Russian Carrier Group Heads for Mediterranean!

Hi There,

I think there is a little too much of under-estimation of Russian capability going on here...let us not forget that they are a large nuclear-armed country, and in that respect equal to America's nuclear arsenal. Of course, their weaponry is not as accurate as the US's, but what they lose in accuracy, they make up for in yeild and payload.

Russia's current stance is bourne out of the idiotic American plan of encircling the Balkan area with missile systems and batteries, which by any stretch of the imagination, is a threat to Russia. Somehow, I conceive there is a link between the deployment of American missiles, the grab for energy resources, and the Kosovo issue. I doubt very much that the missile systems have anything whatsoever to do with the threat of terrorism and rogue states, it is a first-line defence initiative for the infrastructure bringing energy resources to America. The Russians have every right to take offence to their deployment, especially when America decreed Russian missles in Cuba as being unacceptable. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Putin has already stated that 'any attack on Iran will be viewed as an attack on Moscow'.

I have not seen anything of this statement by Putin regarding Iran, so if possible, could anyone show a source for it? Of course, Russia does deal with Iran regarding its energy needs, so does China, so even if Putin has not made such a statement, I would not think it too far off the mark that they would consider an attack upon Iran as being an attack upon a source of their energy. If Israel were to bomb Iran, it would need to be quite clinical and precise, so as to destroy the nuclear reactors, but not to touch anything of their ability to supply energy sources to their customers. All the variables lead to a interconnection of 'reasons' whereby conflict would begin and widen quite rapidly.

The Kosovo issue is the thing to watch. I agree with the earlier post whereby Russian military would find itself 'invited' into the Serbian country to bolster the Serbian guard. Once this occurs, I see it as a one-way street to an inevitable war with Nato first, and then America by association...and that is when you'll witness the use of nukes..and then of course, it is all over!

This is a big thorny problem that requires very essential diplomacy and political compromise. Alas, there is very little diplomacy being displayed at the moment, only a jockeying of military power, as the pieces are put in place (like a chess game) readying for the big push. It's not easy to read the signs, it is all to easy to misinterpret them, but with Kosovo, things are a little more clear cut, more defined. We'll eventually come to understand the road we're on if we see an assassination attempt or success against Albanian politicians. That could be the spark to ignite the conflict, and we are not talking of something far away, but almost right here, right now. The immediate future does not seem to bode too well for everyone. We have got to find a way to draw back from the course that countries are currently taking, but at the moment it does not look likely. I wish it were otherwise.

Best wishes

Originally posted by elysiumfire
I think there is a little too much of under-estimation of Russian capability going on here...let us not forget that they are a large nuclear-armed country, and in that respect equal to America's nuclear arsenal. Of course, their weaponry is not as accurate as the US's, but what they lose in accuracy, they make up for in yeild and payload.

Nobody is using any nukes. If, and that is an if - Russia decided to come in and help Serbia, it will be a message to US to back off and play in its own playground in Middle East. But what about all the international peacekeepers in Kosovo? Will Russia force them to leave, or will there be confrontation?

The issue at hand is why does US and NATO continue to push their moronic Kosovo agenda, and are rushing it through as fast as possible. These things cannot be rushed. All Russia and Serbia wants is more time. Serbia already said that it is willing to give Kosovo political independence, but to have it technically remain a part of Serbia's land. Serbia IS willing to compromise and has shown it on numerous occasions. Albanians on the other hand have not made any compromise, and want unconditional independence and control of the territory.

There are no if's but's or's - US must back off with this independence bull**** right now. Any longer, and Albanians will start thinking that they already have independence, and there is no turning back - another Balkan war will break out. Why is this issue not being discussed in US and Europe? This is the foundation of a war. What is really the American agenda there - because it surely cannot be peace? Why is the US doing this? Russia is hoping that its presence will make NATO change its ming and give Serbia more time.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
The Russians have every right to take offence to their deployment, especially when America decreed Russian missles in Cuba as being unacceptable.

Everytime Russia protests the missile shield, or does something to counter NATO's growing military presence in Eastern Europe (new balistic missiles, canceling of Cold War treaties), it gets accused by Europe of being a dictatorship and planning to invade the world. The Western propaganda machine is truly working in brainwashing the majority - better than any dictatorship or communists could hope to. When will the majority start to think and see that NATO and US are not working on the War on Terror. They are working on what comes after the WOT - namely stronger Russia. And their actions result in Russia only speeding up its military resurgence.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Of course, Russia does deal with Iran regarding its energy needs, so does China, so even if Putin has not made such a statement, I would not think it too far off the mark that they would consider an attack upon Iran as being an attack upon a source of their energy.

Russia does not use Iran's energy. It doesn't need to because it has more energy than it would ever need itself. Russian relations with Iran are not about energy - they are about the US - as in "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". The only reason Russia is strengthening ties with Iran, is to get back at US for NATO's actions in Eastern Europe and yugoslavia.

If Iran is attacked, Russia would likely not get involved directly, but it could cut diplomatic ties with the US, and send Iran such goodies like the S-300 and S-400 - which would render US air assets useless. Russia could help Iran win a military conflict without ever getting directly involved.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Once this occurs, I see it as a one-way street to an inevitable war with Nato first, and then America by association...

NATO would not start anything. Think of how it will go. Serbian troops move in mass into Serbian parts of Kosovo. Small contingents of Russian troops move in with Serbs. NATO knowing the Russians are there, lets them all through. The Serbs take up key positions in Serbian portions of Kosovo, and refuse to leave. Albanians start rioting in masses, and if they get through NATO blockades and attack Serbs, the Serbian military (with Rusisan cover) will counterattack. NATO meanwhile patiently watches and whines, and eventually leaves. And Albanians are right back where they started, only this time realizing that their arrogant independence movement will not be backed by the West, and they should either abandon it or sleep with the likes of Chechens and other opportunist bunches.

If NATO troops make a mistake of attacking Russian contingents however, than you got a war. NATO planners are morons (who look in the future only so far as their own actions go, and ignore the resulting actions of others like Russia), but I doubt the degree of their idiocy is so substantial as to lead to something like this.

reply to post by elysiumfire


Take the sources for what they are..
"Attack on Iran will be veiwed as an attack on Moscow"
Asia Times
Though it is hard to find the quote through "credible" websites
Credible web site : P

Many analysts agree that his statements directly to the press were a veiled threat against any type of US or NATO attack on Iran directly.
Some of the articles take it as a quote from a high level aid in the Putin administration. If you look at the numerous statements that came out of the Oct 16 th conference you get a pretty darn clear picture of what was being "said" when Russia invited Iran to a summit such as this.

As far as Serbia goes..one can only wonder what the braintrust that runs the EU and NATO could be thinking about here. Russia has always been pretty adamant about protecting Mother Russia's Children. The idea that NATO is considering providing assistance to breaking up Serbia (which is what this independence would be) is absurd. Especially since Serbia has already offered the Albanians (I think, hard to keep track anymore) autonomy within Serbia. All people should be free to form whatever state they please, but...

Also. While I am not of the sort who thinks we are on the verge of a massive world war we must remind all of the detractors that it would not be an ATS forum WITHOUT someone or many someone's predicting the end of the world


[edit on 10-12-2007 by Tinhatman]

[edit on 10-12-2007 by Tinhatman]

reply to post by maloy


I think you are entirely overestimating the deterring affect such a (see uncertain) move by Russia would have on NATO. For one thing we would also deploy troops and assets, once again in neighboring countries (particularly Albania). NATO soldiers will also take and hold key positions in Kosovo while US financially and military backed rebel forces led by both military special forces and civilian intelligence attacks Russian soldiers and interests. That's assuming we don't preempt any such deployment with our own forces. Anyway, one thing is for certain, at least to me, I don't foresee either side backing out and simply leaving, no matter what happens. You may think Russia cares more about the situation than NATO but this is now considered out backyard and everyone will be well aware of the political, historical, military and strategic implications of pulling out.

reply to post by WestPoint23


NATO may have more power, but it does not have more authority in Serbia than Serbian government or Russia. Remember - Kosovo is still Serbia. Serbia technically makes decisions in the region. If NATO decides to go against Serbia's decisions to protect its homeland, than it can be seen as an act of aggression against Serbia (second act of aggression, counting the first war). NATO may see Yugoslavia as its backyard, but no one except Albanians wants NATO there. Serbia is not and will not be part of NATO's. Greece, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Slovakia all stand behind Serbia and are currently against independent Albania.

In fact I think that NATO wants to get out of Kosovo - that is why it is pushing for this independence so quick. US has more important things to worry abount in Mid East, and all Kosovo is doing is eating into NATO's budget. What does NATO stand to gain in Kosovo? They already accomplished what they wanted - disintegration of Serbia, separation of Republika Srpska and Montenegro. It's not like Albania or Kosovo are major allies of NATO. They care about NATO only so far as to get independence, and NATO cares about them only so far as to break apart pro-Russian Serbia.

Whether NATO will refuse to allow Russia to help Serbia I don't know. But I do not see what makes Kosovo so important for them to risk a major conflict. And poor NATO need not despair - it still has its new Eastern European puppets to dress up with missiles and military installations and such. Isn't Eastern Europe enough for know? NATO wants too much on its plate, and just like the US the result will be that it will choke on what it has, and Russia will take any chance it has to sour things up for NATO.



And NATO did back off Ukraine if you remember, when Crimea threatened with military and civilian action with Russia's backing against NATO exercises there. I think NATO has already gone too far East, and going any further will provoke Russia to start a new Cold War, and with good justifications too. However powerful NATO may be, it should remember that it is not alone in Europe, and any action today may come back and haunt it in the future. If NATO continues this 'I am King of Hill" arrogance, it will get to a point where direct confrontation is the only outcome.

Hi There,

What I offered with my opinion in my earlier post were merely plausible suppositions, I do not think any of us can second-guess the intentions, or raison detres of politicians and their machinations. To be sure, we can look at the current way Russia has taken seemingly proactive steps of a military activism which it hasn't sanctioned since the Berlin wall came down.

The UK has over the last year on a number of occasions had to send up fighter jets to intercept Russian fighters approaching UK airspace. They never entered UK airspace, but turned around on the approach of UK fighters in a kind of cat-and-mouse game. I am unsure as to whether UK fighters fly out towards Russian airspace in order to trouble the Russian airforce to scramble their jets?
The point being is that Russia has begun to take a more muscle-flexing attitude with the West...and that is (imo) down to the planned deployment of the American missile systems.

I agree that Russia's relationship with Iran is not about 'energy' in terms of Iran supplying Russia. Further investigation on my part has bourne this out bringing me to agreement on this with Maloy, and further agreeing on the concern of Russia as that of American hegemony...not the population, but the government administration's design on future expansionism into countries historically related to Russia; one such concern is that of the missile systems to be deployed in the satellite countries surrounding Russia

The extra curricular military activism being displayed by Russia is the start of that country drawing lines in the political sphere. They have put up with a lot of American expansionism, but it is encroaching now in areas which Russia may well feel historically obligated towards...Serbia and Kosovo being one linked issue. Russia is taking similar hegemonistic steps, smaller and less wide-ranging, than that of America. In other words, it is looking at its own interests. However, this could still bring it into conflict with America. It looks like Russia has plans to open up the naval bases it once had with Syria (Tartus), in order to give a safeguard to that country.

My point was a concern for the areas where Russia and America would end up rubbing against each other in securing their own interests, and we all know that rubbing things together generates heat. Although, no one is using nukes, and I never said or suggested they were, the potential for their use always becomes a raised risk whenever Russia and America come into conflict over some issue which strains relations between them...and currently, relations are strained due to the planned missle deployment: hence the raised military activism by Russia.

Meanwhile, China certainly is supplied or to be supplied energy sources from Iran, as per the $100 billion gas deal recently signed between the two countries. I am sure China would not like to see Iran attacked whereby it would be unable to fulfill this deal. As I stated earlier, the variables are many, and are not easy to interpret.

Best wishes

reply to post by mel1962


Putin...lol Sounds like the sort of name a gay Pornstar would choose.

Seriousely though, this guy is trying to take back Russias Glory Days.

Problem is, most of their hardware is old & out of date. Russia hasn't got the resources they once had & are starting to fall behind.

I wouldn't even be surprised if their Nukes could'nt even clear the launch Bays..hehehe

Posturing, is all this guy is doing.

It is really amazing how much blithe assurance people seem to have that Russia is bluffing and can't hack it militarilly anymore... Bottom line is we're losing against a bunch of lightly funded and horribly trained amateurs. We are logistically beyond stretched thin and have made several disastrously bad procurement decisions in the last 20 years. Something to keep in mind is we can't afford to build our equipment enmasse like during ww2.... RUSSIA CAN.

Remember it was the Germans who built small numbers of extraordinarilly expensive equipment. And they lost, just something to think about.

good debate we have going on here guys, keep it up, thoroughly interetsing and enjoyable.

I too agree that many are underestimating Russias military scope and ability.

One "major" thing I think we should consider here is that Russias economy is not stretch to the point of breakage and recesssion as the US economy is.

The US economy is in massive debt, and if any number of nations withdraw the use of US currency, then the dollars value will go into free fall.......how will America fight a large scale war (theoretically) if their finances suddenly go down the toilet??

Originally posted by maloy
It is in pretty run down shape. Also Russia never really had a focus on operating carriers, and is not nearly as proficient at it as the US is. I don't believe that the Kuznetsov crew even has any real experience because other than non-intensive training it has never been utilized much.

Ahh, but that's exactly what I said; there's nothing inherently wrong with the carrier per say.
The problems maybe due to Russian carrier deck inexperience and obviously the lack of a long and illustrious carrier operation history like the USN, RN etc have.
I do not think the carrier currently suffers from lack a of funds. Again I did mention that this must have been the case in the early 90s but I doubt its the same now.
The only lack is experience, and that's just got to be made up by more carrier operations (like this one).

Sure the jets can take off and provide air-presence and carry out basic operations, but the few jets it has is barely enough to pose and legitimate threat. All it is, is basic emergency air-presence.

I contest that. Unless they're flying duds on that carrier, any CAP of 4-5 fighters(here Su-33Ks) can constitue a formidable threat to any opponent purely because of the capability the a/c has in terms of:

1)Internal Fuel Range
2)Anti-shipping loadout
3)Air Defence loadout

Sure the CVNs may have tenfold the number of a/c, but if they launch a numerical superiority(a dozen or more) in reponse to say 4-5 Russian jets in CAP, then the Russians would already have proven their point.
The deal is that no one is going to actually go and try to play 'I sunk your battleship/carrier' here and that fact itself levels the playing field.

It has a history of several accidents during non-intensive training. I seriously doubt the crew is as trained and prepared for operations as on US carriers. And this a first true Cold War and post-Cold War carrier for Russia, while US had experience with dozens during that time.

I've heard on one where they lost a plane whic hjust ran off the deck.. to be expected.. I believe it was their first loss.

I have seen Kuznetsov once and its condition is far from immpresive. As I said - Russian and Soviet naval forces were also focused on defense, and counterstrike in case of a nuclear exchange.

when did you see it and can you elaborate on your disappointment?
I am wondering what your measurement criteria were.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Yes, It was meant to be a escort for strategic sub forces. Infac the whole Soviet Naval doctrine centered around their strategic arm.
One hopes(for them) that they now move beyond that narrow approach.

Navy has historically been the most costly to build and operate among the Soviet military forces. It is far cheaper and more effective to focus on building land-based systems like Topol M and tanks, and aircraft like Tu-160, than ships. Russian military budget is still strained, so money is allocated according to priorities, and a naval force is the lesser priority. Russia wants the sea base in Syria not to accomodate new ships, but to accommodate existing ships from Crimea.

Let me assure you that the Topol-M and Tu-160 aren't "cheap" in any any!
The Russian(rather soviet) naval approach has been less costly than the American. yes, but it was a completely different doctrine.

As far as I know Russia is building several small submarines and navy ships right now. Some have recently become operational. But it has no hopes of matching or competing with the US in the seas anymore, except for submarines. US just has too much of a lead.

Some of them aren't so small. The quantitative comparision cannot be done, Agreed.
Although Russia also has an enduring naval strategy of arming 'American non-allies' around the world thus indirectly ensuring the prevention of US naval superiority in those areas..but thats a whole new topic

But Russia is very capable on the seas. My grandfather was a navy officer in Crimea. I was very lucky to see these monsters on live training exercises in Crimea a few times:

www.fas.org...

I could see their staging area and hangars from my house. I wonder what happened to them since.

Off on Putin-initiated patrols maybe?

True, but with Russia's focus on missile systems it might just as well be converted into a floating arsenal of missiles and abandon its carrier role altogether. That is what it pretty much is now. A floating arsenal with an air wing to back it up.

Thats just it.. Its a dual-role, and it doesn't need to abondon one to fit into the other.

One can only hope. As exciting as it would be the world today is reduced to political bickering. I am sure both US and Russian pilots would dream of a chance to engage each other just for a test of skills and machines.

All of us here hope the same!!

Putin may not care that much about Iran. It may be that he cares more about the U.S. gaining one more foothold in the Middle East region.

I am not sure if there is a link to Serbia and Kosovo. One thing you might want to consider is how these areas contributed to and may have even caused WWI and WWII in Europe.

Don't underestimate the Bear. The bear sleeps in winter, but becomes dangerous during the summer. They have claws and the claws are nuclear tipped. We may beat Russia in conventenal warfare, but nuclear warfare is no win game everyone loses. You look into Putin's eyes and there is a coldness there that is scary. He just might do it.

Eventually Ezekiel 37 and 38 may come to pass. Gog and Magog may align with Persians and it could get hairy...................

In the last six months I have noticed a change in Russian foreign policy, and its drive to develop weapons and push there influence in the world.
After the demise of the Soviet Union(end of 91) we all know their military headed downhill from there, they were even challanged in Chechnya in a civil war type conflict in 1994.
And by 1998 they were so broke that they defaulted on there debt so they had no more money to build and buy weapons.

They now have big oil money flowing in, which means they have money to build up there armed forces again

However it now seems that the Russian bear is saying we were hibernating for 15 years and now we are back.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by Blue_Jay33]

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
However it now seems that the Russian bear is saying we were hibernating for 15 years and now we are back.

Deploying 11 ships and flying a couple of aged Bears does not say they are back to me.

It would take several of these groups getting underway before I am convinced that they can support their ships again. Then they will have to demonstrate that they still know how to use them correctly. Finally, I would like to see them test shoot some missiles. That would require busting the rust loose from their launchers.

Ah.....it seems the gobal politics of the 1980's have returned! Russia is trying to get back into being the 2nd world power (over China) and pushing forth their form of Government leninism/stalinism, just as the US and free countries do.

Kosovo would be another 'feather-in-the-cap' for democracy and another loss for commuunism/leninism/stalinism.

Originally posted by ferretman2
Kosovo would be another 'feather-in-the-cap' for democracy and another loss for commuunism/leninism/stalinism.

I wasn't aware Russia or any European sovereign entity (with the exception of Belarus which is but a theme park of the good old days) is currently classified as either Communist / Leninist / Stalinist. With the Communist Party in Russia holding but 8% of the votes, I fail to comprehend how you or anyone else is able to perceive them as possessing any sort of power. Or maybe they are running things from behind a curtain as NWO? Zyuganov might be pleasantly surprised in this case. On the other hand if you think Putin's United Russia party has something in common with Communism, then you might want to let the capitalist opportunists and pro-open-market economists who are running the party know that they are in the wrong place.

Or maybe it is some other "Communists" everyone is talking about. Maybe the West is aware of some behind-the-curtain organization of Leninist and Stalinist zombies running Russia on a collision course with U.S. That is - when the said Leninist and Stalinist zombies are not fighting each due to paramount differences in their ideologies - the knowledge of which would ideally prevent people from grouping them all together into this "alliance of evil communists of the world" ahead of time. But... boogemen will remain boogeymen, and people will continue dreaming of imaginable enemies as a method of making the comprehension of world events more plausible.

The communist's still have a foothold in Russia despite the camaflouge.
I realize Putin is setting himself up as a dicator and is using free enterprise to strengthen his empire. How could his background in communism and KGB training not influence his thinking. He may call it something else now, but the communist way of doing things it definitely in the Physcee.

Sure the communists economic system does not work, but the power structure still exists. It would be a mistake to think former communist do not have an influence in Russia. We still have the remnants of cold war thinking and it still effects politics in America. Many of the younger population in America did not experience the cold war. It has had an effect on many in my generation. We have lived in a sheltered environment in America and sometimes we do not understand the real world. The real world ain't so nice.

Bears are especially provoked when someone messes with their young. She considers Kosovo and Serbia her cubs.

Originally posted by royalblood
The communist's still have a foothold in Russia despite the camaflouge.

Not really, not from my standpoint as a Russian at least. The communists are losing more and more votes in every election, and no one from their party currently holds any major positions of power in Russia or Putin's administration. The only support they have is from retired senior citizens. The foothold you are talking about is long gone - since Yeltsin broke up the coup in 1991. Read up on the history of the 1991 coup attempt in Russia, and the events that preceded and followed it. You will realize that communists were displaced almost completely, and for a period of time the party was virtually banned.

Originally posted by royalblood
How could his background in communism and KGB training not influence his thinking. He may call it something else now, but the communist way of doing things it definitely in the Physcee.

Every politician that began their career in Russia before 1990 was a communist, and was taught communist ideology. All senior Russian politicians who are older than 35 have a background in communism. That honestly does not mean squat. After conditions changed in 1991, everyone was only too happy to abandon their old idealogy, and it did not take long for new ideologies to spring up.

And what is the "communist way" you are talking about? Because I could tell you that I think the Bush administration is doing things the "communist way". Seriously - communism is not one concrete ideology that is uniform throughout the world. There is no "communist way". There is however authoritarianism, oligarchy, militarism, liberalism, socialism, and capitalism. To some extent many of their ideologies were present in the Soviet Union, and all are present today in virtually every country in the world to some extent, including the US. Soviet "communism" was nothing more than an authoritarian socialist party with an abstract and ever-evolving ideology meant to keep it together, that purportedly had a basis in Marxism. The ideology behind United Russia which is Putin's party is completely and utterly different and cannot be confused with Soviet communism.

Originally posted by royalblood
Sure the communists economic system does not work, but the power structure still exists. It would be a mistake to think former communist do not have an influence in Russia.

If what you say is true, then you surely know something the Russian public doesn't know. Please indulge us in who exactly you believe runs things in Russia? What are these "former communists"? Technically everyone older than 30 is former communist in Russia. But political ideologies are changed as easy as one changes a set of cloths. New country, new priorities, new political agenda, new parties. Those who decided to stick to communism are but ghosts on the political arena.

Originally posted by royalblood
We still have the remnants of cold war thinking and it still effects politics in America.

And what leads you to conclude that Russia is the same? Remember - Cold War to Russians was not the same thing that it was for Americans. Is it the U.S. that is stuck in the Cold War mode? I would think so, with the rapid expansion of NATO and renewed focus on NATO operations near Russia's borders.

Originally posted by royalblood
Bears are especially provoked when someone messes with their young. She considers Kosovo and Serbia her cubs.

What bears? If you look at Russian foreign politics from a neutral point of view, they are very similar to U.S. and Europe's foreign politics. Only now Russia is forced on the defensive in the face of rapid expansion of NATO. Russia is purposely creating points of contention with US in foreign politics, so it can later utilize them in any negotiations to gain more leverage. And any country would take a chance to back a key ally.

You have made some interesting points that may have some truth.

Don't get me wrong. There are a lot of American's that are not happy with our government at this point. We keep losing more of our constitutional rights with each passing year.


Things are not always as they appear. American's are not told everything and neither are the Soviet people.

They did a little stop on the way... Check my post here :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by COOL HAND




Always expect the unexpected as they say.. Russia has been awakened for some reason and Our US Government is not going to tell the truth , so you better trust your gut feeling ..

Better stock up on supplies and get ready for shortages of food,water,medical , what ever it takes to survive. That's my gut feeling.