbors.

Canada? Dominated? Intimidated? You can invent your opinions, sir, but not your facts and evidence.

Russia is no stranger to invasion, but very recently had reduced Eastern Europe to vassalage in spite of it. Today, Russia continues to play a more frankly imperial role in Central Asian affairs than does the United States in Canadian.

The usual road to power is to completely dominate all neighbors, like US did, and then develop a large navy for global dominance. Russia never managed this, it's land borders are still insecure so they can't concentrate completely on a large navy. But that also doesn't mean they should completely ignore it and leave US on the offensive.

It helps that the United States has only two landward neighbors, despite spanning much of a continent. We have what might be called built-in strategic advantage.

But the Russians have much more important spending priorities than building a navy that can really be used only for coastal defense. The truth is that even four carrier groups, two in the Atlantic, one in the Mediterranean, and one in the Pacific, would probably not spare Russia from the effects of an embargo on its oceangoing trade, because the United States Navy would still bring more to bear in any one engagement. Really, Russia would have to rely on neighbors like China or Europe to continue servicing its economy in spite of American maneuvering.

The important thing to understand is that Russian "land buffer strategy" is used not because Russians find it optimal but because they couldn't come up with anything better due to geography and that it should be expanded upon when opportunity arises. After all US navy itself makes a buffer out of Atlantic and Pacific.

When it possesses no likely enemies within its own hemisphere.

Similarly you seem to be saying that Russian lack of overseas allies is actually some kind of clever Russian strategy as opposed a symptom of Russian weakness and US strength.

No; we're saying that it's a symptom of Russia's traditional search for foreign allies at its own doorstep or very near to it; of preexisting factors that favor the hegemony of other parties in regions where the Russians might "pick up" allies; of the weakness or hostility of the nations that might one day matter as potential strategic partners (Venezuela doesn't make the grade); and of Russia's independent wealth in strategic resources.

In the end you seem to come up with a very odd conclusion: that instead of reaching outwards and building an array of alliances similar to US Russia should actually bunker up inside it's own borders and wait for a completely secure US to come and keep poking at Ukraine and Georgia.

We come up with a very simple recommendation: get your own house, and then your own block, and then your own neighborhood, in order before you contemplate competing with those who carry enormous advantages because they don't face the same structural challenges that will cripple a blue-water navy is built today. You are advocating that Russia begin building a house on a foundation that is blatantly cracked and faltering.

[Kane Starkiller]

Because U.S. warships wouldn't just sit around waiting for the Russians to attack.

You're forgetting that in any wartime scenario, the United States would be able to rely also on allied navies for things like convoy duty and anti-submarine support. That means that the USN can "go a-hunting" for Russian squadrons.

First the scenario here is putting commercial shipping at risk in US back yard not starting an all out war. Secondly US can indeed employ it's navy to counter which brings us back to the original point: they would need to divert resources to maintain security over an area which is currently under no threat and which happens to be US back yard thus has a much greater priority.

The Cubans would gain very little from any strategic compact with Russia. Even the thought of occupation or punishment during a war with the United States would prevent them from blundering into a new alliance in the first place.

I was talking about Russian motives for sending the fleet into the Carribean and seeking alliances there. Whether Cuba will accept is another matter. It certainly isn't as blindly anti american as during cold war.

Canada? Dominated? Intimidated? You can invent your opinions, sir, but not your facts and evidence.

Russia is no stranger to invasion, but very recently had reduced Eastern Europe to vassalage in spite of it. Today, Russia continues to play a more frankly imperial role in Central Asian affairs than does the United States in Canadian.

Canada is completely integrated into US military through NORAD and that is not an opinion. It can only independently operate in limited ways and that excludes any strategic partnerships with say China or Russia. Secondly I was only commenting on the amount of control US has over it's neighborhood not on the morality of how the control was established.

It helps that the United States has only two landward neighbors, despite spanning much of a continent. We have what might be called built-in strategic advantage.

But the Russians have much more important spending priorities than building a navy that can really be used only for coastal defense. The truth is that even four carrier groups, two in the Atlantic, one in the Mediterranean, and one in the Pacific, would probably not spare Russia from the effects of an embargo on its oceangoing trade, because the United States Navy would still bring more to bear in any one engagement. Really, Russia would have to rely on neighbors like China or Europe to continue servicing its economy in spite of American maneuvering.

That US hit a geographic jackpot is not under question and in fact I never said that Russia will be successful in it's plans. In fact geographically their only useful coastlines are White Sea and Sea of Japan. Pathetic really compared to US coastline but it's all Russians have to work with.

No; we're saying that it's a symptom of Russia's traditional search for foreign allies at its own doorstep or very near to it; of preexisting factors that favor the hegemony of other parties in regions where the Russians might "pick up" allies; of the weakness or hostility of the nations that might one day matter as potential strategic partners (Venezuela doesn't make the grade); and of Russia's independent wealth in strategic resources.

This is true of any power. US first either conquered all neighbors like annexing half of Mexico and then made sure both Canada and Mexico are it's allies before expanding further. The fact that Russians seek foreign allies at their doorstep is not some kind of unique strategy but a consequence of the fact that Russians have not managed to dominate or secure all countries on their borders. If they did they would move further outward.
Again that geography favors US over Russia is obvious but that doesn't mean that Russia should just roll over and take it from the rear.

We come up with a very simple recommendation: get your own house, and then your own block, and then your own neighborhood, in order before you contemplate competing with those who carry enormous advantages because they don't face the same structural challenges that will cripple a blue-water navy is built today. You are advocating that Russia begin building a house on a foundation that is blatantly cracked and faltering.

The assumption, of course, is that you'll be left alone while you are doing it. Russia isn't being left alone: it's periphery is constantly being influenced by US. As long as Russia is fighting a defensive action of repelling US encroachment on it's borders while leaving US neighborhood completely secure it has little hope of victory.

[Axis Kast]

First the scenario here is putting commercial shipping at risk in US back yard not starting an all out war.

Without a war or near-war scenario, there is no threat to commercial shipping posed by Russian naval forces in the Caribbean. In the event of war or near-war, the United States would react to neutralize the threat.

The diversion of resources to meet a Russian fleet presence is less than you have foreseen. First, the United States can raise the cost of Russian diplomatic success by arm-twisting those nations that it courts as its hosts or regional proxies. Second, the Russians would be distracting one carrier group, at best, whereas the United States would begin with (at least) more than twice the number of battle groups. The duration of the diversion would be short, and there is little expectation that the Russians could achieve total victory, for their squadrons will doubtless be smaller, and their carriers embarking fewer aircraft, than American ships. In other words, an expensive boondoggle.

I was talking about Russian motives for sending the fleet into the Carribean and seeking alliances there

What you propose here sounds like some misguided voyage of discovery. “Let us weigh anchor, Sergei, and see if we can find ourselves some allies!” That isn’t how it works. First, one locates the places where one has a strategic interest. Then, one builds the fleet to take advantage of it.

Canada is completely integrated into US military through NORAD and that is not an opinion. It can only independently operate in limited ways and that excludes any strategic partnerships with say China or Russia. Secondly I was only commenting on the amount of control US has over it's neighborhood not on the morality of how the control was established.

I doubt there are any Canadians sitting up across the border waiting for an invasion. Or pining for the freedom to negotiate strategic compacts with either the Chinese or the Russians.

That US hit a geographic jackpot is not under question and in fact I never said that Russia will be successful in it's plans. In fact geographically their only useful coastlines are White Sea and Sea of Japan. Pathetic really compared to US coastline but it's all Russians have to work with.

Even less reason for them to build a navy. More reason that we have made such investments that don’t apply easily to the Russians as they search for practical justification.

The fact that Russians seek foreign allies at their doorstep is not some kind of unique strategy but a consequence of the fact that Russians have not managed to dominate or secure all countries on their borders. If they did they would move further outward.

But they have not, and it would be prudent to take the handful that is closer, rather than those farther away and less certain.

Again that geography favors US over Russia is obvious but that doesn't mean that Russia should just roll over and take it from the rear.

That is a false dichotomy. And especially insulting when you have not yet explained how a navy will help Russia from “taking it in the rear” in the actual and unlikely event of a major war.

Russia isn't being left alone: it's periphery is constantly being influenced by US. As long as Russia is fighting a defensive action of repelling US encroachment on it's borders while leaving US neighborhood completely secure it has little hope of victory.

It has absolutely no hope of victory if it can’t even keep its submarine fleet operational, and with an Army that is plagued by organizational malfunction and equipment shortcomings.

[Kane Starkiller]

Without a war or near-war scenario, there is no threat to commercial shipping posed by Russian naval forces in the Caribbean. In the event of war or near-war, the United States would react to neutralize the threat.

The diversion of resources to meet a Russian fleet presence is less than you have foreseen. First, the United States can raise the cost of Russian diplomatic success by arm-twisting those nations that it courts as its hosts or regional proxies. Second, the Russians would be distracting one carrier group, at best, whereas the United States would begin with (at least) more than twice the number of battle groups. The duration of the diversion would be short, and there is little expectation that the Russians could achieve total victory, for their squadrons will doubtless be smaller, and their carriers embarking fewer aircraft, than American ships. In other words, an expensive boondoggle.

First of all if there is a military presence from an adversarial power there is a threat. In case of a war that threat actually materializes. Secondly it takes much less of a military force to put an area under threat than it takes to provide protection to the shipping routes and oil platforms in the gulf. Both of these facts would necessitate that US increases it's attention in the Carribean.

What you propose here sounds like some misguided voyage of discovery. “Let us weigh anchor, Sergei, and see if we can find ourselves some allies!” That isn’t how it works. First, one locates the places where one has a strategic interest. Then, one builds the fleet to take advantage of it.

Ortega and Chavez made it perfectly clear they're game for another round with US. Cuba is much less clear although recent Russian show of force couldn't have hurt.

I doubt there are any Canadians sitting up across the border waiting for an invasion. Or pining for the freedom to negotiate strategic compacts with either the Chinese or the Russians.

Let them try. We'll see what happens.

Even less reason for them to build a navy. More reason that we have made such investments that don’t apply easily to the Russians as they search for practical justification.

They don't have all the reasons US does for building a navy but other reasons still exists: power projection, ally protection.

But they have not, and it would be prudent to take the handful that is closer, rather than those farther away and less certain.

Why have their cruisers rot in Archangelsk when they could be used to create uncertainty on US doorstep?

That is a false dichotomy. And especially insulting when you have not yet explained how a navy will help Russia from “taking it in the rear” in the actual and unlikely event of a major war.

By demonstrating to US that they too can thinker in other peoples back yard. That helping Georgia might have consequences that involve the security of the Caribbean. US won't be as eager to push things it's way in Ukraine and Georgia if Russia has ships stationed a few hundred miles from it's oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico.

It has absolutely no hope of victory if it can’t even keep its submarine fleet operational, and with an Army that is plagued by organizational malfunction and equipment shortcomings.

No one said they should try to match the US navy or lose any sense of priorities but try and make it's navy useful instead of running around in White Sea.