Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pentangon just now

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Ogukuo72 View Post
    All good points Deltapooh.

    Except that I would adjust the last point - containing Russia is a way to force it to get out of Georgia.
    I don't think containment is a way to get Russian troops out of Georgia in the near term. Such an effort would be both costly and extremely risky. Economic sanctions and greater military force would likely be the primary instruments of a short-term containment strategy. There is little support for that. Besides, Russia will probably just respond with greater force.

    Containment requires alot of time. If Russia's occupation of Georgia proper drags on, less risky and more effective containment options will become available. Hopefully, the West will throw its support behind a regional military alliance of states surrounding Russia. If we can get former satellite states to work more closely together under the banner of somekind of agreement, Russia can be contained without the risk that is associated with the NATO banner.

    Also, as I believe you pointed out, there is minimizing dependence on Russian energy. If that is not possible, the West should at least try to block Moscow's effort to expand their exports to the East. At the very least, this could re-establish "mutual dependence."

    All this takes alot of time though. Hopefully, the Western alliances will commit to a containment strategy and deter Russia's next military adventure.
    "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by jp342 View Post
      The USS Dallas (which is the Submarine speculated to go into the Black Sea in the blog link) arrived home in Groton Ct. after a six-month deployment yesterday 8-21-08. Some of the info in that blog is eronious. The Polish and Canadian warships have not been mentioned before as well.
      Stop ruining my as-yet unfinished Harpoon scenario...

      Thanks for the update. I don't know how they would manage to get a submarine into the Black Sea without the consent of Turkey. I don't doubt that there are vessels that could make the transit, though. Another Harpoon fellow told me that the Bosporous is only 50m deep and the Dardenelles 30m (or vice-versa). So, to try and sneak in a sub is going to be pretty tricky. Conceivably, a sub might try to follow in the wake of a larger vessel like LCC Mount Whitney...

      If you have further details of the deployments, I would be grateful for the additional information.
      ScenShare Guidelines:

      1) Enjoy creating it
      2) Enjoy playing it
      3) Enjoy sharing it
      4) Enjoy helping others create them

      The PlayersDB - The Harpoon Community's #1 Choice.

      FAQ http://www.harplonkhq.com/Harpoon/Fr...dQuestions.htm

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Herman Hum View Post
        Stop ruining my as-yet unfinished Harpoon scenario... .
        LOL... Too funny!

        Originally posted by Herman Hum View Post
        If you have further details of the deployments, I would be grateful for the additional information.
        Will do sir!

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Herman Hum View Post
          Stop ruining my as-yet unfinished Harpoon scenario...

          Thanks for the update. I don't know how they would manage to get a submarine into the Black Sea without the consent of Turkey. I don't doubt that there are vessels that could make the transit, though. Another Harpoon fellow told me that the Bosporous is only 50m deep and the Dardenelles 30m (or vice-versa). So, to try and sneak in a sub is going to be pretty tricky. Conceivably, a sub might try to follow in the wake of a larger vessel like LCC Mount Whitney...

          If you have further details of the deployments, I would be grateful for the additional information.
          I think the argument was that a number of vessels had already been approved for transit into the Black Sea to take part in a naval exercise. The exercise was called off due to the conflict, but they were considering using the transit approval that was already given for the exercise to move ships in for whatever purpose.
          "When they get in trouble they send for the sonsabitches." - Admiral King

          Comment


          • #50
            ...anyone want to bet that there isnt a new Virginia calss SSN lurking nearby somewhere..? If the re was, it would represent the biggest threat to anyone within 200 miles of its position..!

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Herman Hum View Post
              Stop ruining my as-yet unfinished Harpoon scenario...

              Thanks for the update. I don't know how they would manage to get a submarine into the Black Sea without the consent of Turkey. I don't doubt that there are vessels that could make the transit, though. Another Harpoon fellow told me that the Bosporous is only 50m deep and the Dardenelles 30m (or vice-versa). So, to try and sneak in a sub is going to be pretty tricky. Conceivably, a sub might try to follow in the wake of a larger vessel like LCC Mount Whitney...

              If you have further details of the deployments, I would be grateful for the additional information.
              The problem with sending a sub is that we cannot maintain the fiction of "humanitarian relief efforts", nor could we call this part of a naval exercise that was cancelled. Sending a sub into the same enclosed body of water as the Russian Black Sea fleet, regardless of how out of shape it might seem to be, is a recipe for a major international crisis, despite it being a good idea militarily.

              I think we're all going to have to accept that a dying death rattle is about all Bush can hope to accomplish; the military action is over and done with and we lack the reasonable means to put any effective pressure on Russia. I don't like it any more than anyone else, but that's the cost of years of total deployment in the Middle East and that's the way it is. The America that once planned on fighting 2.5 wars anywhere on the globe doesn't exist anymore. We no longer have the forces to project into that region.
              Last edited by Mountain Man; 23 Aug 08, 00:26.
              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment


              • #52
                ...good point, though i was alluding to the fact that the sub wouldnt have to actaully be in the Black sea to pose a threat..

                Comment


                • #53
                  Mm

                  But maybe add in a bigger Navy force, depending on what's going on in Georgia in the near future, it should mean something to Russia if we eventually do that, would'nt it? I don't think they would push things as far in the future IF there was a "bigger" US (and maybe other countries, British maybe??) Naval presence in the Black sea, I bet Turkey would be glad to help out, would'nt they, as to aproval of passage and such??

                  Cheers, thanks again for the posts here, and as always if you read anything new on this aspect of the Georgian /Russian war, post it here please, thanks.

                  Tom

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by MountainMan View Post
                    The problem with sending a sub is that we cannot maintain the fiction of "humanitarian relief efforts", nor could we call this part of a naval exercise that was cancelled. Sending a sub into the same enclosed body of water as the Russian Black Sea fleet, regardless of how out of shape it might seem to be, is a recipe for a major international crisis, despite it being a good idea militarily.
                    Absolutely. Turkey is the 'cork' holding Russia inside the bottle that is the Black Sea. There is no way that Turkey would jeopardize it's strategic position for Georgia.

                    I also don't think that a large naval force is necessary. The three vessels are significant enough to set the tone. It isn't as if they intend to fight an actual war with Russia. A larger task group would likely play into Russian hands and allow them to say, "See? NATO really is ganging up on us and we have to ensure our security with a buffer zone. Thank goodness we acted pre-emptively."
                    ScenShare Guidelines:

                    1) Enjoy creating it
                    2) Enjoy playing it
                    3) Enjoy sharing it
                    4) Enjoy helping others create them

                    The PlayersDB - The Harpoon Community's #1 Choice.

                    FAQ http://www.harplonkhq.com/Harpoon/Fr...dQuestions.htm

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      I've been MIA on this

                      because of work, any udates on this at all I should know about yet?

                      Cheers, thanks!

                      Tom

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Deltapooh View Post
                        I don't think containment is a way to get Russian troops out of Georgia in the near term. Such an effort would be both costly and extremely risky. Economic sanctions and greater military force would likely be the primary instruments of a short-term containment strategy. There is little support for that. Besides, Russia will probably just respond with greater force.

                        Containment requires alot of time. If Russia's occupation of Georgia proper drags on, less risky and more effective containment options will become available. Hopefully, the West will throw its support behind a regional military alliance of states surrounding Russia. If we can get former satellite states to work more closely together under the banner of somekind of agreement, Russia can be contained without the risk that is associated with the NATO banner.

                        Also, as I believe you pointed out, there is minimizing dependence on Russian energy. If that is not possible, the West should at least try to block Moscow's effort to expand their exports to the East. At the very least, this could re-establish "mutual dependence."

                        All this takes alot of time though. Hopefully, the Western alliances will commit to a containment strategy and deter Russia's next military adventure.
                        Maybe, and that's a big "if". Whom would the sanctions be against? the two breakaways can expect aid from Russia; the Russians are independent of our potential "sanctions, and the only really vulnerable ones are the Georgians, who we are supposed to be trying to help.

                        As for blocking Moscow's expansionism, agree - but how?
                        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by MountainMan View Post
                          As for blocking Moscow's expansionism, agree - but how?
                          How? Very carefully!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Ogukuo72 View Post
                            How? Very carefully!
                            It must be nice to live in Singapore and expect the West to solve the problem.
                            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X