Russia Sending Warships on Maneuvers Near Syria

[TomClash]

Source: NYT

MOSCOW — Russia said on Tuesday that it had dispatched a flotilla of 11 warships to the eastern Mediterranean, some of which would dock in Syria. It would be the largest display of Russian military power in the region since the Syrian conflict began almost 17 months ago. Nearly half of the ships were capable of carrying hundreds of marines.

The announcement appeared intended to punctuate Russia’s effort to position itself as an increasingly decisive broker in resolving the antigovernment uprising in Syria, Russia’s last ally in the Middle East and home to Tartus, its only foreign military base outside the former Soviet Union. The announcement also came a day after Russia said it was halting new shipments of weapons to the Syrian military until the conflict settled down.

Russia has occasionally sent naval vessels on maneuvers in the eastern Mediterranean, and it dispatched an aircraft-carrying battleship, the Admiral Kuznetsov, there for maneuvers with a few other vessels from December 2011 to February 2012. There were rumors in recent weeks that the Russians planned to deploy another naval force near Syria.

But the unusually large size of the force announced on Tuesday was considered a message, not just to the region but also to the United States and other nations supporting the rebels now trying to depose Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad.

Tartus consists of little more than a floating refueling station and some small barracks. But any strengthened Russian presence there could forestall Western military intervention in Syria.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/world/middleeast/russia-sends-warships-on-maneuvers-near-syria.html

[Angleae]

1. 11 warships? That's almost half their surface fleet.

[ChazII]

2. Interesting. n/t

[joshcryer]

3. Alas, Babylon

[dipsydoodle]

4. Offset for the US and NATO bases in Italy

which are more or less down the road apiece from Syria.

[Baclava]

5. Putin propping up Assad with some gunboat diplomacy in the Med?

What could possibly go wrong

[ChazII]

6. It is like the Chinese

proverb (curse?), "May you live in interesting times."

[Posteritatis]

7. Dear NYT writer: "warship" and "battleship" are not synonymous, you idiot. (nt)

[happyslug]

8. Admiral Kuznetsov is a "Cruiser"

Last edited Wed Jul 11, 2012, 07:02 PM - Edit history (1)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov

The term used by her builders to describe the Russian ships is tyazholyy avianesushchiy raketnyy kreyser (TAVKR or TARKR) - “heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser”

Please note by the treaty of Montreux, any country that borders the Black Sea may send its "Capital Ships" through the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, but the term "Capital Ships" as defined in that treaty excludes any ships which is designed "primarily for carrying and operating aircraft" as opposed to a ship that can "merely are able to operate aircraft". Thus any Russian Ship going through the Dardanelles and the Bosporus must be a Cruiser, if over 15,000 tons and thus the Admiral Kuznetsov is a Cruiser.

The same treaty limits any non-Black Sea Nation from sending through any ship larger then 15,000 tons, thus no non-Russian Carrier can operate in the Straits or the Black Sea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Turkish_Straits

[Posteritatis]

9. Facepalm. Yeah, no. My comment is correct and yours is not. It's just that simple. (nt)

[happyslug]

11. The Russians and Turks call it a Cruiser, so it is a Cruiser

Sorry about the re-write of my previous thread, I did it and had to leave then resumed, so I ended up posting it AFTER you made your comment.

As to the Admiral Kuznetsov, it is a Warship built for Battle, but the only people who count, the Russians and the Turks call it a Cruiser.

[Posteritatis]

13. Cruisers are also not battleships. We're talking a seriously elementary and simple mistake here. nt

[may3rd]

10. Three fleets cannibalized to scrape up 11 surface combatants.....

They lost more than the Cold War bragging rights of huge fleets with the breakup.
In fact, the submarines rely on "corporate sponsors" to set out these days.

[happyslug]

12. Yes, that is a problem for a Country with a Balance budget, growing economy and trade surplus

Russia has a trade surplus of 19.10 Billion Dollars compared to -48684.00 Trade DEFICIT for the US

Russian unemployment rate is 5.4% compared to the US's 8.20%

Russia Current Account is 42.3 Billion Dollars while the US is NEGATIVE -137 Billion Dollars

Russia GDP Annual Growth Rate was 4.90% US was 2.0%

Russia Government Debt To GDP is only 9.60%, the US is 103%

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/balance-of-trade

Sorry, the above numbers are a reflection of what Russia and the US has done since 1990, the US has continued to maintain a massive Military, the Russian have cut they's to the bone. One Carrier and 10 other ships is the price a country pays for a trade surplus, balance budgets, over twice the growth, with an unemployment rate a 1/3 lower then the US.

What would the US economy be if the US military was cut to one carrier and 10 other ships? At first we would be hurting, as was Russia in the 1990s, but it would turn around and we would be booming like Russia is today.