Chokidar | 06 Jan 2017 3:01 a.m. PST |
if she could be sailed through the Bosphoros? C |
Mako11 | 06 Jan 2017 3:10 a.m. PST |
I believe so. IIRC, she, and/or one of her sister ships was based/built in the Black Sea, decades ago. |
Chokidar | 06 Jan 2017 3:38 a.m. PST |
I had that vague recollection too. I was wondering what the chances were that Vlad the Lad ups the ante and sends her to Sebastapol – along with the majority of the battle group. Surprised he did not wait until Jan 21 before making the call though. |
fantasque | 06 Jan 2017 6:24 a.m. PST |
I wonder if the real reason for her withdrawal is that they are running out of supplies or that important gear has broken down and can't be repaired at sea. Any rumours / reports to that effect? |
Chokidar | 06 Jan 2017 6:40 a.m. PST |
If that is the case – Sebastopol is a lot closer than where she started out from. |
Los456 | 06 Jan 2017 9:16 a.m. PST |
Or the Russians are conducting a drawn down, having seen Allepo fall and not wanting to be drawn into the inevitable endless quagmire. Go in , smash, rinse, repeat as necessary. |
Lion in the Stars | 06 Jan 2017 11:17 a.m. PST |
Yes, the Kuznetzov can transit the Bosporus. Parking her in the Black Sea is actually good in terms of protection: Submarines don't want to transit the Bosporus, there are all sorts of freaky currents and layers of fresh and salt water in there. |
Mako11 | 06 Jan 2017 3:55 p.m. PST |
Like Putin and Russia really honor any "treaties". Only the other side does that, usually to their detriment. |
Charlie 12 | 06 Jan 2017 7:08 p.m. PST |
Sorry, mako, this may upset your overly simplistic POV, but the Russians have been very strict in adhering to the Montreaux Treaty. It benefits them as much as anyone else. |
Mako11 | 07 Jan 2017 10:09 p.m. PST |
Perhaps that one, but not for many, many others, e.g.: Ukraine giving up its nukes in exchange for false "security" promises after which Putin invaded and annexed Crimea, and his forces/proxy forces are currently occupying a good portion of Eastern Ukraine; Conventional Forces in Europe; ABM Treaty – SA-5 has anti-ballistic missile capabilities; and the 1987 Nuclear Missile Treaty agreement not to test long-range cruise missiles. |
David Manley | 08 Jan 2017 3:06 a.m. PST |
"Only the other side does that" Dream on….. |
Charlie 12 | 08 Jan 2017 8:37 p.m. PST |
1987 Nuclear Missile Treaty agreement not to test long-range cruise missiles. Russia formerly withdrew from the INF treaty in 2007, BEFORE the missile you mentioned was operational. And there was nothing in the treaty re: development. Russia decided to withdraw as a result of the changing environment in Asia (specifically China). ABM Treaty – SA-5 has anti-ballistic missile capabilities SA-5 is primarily a AA weapon, the ABM capability was secondary (and pretty weak, at that). So that was exempt from the ABM treaty. And as for "Only the other side does that" (violate treaties): You do remember Reagan's SDI program? That was SEVERELY criticized for violating the treaty. And Reagan didn't even have the courtesy to withdraw from the treaty (at least the US did that when the BMD went online). |
Deadles | 08 Jan 2017 9:52 p.m. PST |
Montreux treaty is perfect for Russians – it means USN can't deploy much more than a destroyer to the Black Sea. It gives the Russians the ability to control the Black Sea with a much smaller fleet. Luckily for them, the only potential higher end adversary are the Turks, whose large navy is mainly directed at the Greeks on the other side of the Bosphorous. |
Charlie 12 | 08 Jan 2017 9:57 p.m. PST |
it means USN can't deploy much more than a destroyer to the Black Sea. Deploying anything larger than a DD in the Black Sea would be suicidal and idiotic (even a DD is pretty damn stupid). And so what if the Black Sea is a Russian lake (which its been for at least the last 70+ years). And that has what kind of strategic impact? NONE… Big deal… |