The strike is not military, the trade strike. Will the US block the ports of Russia?
Surprisingly, in America they started talking about a possible military confrontation in the North Atlantic. And this despite our own belief that the Russian fleet is weak, it’s not very suitable for anyone outside the coastal zone of responsibility aviation it is unlikely to be able to oppose something to American naval power.
First let me have some facts.
The head of the US Navy command, John Richardson, in an interview with Voice of America radio station, noted that the Russian Navy has been very active in the North Atlantic over the past twenty-five years. And he especially singled out the last five-year plan (which, we admit, is not surprising given the burden placed on the Northern Fleet in connection with the operation in Syria). According to the admiral, the US fleet should return to a "more competitive way of thinking." And this is a soft statement: Richardson’s colleague, Charles Richard, head of the underwater fleet USA, put it much harder: "Get ready for battle!"
The US National Security Strategy in its latest edition is also not a big deal. In it, the US military is invited to focus on the military confrontation with such states as Russia and China, and not to throw all forces into the fight against terrorism.
Partly to counter these challenges in the spring of this year, the Second Fleet was re-established, which should take control of the situation along the east coast of the United States and, in a broader sense, countering any possible threats in the North Atlantic.
Accompanied by all this is quite typical stories about how dangerous the likely opponent of the valiant American sailors. Typical because the US military has traditionally taken care not to forget to allocate more finance. And for this there is no better means than a little “lashing out” the American man in the street with tales of a terrible and insidious adversary.
Agree, from the lips of the enemy to hear this nice. Moreover, it contrasts so much with our own “all-propal” publications in the media. But, I repeat, let's make allowances for the fact that the American admirals always keep in mind the next budget hearings in Congress ...
However, the question of why precisely such stuffing appeared lately is not so idle.
Moreover, it is impossible to say unequivocally, is it really a clean throw in order to make the senators and congressmen more compliant, or is it all the same about something more? For example, is world public opinion preparing for something unpleasant and potentially explosive?
Let's be frank. To say that the Russian Navy will be able to challenge NATO forces in the North Atlantic in the coming years would be too bold. With all due respect to our seamen, with the current alignment of forces in the region, a campaign “around the corner” of our large surface unit in a real military stop can only end with a rout and a new Tsushima.
Probably, we could have some hopes for the gallant Chinese comrades, who are increasing their fleet at a truly tremendous pace, but in this case too many difficulties and attendant factors. China has no coastal infrastructure in the region. And then, obviously, if relations in the world become so hot that the Chinese fleet is ready for real shooting at American ships, then Beijing will need the ships in its usual area of responsibility.
Probably, for the submarine fleet, things are not so straightforward: we may well allow the exit of the Russian multi-purpose submarine outside the Russian “access prohibition zone”, and even its return to the base after successfully completing the mission. True, it will be very risky. And still…
But it is obvious that no long-term strategic tasks can be accomplished with the raids of several submarines. So why are the Americans fencing this garden, if we are talking about something more than just money?
And here we have one version that more or less fits into the Procrustean bed of circumstances and answers the question "why."
This version is quite simple. It seems that the Americans are seriously considering blocking Russia's sea trade with other states.
If we are right, then much is explained.
First, the direction. If the overlap of the Black Sea and Baltic ports of Russia does not become a difficult task for the United States simply because of some geographical features of these logistics corridors, and the Russia-China direction is still not possible, because there are enough land corridors to support the critical areas of mutual trade, It is the North Atlantic that can become for Russia the “bottleneck” through which it will try to maintain trade with its partners in Europe, Africa, and Latin America.
It is clear that this “bottleneck” will be quite easy to slam. Still, this is not the Black Sea or the Baltic, where any efforts will be useless: in the North Atlantic, the actions of our submarine forces will have some perspective. Yes, the prospect of at least reducing the number of American pennants.
And it is precisely to counteract such attacks from Russia that the new focus of the American fleet and the preparation of public opinion are appropriate.
It is clear that this version is working only under certain assumptions.
First, we must admit that Russia will not accept the use of nuclear weapons. The assumption is controversial, but here, in general, it all depends on how cool the eggs are boiled in the Kremlin cauldron. Taking into account the fact that even in our memory, Russia had rulers, to put it mildly, unable to assume even a tenth of such responsibility, the assumption can be considered conditionally feasible.
The second. The United States should immediately block both Russia and China. Otherwise, a full-fledged blockade will not work out - it will only turn out that one of the mentioned countries will receive additional benefits that they “monetize” with pleasure.
There is no doubt about the very desire and readiness of the United States to stifle its two competitors at once. Although the task is very complicated. Nevertheless, let us remember that America itself is in a very difficult situation, and it may simply not have a choice left after 3-4 of the year.
And if so, our version will still have to be accepted as conditionally working.
And just in case, I will answer in advance to those skeptics who will say that the West is interested in Russian energy carriers and will not be completely blockaded.
All true, this is the truth. But remember Saddam's Iraq and the oil-for-food program. They will be happy to take our oil in exchange for humanitarian supplies. But neither money nor valuable raw materials or equipment we will not receive in return.
And this, believe me, will completely suit our recent "partners."
First let me have some facts.
The head of the US Navy command, John Richardson, in an interview with Voice of America radio station, noted that the Russian Navy has been very active in the North Atlantic over the past twenty-five years. And he especially singled out the last five-year plan (which, we admit, is not surprising given the burden placed on the Northern Fleet in connection with the operation in Syria). According to the admiral, the US fleet should return to a "more competitive way of thinking." And this is a soft statement: Richardson’s colleague, Charles Richard, head of the underwater fleet USA, put it much harder: "Get ready for battle!"
Only through readiness for battle can we hope to avoid it. And if we cannot avoid it, then our nation expects and demands victory from us. We must not deceive those hopes!
The US National Security Strategy in its latest edition is also not a big deal. In it, the US military is invited to focus on the military confrontation with such states as Russia and China, and not to throw all forces into the fight against terrorism.
Partly to counter these challenges in the spring of this year, the Second Fleet was re-established, which should take control of the situation along the east coast of the United States and, in a broader sense, countering any possible threats in the North Atlantic.
In order to maintain the naval superiority of the United States, we need to focus with laser precision on our combat capability and combat readiness, not only within our NATO organization, but also in relations with our kindred troops, our allies and partners.
Accompanied by all this is quite typical stories about how dangerous the likely opponent of the valiant American sailors. Typical because the US military has traditionally taken care not to forget to allocate more finance. And for this there is no better means than a little “lashing out” the American man in the street with tales of a terrible and insidious adversary.
Today, once again, an efficient, technologically advanced and technologically advanced Russian submarine fleet challenges us. Russian submarines ply the Atlantic, they test our defenses for durability, challenge our supremacy on the seas and prepare a difficult underwater fighting space for battles that will give them an advantage in any future conflict.
Agree, from the lips of the enemy to hear this nice. Moreover, it contrasts so much with our own “all-propal” publications in the media. But, I repeat, let's make allowances for the fact that the American admirals always keep in mind the next budget hearings in Congress ...
However, the question of why precisely such stuffing appeared lately is not so idle.
Moreover, it is impossible to say unequivocally, is it really a clean throw in order to make the senators and congressmen more compliant, or is it all the same about something more? For example, is world public opinion preparing for something unpleasant and potentially explosive?
Let's be frank. To say that the Russian Navy will be able to challenge NATO forces in the North Atlantic in the coming years would be too bold. With all due respect to our seamen, with the current alignment of forces in the region, a campaign “around the corner” of our large surface unit in a real military stop can only end with a rout and a new Tsushima.
Probably, we could have some hopes for the gallant Chinese comrades, who are increasing their fleet at a truly tremendous pace, but in this case too many difficulties and attendant factors. China has no coastal infrastructure in the region. And then, obviously, if relations in the world become so hot that the Chinese fleet is ready for real shooting at American ships, then Beijing will need the ships in its usual area of responsibility.
Probably, for the submarine fleet, things are not so straightforward: we may well allow the exit of the Russian multi-purpose submarine outside the Russian “access prohibition zone”, and even its return to the base after successfully completing the mission. True, it will be very risky. And still…
But it is obvious that no long-term strategic tasks can be accomplished with the raids of several submarines. So why are the Americans fencing this garden, if we are talking about something more than just money?
And here we have one version that more or less fits into the Procrustean bed of circumstances and answers the question "why."
This version is quite simple. It seems that the Americans are seriously considering blocking Russia's sea trade with other states.
If we are right, then much is explained.
First, the direction. If the overlap of the Black Sea and Baltic ports of Russia does not become a difficult task for the United States simply because of some geographical features of these logistics corridors, and the Russia-China direction is still not possible, because there are enough land corridors to support the critical areas of mutual trade, It is the North Atlantic that can become for Russia the “bottleneck” through which it will try to maintain trade with its partners in Europe, Africa, and Latin America.
It is clear that this “bottleneck” will be quite easy to slam. Still, this is not the Black Sea or the Baltic, where any efforts will be useless: in the North Atlantic, the actions of our submarine forces will have some perspective. Yes, the prospect of at least reducing the number of American pennants.
And it is precisely to counteract such attacks from Russia that the new focus of the American fleet and the preparation of public opinion are appropriate.
It is clear that this version is working only under certain assumptions.
First, we must admit that Russia will not accept the use of nuclear weapons. The assumption is controversial, but here, in general, it all depends on how cool the eggs are boiled in the Kremlin cauldron. Taking into account the fact that even in our memory, Russia had rulers, to put it mildly, unable to assume even a tenth of such responsibility, the assumption can be considered conditionally feasible.
The second. The United States should immediately block both Russia and China. Otherwise, a full-fledged blockade will not work out - it will only turn out that one of the mentioned countries will receive additional benefits that they “monetize” with pleasure.
There is no doubt about the very desire and readiness of the United States to stifle its two competitors at once. Although the task is very complicated. Nevertheless, let us remember that America itself is in a very difficult situation, and it may simply not have a choice left after 3-4 of the year.
And if so, our version will still have to be accepted as conditionally working.
And just in case, I will answer in advance to those skeptics who will say that the West is interested in Russian energy carriers and will not be completely blockaded.
All true, this is the truth. But remember Saddam's Iraq and the oil-for-food program. They will be happy to take our oil in exchange for humanitarian supplies. But neither money nor valuable raw materials or equipment we will not receive in return.
And this, believe me, will completely suit our recent "partners."
Information