With Russia on the offensive around Avdiivka in the east of Ukraine, most commentators’ attention is once again focused on the battlefield on land.

But it’s also crucial to keep a close watch on what is happening in the Black Sea.

On October 24, Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, made the claim that: “The Russian fleet is no longer able to operate in the western part of the Black Sea and is gradually fleeing from Crimea. And this is a historic achievement.”

This article is the opinion of the authors and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.

Following attacks on the Sevastopol shipyard on September 13 and on the Black Sea fleet headquarters on September 22, it has been reported that Russia is redeploying key naval assets away from their main base.

The fleet reportedly intends to base itself increasingly in two safer ports: Novorossiysk and Feodosia, on either sides of the Kerch strait connecting eastern Crimea with the Russian mainland. There are even reports of plans to build naval facilities in the breakaway Georgian region of Abkhazia. Whether this is a partial redeployment or a major one, and whether this is a long- or short-term redeployment, this demonstrates a new strategic reality in the Black Sea.

Even without an operational navy, Ukraine can threaten and hit Russian ships as far away as Sevastopol and beyond. Kyiv has developed a credible capability to engage Russia’s naval assets at long distances, using missiles and maritime drones.

This is a major problem for Moscow. Warships are often the most expensive individual military assets in a country’s arsenal. Complex naval vessels can take decades to procure and make operational. For instance, in the UK, the procurement cycle for warships is often considered over a 30-year period.

Reduced capabilities

Russia has a very limited number of warships in the Black Sea, and due to the application of the Montreux Convention by Turkey, Moscow cannot reinforce its Black Sea fleet with warships from its Baltic or Northern fleets.

Consequently, protecting its remaining assets is a key objective for Russia, since the Black Sea fleet cannot reasonably afford to lose more. That might explain the redeployment. If confirmed, this can be considered a major victory for Ukraine, both at operational and symbolic levels.

As of now and in the foreseeable future, Russia has less capacity to service and repair damaged ships and submarines in the Black Sea. Sevastopol dry docks are currently not fully functioning and the port of Novorossiysk in the eastern Black Sea does not have the same capability, especially for submarines.

With warships requiring regular maintenance – and an indefinite number in need of repair due to the recent attacks – we can expect a backlog to build up. This could be significant if more warships sustain damage in the short-to-mid term.

Thus, the Black Sea fleet will have to be very prudent with its remaining assets, which might result in a reduced number of operational deployments in the foreseeable future. The fewer Russian ships operating in close vicinity to Ukraine, the more room for manoeuvre there is for Kyiv to launch further attacks on Crimea and the Black Sea fleet, contributing to a positive loop of victories and opportunities.

Russia’s limited options

Ukraine has gradually reduced the Black Sea fleet’s ability to contribute to Russia’s war effort such that, effectively, Russia has lost control of the Black Sea. Its surface ships cannot operate safely in the northwestern Black Sea (the area delimited by the triangle between Odesa, Sevastopol and the Ukraine/Romanian border).

Consequently, some operational options are now out of the question for Russia, such as launching an amphibious assault on Odesa, once a key objective. Other options are rendered more difficult, such as implementing a credible blockade on Ukraine’s Black Sea ports.

But Russia’s three Kilo-class submarines can still launch Kalibr cruise missiles against Ukraine’s territory as they remain safely underwater – they have a range of 400 nautical miles when submerged.

End of the blockade a blow for Moscow

Russia’s blockade has lost credibility – and the less credible that threats to maritime trade are, the easier it is for Ukraine to reach agreements with maritime insurers. Moscow knows this, so it has started to disrupt Ukraine’s trade by attacking grain and port facilities on land. Russia might also try to mine trade routes, including safe corridors, using its Kilo-class submarines that have the capacity to lay mines.

The anticipated agreement between Nato members Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania on a minesweeping joint force demonstrates that the priority is now establishing secure sea lanes, to reduce risks and insurance costs and thus normalise grain exports.

If confirmed, this agreement would also be significant from a diplomatic perspective. It would demonstrate that Nato is both willing and able to make sea routes safe without the need to bring further ships into the Black Sea (which would clash with Turkey’s application of the Montreux Convention).

This is a very important and strong political, diplomatic and military statement in favour of the defence of freedom of navigation and upholding freedom of the seas. Indeed, it would demonstrate that there is no going back to the situation when Russia’s threats were credible enough to dictate the terms and conditions of navigation and maritime trade in the region.

For Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, the recent drawbacks in the Black Sea constitute a political blow. Russia now looks weak in Crimea – which is a big problem, given the central role that Crimea plays in Putin’s imperialist narrative. In other words, there is a symbolic aspect to Ukraine’s success, in addition to the material and operational ones.

For Ukraine’s morale, it is priceless. With Russia launching its strongest land offensive in months and winter approaching, Ukraine getting the upper hand at sea would be significant. Let’s not forget that, historically, maritime preponderance has been a decisive factor in winning long wars.The Conversation

Basil Germond, Professor of International Security, Department of Politics, Philosophy and Religion, Lancaster University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

69 COMMENTS

  1. That Ukraine with a barely functioning Navy (in traditional terms) has had such an impact (by assymetric warfare) on one of the largest navies in the world is staggering, and food for thought for other large and powerful navies.

    I am taken by Prof Germond’s final comment: “Let’s not forget that, historically, maritime preponderance has been a decisive factor in winning long wars”.
    I had not considered this before and it is interesting.
    However perhaps he should have added that wars are actually ended by air and land forces operating over and across enemy-held territory and then by the attacking armies destroying and reducing enemy ground forces and taking the ground the enemy previously held.

    • If you think about you can consider navel forces as almost geostrategic shaping forces…it was in the end the RN that shaped the European conflict allowing the eventual defeat of napoleon…the same happens in both the first and second world wars, it’s incredibly difficult for any nation to maintain an economy and therefore its armed forces over a long period if it’s blocked from the sea and required sea lanes.

      • I don’t see that the RN allowed the eventual defeat of Napoleon. The RN just dissuaded Napoleon from activating his plans to invade our country.

        • Hi Graham

          No that’s not correct, the RN of the napoleonic age undertook one of the greatest shaping opps ever, the RN instituted essentially a 20 decades long mixed commercial and military blockade of Napoleonic France and its allies…it destroyed the European economy as well as isolating and destroying all of napoleons armies outside of continental Europe..the Egyptian Campaign is classic, the RN isolated and caused the defeat of the French invasion of the Levant. It was the mother and father of deep warfare and shapping campaigns….although as always you needed a field army to finish it was the navy over 20 years that created the option.

          “During the early period of those wars, particularly until 1798, the British declared the French coast from Brest to the Elbe River blockaded. France vigorously protested this action, and retaliated in kind by declaring a blockade of the entire British Isles. Great Britain then expanded its blockade to France, all ofherother,andtheFrenchcolonies.WithinafewshortyearsBritainhadessentially sealed off external access of food, raw goods, and finished products to millions of Europeans and effectively crushed the economies of some of the most powerful countries in existence at the time.”

          Analysis Considering the Significance of the Use of Naval Blockades During the Napoleonic Wars,John J. Janora,2019.

          • Hi Jonathan, many thanks for the informative post.
            Centuries later Kennedy’s USN blockaded Cuba, but do naval blockades have utility nowadays, I wonder?

          • Hi Graham that’s a really complicated question it will depend specially on the war.and how that relates to.compliance with international law…and the geostrategic situation as well as drivers for the war…there are also different varieties of blockade

            so first the variants of blockade:

            1) paper blockade or a legal type blockade…this is when a nation makes it illegal to trade or provide supplies to a nation without a specific physical blockade being in place…in the napoleonic war France undertook a paper blockade of the UK by making it illegal for any European nation to trade with the UK…this did not work as the UK just took advantage of that and basically developed a system of smuggling blockage runners and just basically charged more for its products and sold licences to Europeans to allow them to trade via dodgy legal blockade avoidance routes…as it was a paper blockade without any physical blockade…the modern equivalent of the paper blockade, although not the same as it only restricts some things are sanctions such as to Iran..so this is widely used in geostrategy and geopolitical level conflict today..for it to work you do need the constabulary level resources..and legal structures.Full paper blockades do not comply with modern rules of war or international law.

            2) Pacific blockade.this is when a major navel power blockades another nation while not at war making it clear the power has not intention of going to war to pressure that nation into concessions. the first time this was used was by the UK ( surprise surprise) that undertook a blockade of new Granada in 1837, when Granada tried ans imprisoned a British consul who got in a street fight and killed somebody for 6 years..the UK was not happy but not spilling blood unhappy..so sent a message to New Granada, told them they were blockaded but at no risk or military action and then proceeded to turn around all neutral shipping…modern examples would be the US quarantine of Cuba in the 60. For it to work it has to have a profound difference in the balance of navel power..it’s also a bit legally iffy as modern international rules are clear that you have to be at war for a physical blockade…

            3) exclusion zones..these are dodgy in international law as the individual power decides what the exclusion some looks like…some like the first maritime exclusion zone around the Falklands are just targeted at belligerents and fully comply with international law..and was infact an unnecessary statement as within international law the RN had the right to engage Argentinian war ships anywhere on the seas as a belligerent ( it is probable that the exclusion zone announcement was actually a bit of psychological warfare to get Argentina worrying about an SSN..) then you got the total exclusion zone later in the conflict where the UK said it would target any vessel within the zone neutral or merchant as a threat…this was closer to the bone on international law..although as the injured party the international community supported the UK and only Russia and Argentina objected…this could be seen as a true blockade…but as the nations were not at war (legally) it was not legally classed as a blockade…the later the Uk clarified that it would also engage any Argentinian military vessel that was more that 12 miles from its base was again within the rules of war and was actually not really need..the UK had the legal right to sink any Argentinian military vessel the moment it left port. But the exclusion zones were effective at shaping the battle and restricting Argentina from reenforcing the islands.( its worth noting that neither the UK or Argentinian could legally set up a full blockade as it’s illegal to do so within that Antarctic circle.

            4) true blockade..(legal close in physical blockade) where all shipping is prevented from entering a given nation..the defining factor of a true blockade is that it is an act of war and is only legally recognised as a blockade under the rules of war if part of at “a minimum” an international armed conflict..The legality of the modern blockade is governed by the San Remo manual on international law applicable to armed conflict at sea 1994.This is why the blockade of Gaza by Israel has engendered such debate..but as Hamas is the elected government of Gaza most have come down on the side that the blockade is valid. Also there must be a notification of blockade, stating the time of start as well as the geographical area..the blockade should not be out side of the belligerents EEZ and should not prevent neutrals from moving from one neutral port to another ( you cannot cut off a neutral nations ports with a blockade).finally you must have a blockading force in place for it to comply with international law…although your blockading force can leave for chasing blockade runners or due to bad weather…but not for supply ect..as a blockade must physically be in place if it’s been announced..you cannot blockade one day and not the next..you also have to blockade everyone..you cannot let a nations merchants through the blockade because you don’t want to piss that nation off…say the UK blockaded some random county it was fighting and it announced a blockade..it would have to under international law intercept and board even friendly flagged shipping if it was heading for the blockaded port/county and entered the E area of the announced blockade…so it’s a big step.

            5) finally you have unrestricted warfare at sea…this is basically when everyone tosses out international law and has a world war. In these cases nations would undertake distant blockades of all the sea lanes and choke points…intercepting or sinking all shipping on the sea..

            so the formal blockade potentially has a use in modern warfare and we have had an ongoing modern formal blockades, there was the Israeli blockade of the Lebanon coast in 2006, the ongoing Gaza blockade since 2010, there is the Saudi blockade of Yemen ongoing, the 1980 Iran blockade of Iraqi ports during the Iran Iraqi war.the Egyptian blockades of Israel ports during the Arab Isreali wars….

            the exclusion zone was used by the Uk in 82…

            So there is always a potential use for the formal blockade and exclusion zones to shape a battle space or undertake deep warfare. As well as geostrategy using sanctions…but the really big piece will be the next likely world war which will probably start with a U.S. China engagement over Taiwan…whatever the outcome neither of these superpowers will be able to disengage ( the outcome of Taiwan will simple be the first campaign)..the conflict will spread and the only resolution will be from strategic exhaustion of one of the powers..both sides will suck in every other nation in its influence and then they will try to strangle each other as they cannot directly attack each other with field armies…this will essentially mean the majority of the next war will be a vastly more technologically advanced version of the WW2 Atlantic campaign played over the whole globe..…the Atlantic campaign was the defining geostrategic shaping campaign of WW2, after the Battle of Britain had been decided was actually the campaign that would define the outcome of the war..if Germany had won the battle of the Atlantic Britain would have undoubtedly suffered strategic exhaustion very quickly possibly withdraw from the war with an armistice…WW3 will see the western navy’s fighting it out with china and its allies navies to blockade the choke points between the Pacific and Indian Ocean as well as in the Middle East and North Sea/North Atlantic..with an aim to deprive each other of resource and trade as the side that runs out of resources and money ( suffer strategic exhaustion) will loss..it’s one of the reasons I don’t believe you will see a UK carrier deployed to the china seas in any china US conflict…apart from the distance and time to deploy the RN will be busy readying for the contagion after the battle for Taiwan and preparing for it’s part in nailing down the North Sea, middle east and coast of Africa…after the collapse of the USSR and the loss of the red army hordes..WW3 was alway going to be decided by sea power and strategic exhaustion or nuclear exchange….or in a few years potentially by cyber warfare ? As you can now kill a counties economy by cyber warfare.

          • Hi Jonathan, thanks for the very comprehensive post. You say that the next world war is likely to be precipitated by a US/China conflict over Taiwan, so presumably that is triggered by an invasion or very serious threat of invasion of Taiwan by China. Yet you don’t see a RN CSG deploying to the SCS in this future world war, although HMS QE has deployed to the region before to demonstrate some British naval might?

            I don’t see that time and distance has much to do with anything when it comes to naval forces – there is surely no requirement for a CSG to arrive in Theatre in a very short space of time – we did not fail to send a Task Force to the South Atlantic in 1982 because it was ‘too far’ and the fleet would take many weeks to arrive.

            You see the RN and other (non-US) western navies engaging in operations in the North Sea, Middle East and coast of Africa against Chinese allies, but is that expected to be just the Russian Navy (the USSR collapsed in 1991 of course!). Would Russia support China by trying to dominate the sea in these areas? What would they gain from this?

            I am not even sure that a Chinese move on Taiwan would attract the close attention of western European nations. Most would consider it to be an issue for the US, possibly supported by western-leaning Asian & Australasian nations and their navies.

            Instead of leading to a world war, an invasion of Taiwan might only involve the US, China and Taiwan.

          • Hi Graham…it is possible that the invasion of Taiwan may only lead to a regional US China conflict everything is possible…but there are a couple of reasons why it’s unlikely.

            The first is that once it starts the conflict over Taiwan becomes more that a conflict over Taiwan..it becomes the direct conflict between the two hegemonic powers in a geopolitically bio polar world..simply put neither side will be able to lose the war, Taiwan itself will essentially become irrelevant in that war and simply become the marker point that starts the war ( as Poland was irrelevant in WW2 other than the marker point for the declaration of war ), Winning would be of critical importance for both nations, the U.S. would essentially loss its dominance and its view of itself would be crushed, this would be the same with china, basically neither side could afford to loss the after its starts no matter the fate of Taiwan ( as the fate of Poland was irrelevant to the outcome of WW2)…

            This basic premise of “we cannot loss” means whatever the outcome of Taiwan china and the US enter a war that will be based around a geostrategic goal of strategic exhaustion. Neither nation can undertake a knockout blow…..so the only way to win is to strangle the other nation to death and these are essentially large continental powers with almost unlimited access to resources as well as massive strategic depth to both economies and worldwide access to markets and resources…so this will be a war until one side runs out of money….(this is one of the reasons china. Has be undertaken its belt and roads initiative)..the only way to do that against these two hegemonic powers will be essentially a global war against each others trade and so against each others allies….china and the US once they start will almost inevitably be at war for many many years and will call in every marker, favour and ally….neutrality will be a difficult road…the battle fields will be the choke points across the world, as well as access to the rare elements required of a modern economy…so Africa will be a battleground as well as South America…all the present conflicts and points of tension will likely ignite into the single conflagration as they did in WW2 ( consider that in reality WW2 was a number of linked conflicts, that gradually sucked in a wider and wider number of combatants).

            many of the papers on the geopolitically reality of a China U.S. war do focus on this wider reality ( which I think is the more realistic view..no world power tends to pack up and go home after one defeat)….over the more narrow papers on who would win the Taiwan war….which really fails to take into account what happens when the major hegemonic powers go directly to war with each other…..Britain did not just stop fighting France in the napoleonic wars after every campaign lost, WW2 did not end with the fall of Poland or infact the entire European continent..once great powers go to war they only tend to stop at complete destruction or because of complete strategic exhaustion ( and sometimes the exhaustion is more of a pause for a few years/decades until they are ready for a rematch). It’s why great powers almost always use proxies for conflict….

          • Hi Jonathan, very interesting post. You are coming at it one way, and I from another. In both world wars, we declared war on a beligerent nation on our doorstep in defence of/solidarity with friendly European nations. Taiwan is so different.

            In WW1 we were under a Treaty obligation (Treaty of London 1839) to do what was required to guarantee the integrity of Belgian’s frontiers – and we also wished for Germany not to dominate the Continent and wage further aggressive war. We were a major power, possibly the strongest power in the world, with a very strong economy and an enormous navy and a professional army capable of being rapidly expanded. There was a short logistic line to the BEF.

            Prior to WW2 Chamberlain had declared (in March 1939) that we would come to the aid of Poland if she were attacked. Again we were a major power with quite strong armed forces and Industry and we had been rearming since 1934/35.

            There are no such similarities to a situation whereby China threatens to invade or actually invades Taiwan. No Treaty obligations or agreements. We have much smaller armed forces and industrial base. Supply chains to Theatre would be challenging.

            Further, the British public (and much of Parliament) was very opposed to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation and Parliament did not approve (Aug 2013) Cameron to react to the use of WMD by Assad in Syria by military depoyment.

            I do not see that military intervention in a Taiwan crisis would be supported by the British public or necessarily approved by Parliament (especially if there is a Labour Government). The two World Wars shattered this country in manifold ways and our decline from 1945 due to WW2 involvement has been evident.

            Incidentally would China really have built up an experienced and well-equipped amphibious capability by 2027?

          • Hi graham, it’s an interesting question will we as in the UK go to war.

            One of the thing Babbage and others say is that china already views itself at war and has been running a geopolitical shaping campaign for the last decade i the domain’s of political and economic warfare. They have been shaping and removing western options ( so working separate the various western states)….fundamentally if it can get Europe to not engage it’s one step in what it needs to win. Another is the economic domain..it’s been purposely hardening its economy and supply lines so it can fight an economic war…therefore if we supply the US it will attack us economically..the US will be unlikely to also accept neutrality….there will be massive pressure from both powers for its allies to become involved…

            The likelihood of us not being involved is remote as we really already know how china is going to fight the next war and it’s views on the phases of the war…it’s planning a long shaping campaign..to harden its population and weaken the west ( which it is in now)…then a swift assault..followed by a long economic, kinetic and political war…

            1)Geopolitical shaping: belt and road, creating supply line dependency, removing its own supply line dependency, political shaping, use of information technology…this is all to limit western options.

            2) china has made it clear to its military, public and industries that they must be ready for a major war by 2027..they are saying this in the open.

            3) practice, china has been practicing its invasion of Taiwan and attack on western allies over the last few years…it has built examples of major western power ports and military infrastructure in the pacific and practiced attacking them…it has also built models of Taiwanese key infrastructure and practices it at the same time its practicing its war planning across its entire society.

            4) the most likely kinetic option that china will take when it attacks is the 14 hour option…this is the plan where by china moves immediately from exercise to attack using complete strategic surprise..within 14 hours it will launch the attack and seize the key points of Taiwan in a beheading operation…at the same time it would undertake a massive assault using ballistic missiles to attack all the major military infrastructure across the pacific…Guam, Japan, Australia…it’s likely will all be attacked by a massive wave of theatre level ballistic missiles ( china has around 1400)…

            5) there would then be a blood bath for around 4 weeks..before everyone settled in for a long war…that would involve shutting down each other’s economies…attacking each other across the globe…the expectation would be that all allies would do their part….I’m not sure we would say out of it…

            the only way I see we would not be involved is if the US under trump became no interventionist…but if that is the case the west has essentially probably lost primacy in the world…Taiwan is strategically profound….it will lay open the entire pacific to Chinese domination..as well as domination of the semi conductor markets ( which means everything made in the modern world)…it would also shatter western geopolitical dominance everywhere…NATO would become pointless…etc…china would become the world power.

          • Very interesting. So China’s strategy to unite with Taiwan is not just a visceral assault on the island but to rain down ballistic missiles to attack all the major military infrastructure in Guam, Japan, Australia etc.
            They must therefore really want a world war as well as ‘solving a long-standing Chinese domestic problem’.
            They would risk everything they have worked for over decades in terms of moving to establish themselves as: the dominant regional power; an economic giant; a superpower in the making and a country that holds sway over Russia which becomes a ‘junior partner’, along with North Korea.
            I doubt all Chinese leaders would think that launching a world war is the way to get ahead.

            I doubt the UK would get militarily involved if China just seized Taiwan but we might just sail a carrier group thataway as a gesture of disapproval and of support for the US if they actively intercede, although others think we have the carriers just to stooge around the North Sea and the eastern Atlantic.

            If those other Far East locations are attacked by missiles (to what end?) it would be a different story in terms of UK reaction. If Australia intimated that they needed military support we would supply it, no matter that it woukd take some time to get there.

            NATO would not become pointless in the wake of China’s future domination of the Asia-Pacific region – NATO exists to secure the Euro-Atlantic area, a quite different area.

            China is unlikely to become ‘the’ world power – the US would still lay claim to that title. We would be back to having two idelogically opposed superpowers as we did in the Cold War.

          • I would suggest as a starting read some of the summary’s of the the essay paper “the next major war “can the us and its allies win against china” by Ross Babbage”…

            what he says is that after the first bloody campaign over Taiwan, (which will be one of the post intense campaigns in history, that would probably last only up to six weeks)…

            both would be would be “badly bruised and bleeding.” But neither side would be able to achieve a decisive result. “Both sides have such strategic depth and scale as to render that prospect remote.” The upshot would be that both China and an American-led alliance would “recalibrate, review their strategies, work frantically to recover from their initial losses, mobilize large parts of their economies, and prepare to fight for many months and, more likely, several years.” 

            With the conflict “global in nature, perhaps on the scale of World War II”.

            He also feels that china is nearing the peak of its strategic power and the Taiwan completely interlocked with chinas national identity that they have for force reunification no matter what. His view is that china has seen the west effectively lose a protracted war ( Afghanistan) and started to struggle to supply Ukraine..with political stress..his view was that china will likely make a judgment by 2027 and the moment it decided it can win a protracted war with the west it will attack and the it would use strategic surprise, is it bulls up forces around Taiwan and practices mass mobilisation every year..so the west would struggle to see it coming ( essentially the yearly exercises are as much about creating an opportunity for strategic suprise in the future as they are about political pressure on Taiwan now).

            Babbage also feels that the west would profoundly struggle against china and it’s alliance if it did launch a war as chinases manufacturing output is far greater ( which has always been a deciding factor in large scale long term conflict)..he also feels that china is more hardened and able to endure the hardships of a long term conflict…where as in the west we struggle to even maintain a consensus on supporting Ukraine…basically the Chinese public will put up with significant hardship are generally rampantly nationalistic and are happy for any protesting voices to be quashed..and and the populations and political systems of the west will not put up with hardship….essentially two of the core elements of winning a protracted world war are not with the west anymore…

            Babbage states that while china is in the middle of a massive upscaling of its armaments industry the US and allies would…“ be unable to mass produce many of the urgently needed munitions, missiles, and other consumables for at least 18 months” while “large scale production of most complex military systems would take longer—typically 4-8 years.”.

            the conclusion was that essentials the best time for china to go to war was 2027 and that essentially china had to take tiawan one way or another..and if a war happens before 2030 his view was the West would:

            “struggle to prevail and could suffer a devastating defeat.” There are few indications that the United States and its allies are preparing to meet the challenge with sufficient resources and urgency. Indeed, despite some stirrings, there are few indications that our leadership class is even thinking seriously about the problem.”

            on a side note my own view is that the present conflict in the Middle East could be what tips it over for china…if Hezbollah enter the fray..the US likely need to directly support Isreal..if the Iran and other Arab nations got involved in a regional war..I suspect china would rightly decide that the west ( who have not been great at long term warfare and commitment) are developing potential overstretch ( with 2 carriers in the med and worries over Russia )… if as Babbage states their high watermark of strategic power is around 2027…then we could see china move if the west gets buried in a middle eastern conflict….and the west is then engaged on on a wide number of fronts without china even having to drag its allies into the conflict….as they will already be fighting.

          • Thanks, very interesting. I wonder if China will unite with Taiwan through aggressive invasion or by more subtle tactics as Russia used when taking Ukraine (I doubt it). China is known for playing the long game and being reluctant to take existential risks – they would not want to walk into a war with the US. As I mentioned before – would they have a credible and effective amphibious force in 2027?
            6 weeks to take Taiwan? Is that whilst being in military conflict with the USN or not? I would be surprised if China could take Taiwan in 6 weeks.
            Would the US lobby for active military allies or just assume we would all pitch in? Or just feel they could deal with China alone? I still find it hard to believe that European nations would send young men and women to war to die to save far-away Taiwan. War in Afghanistan and Iraq was not well supported by the People.

            Our (Europe’s) armed forces are small for conducting a world war, our industrial base is less substantial than it used to be, the logistic chain to a far-East Theatre is huge. The UK economy has been battered by Covid, and some would say by Brexit too. Which British political party would sign up to world war? How many of the population? How many Parliamentarians?

            No matter how much of a threat China is to the West, it is in terms of trade, cyber aggression, espionage etc – not by overt military threat to western interests. If Taiwan fell to China – it would not be the end of the world – microchips would be made somewhere else.

          • Hi Graham I have responded to our discussion…but it’s in the spam filter of the site..so you may have to wait a day or so for my gripping and slightly nihilistic response….

  2. Keeping with Ukraine, I saw a Sat picture of the damage caused to the air bases at Berdyansk and Luhansk with the first use of the ATACMS missile. In a nutshell :
    “Bloody hell”
    I’ve read those two strikes claimed 22 helicopters

    Those two strike really hurt Moscow.

    • Apparently they are also getting the longer range Atacams Farouk, Ukraine will really be able to reach out and say hello then….

      Interesting to note that Russian fast air is steadily dropping it’s sortie rate accross the board, we can assume the rather frantic mission rates since their invasion began has really started to impact the RaF, as aircraft reach the limit of overhaul hours.

      • Notable also the increasing rate of training accidents inside Russia. Perhaps inexperienced pilots being pushed too quickly into service, lack of maintenance or both.

        Like their Army, it’s unlikely that the RuAF will ever regain the same scale of equipment reserves since they’ve rapidly burnt through decades of buildup, and Russia’s finances are increasingly perilous.

      • News coming in a load of missiles decided to pop into Sevastopol for Lunch. (Actually where I’m from Lunch is known as Dinner and yer Evening meal is known as Tea)
        Google:

        A large missile just struck a target in Russian-occupied Crimea, somewhere near Sevastopol. Could that have been an ATACMS strike that was recorded on film?

        and click on the Visegrad 24 twitter link

        If you do a search on twitter on Sevastopol , there are a few short film clips and pictures of a blast in the middle of the harbour. Not sure if its a strike or a downed missile.

        • The use of dinner is proper working class…I used to tweak my secretaries nose with this one a lot..she was proper middle class and I’m most deffo working class… every time she set up a conference for me she would ask if I wanted lunch ordered…I would the hit her with the no but could you sort out dinner for everyone please……as it alway wound her up a treat….

          • Yep always will be no matter how much peer pressure I get at work….to be honest I’m a proper inverse snob and always love to tweak the noses of my generally very middle class colleagues…..sadly I also have to take the piss out of my profoundly middle class children as well….( just to keep them grounded you understand).

          • Not sure it’s so much working-class as northern – or at least, northern working class.

            I grew up working class in a council estate and always called it “breakfast, lunch and dinner,” as did everyone I knew.

            I grew up in south-west England, though. Makes me wonder if it’s geographical as much as class.

          • That’s interesting, as I’m from the same region and it was alway Dinner for the middle of the day….I grew up in Married quarters, but all my relatives also called it dinner..and they all lived in the local council estates..my wife on the other had who is from the south east does call it lunch. The English language is brilliant as the English cannot even agree what some of word’s actually mean…I pity and admire the poor buggers who learn English as a second language.

          • For me, also from south west, lunch and dinner were the midday meal but lunch was cold and dinner hot, hence a lunch box for sandwiches and school dinners were served by the dinner ladies, the evening meal was always tea unless going to a restaurant in which it became dinner, I guess by dint of the more formal setting.

          • I always worked on dinner as the main meal of the day rather than time determinate… if the secondary meal was midday ish it was lunch, if dinner was midday then the evening meal was tea.

  3. Honestly this is all just a load O shite , Ukraines counter offensive has failed the losses are horrific and western lying shitehoose media as usual aren’t being honest.

    why not just start reporting reality ? This war isn’t going to be won on the Black Sea , naval engagements in the grand scheme are meaningless.

    it really pisses me off that the house keeps promoting this delusional nonsense.

    the truth and reality will emerge sooner or later and I wonder what the PlayStation kids are gonna come away with ..

    🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

    • Well, I’m far too old to be a “playstation kid” but honestly I don’t agree that this piece is in any way “Delusional”. Firstly control ,or the lack of ,re the Black Sea certainly will have a bearing on land. Secondly, what is failure regarding the offensives? That Ukraine has even held the Ruzzians given the disparity in forces is remarkable.
      Thirdly, if you are looking at delusional media-have you seen the shit coming from Russia?

      • Yeah I think Los Pollos has been reading to much Russian troll nonsense. Reality is Russia is only holding ground due to massive mine fields and larger number of peasants in its army , they have no clue how to attack and just using human wave tactics thats the reality plain to see.

      • For clarity I was generalising with the delusion point re thenarrative that the war is going well. It’s very telling despite my continued pointing out that thee has been no MSM big hitting reports of how splendid things are going or major breakthrough stories quite simply because there have been none nor will thee be.

        yes I agree the propaganda out of the Kremlin is just as bad.

        The powers that be well know if the truth was being reported the support from the public would drain away and they don’t want that they need to keep this war going or special operation if your that dull dull poster who never gives a clear answer to anything.

        anyways the new war zone is taking up everyone’s attention this one’s quietly sidelined the disaster it is can quietly be forgotten

        🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

      • Plenty sources out there from independent journalists , politicians , former politicians ,military, former military ,news channels etc etc you can go look yourself bro.

        That said you must have the correct truth source material be able to generate that smooth criminal moonwalker moment so tell me the success stories? and villages , individual buildings in Moscow or holes in subs /‘ships in dry dock don’t count ………

        Cos nobody can share any success news meanwhile the body count like the national debt keeps on ticking.

        I fully appreciate my stance and views aren’t shared by the room but our gov should be promoting a ceasefire to end this war

        🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

        • And that ceasefire can happen, just as soon as Russia fucks off out of Ukraine.

          A ceasefire won’t help long-term; it’ll just give Russia a chance to rearm and reorganise and have potentially better luck in a few years time for a second attempt.

          What needs to happen is not an imposed ceasefire but the defeat of Russia in Ukraine, be that a military defeat at the hands of the UAF or a political one in which the war is no longer seen as viable. Either way, Russia needs to lose this war.

          • Stevo you know I don’t actually disagree with your what needs to happen but it’s like I’ve been saying it falls into the delusional category.

            .One thing you’ve identified as being highly likely is that next year will be decisive aye but for Russia. I’ll lay money on a Russian counter once Ukraine has run out of brigades and steam in their own failed offensive.

            where is Ukraine getting the manpower to replace the losses? It’s simple maths Russia has more of everything and just like Ukraine doesn’t give a monkeys about casualty figures.

            When the US stops funding this it’s over……

            🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

          • Russia has no ability to launch any further offensives; they’ve been trying during Ukraine’s counteroffensive and they’ve failed massively. It’s all Russia can do now to hold on to what they have.

            Which massive Ukrainian losses do you speak of? I haven’t seen any figures showing massive losses. In fact, Ukraine were holding a few dozen brigades in reserve for the event of penetrating through all the Russian defences. I haven’t heard of them being committed, so they’re still available.

            You thinking that Russia’s going to be on a major, successful, offensive is the delusional part.

          • See this is the crux of my issue with this entire calamity.Who’s telling the truth ? Do you believe the official narrative as proclaimed by the government even though government lies ( declassified documents prove this) the MSM ? Again proven track record of half truths and spin there for all to see. Or the other side those simply asking questions and pointing out things that don’t fit the narrative?

            Not every voice opposing the official line is Russian propaganda,, not everyone is a fanatical supporter if one side or the other.

            General Miley and US administration on record as having combined casualty figures of 500,000 . Former US administration representative Col D. Macgreggor has Ukraine losses alone at 350-450,000 . Regardless both numbers are tragic

            Your assertion Russia unable to mount any effective counter attack is based on what? Cos if it’s from the “ safe & effective “ BBC then Theron lies the problem we simply do not know.

            its very simple one side isn’t being truthful and we the public are always last to know.

            I honestly wish you are right & it was me being delusional as that would mean less death and Ukraine in with a punt alas I fear the reality sooner or later is going to dawn and this proxy war isn’t getting the outcome the room desires.

            My own opinion the US will in the end sell out Ukraine and pull the plug on the money tap leading to the inevitable.

            so let’s wait and see which of us is right 😉

            🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

          • While Russia might not win this War it is obvious now that Ukraine can’t either,it will only end through a Ceasefire leading to some sort of negotiated settlement upon which the % of Ukranian Territory it is prepared to cede will be the major sticking point.

          • Utter tosh!

            You want a % of land Ukraine should cede; how about a small patch of land 6 feet long, 2 feet wide and 6 feet deep. Putin can have it all to himself.

    • Ukraine does not have air superiority, has less men and kit than Russia and Russia has spent months reinforcing their positions. The UKR counteroffensive was therefore going to be slow – surely no-one seriously thought they would roll back the Orcs in a few weeks – it might take years.

      • To be honest I think Ukraine has changed the purpose of their counteroffensive, anyway.

        I think it’s become less about retaking occupied land now than it is about systematically destroying Russia’s artillery advantage.

        That’s something that Ukraine can continue through the muddy autumn and frozen winter, too. Company-level assaults and accurate counter-battery fire can happen year-round, so come May/June next year, Ukraine will be taking on an exhausted Russian military with a much-reduced artillery arsenal, whilst Ukraine will also have the use of some F-16s by then.

        I think next year will be the decisive one, rather than this year. This year’s counteroffensive seems to be laying the groundwork.

        • Most Military commentators admit now that the Ukrainian Offensive has not only stalled but failed,they have made very limited gains for massive losses,while the Russians are still dug in behind their Defence Lines in the main but are now themselves on the Offensive in certain areas.If you think that the supply of F16’s will have a major effect on the outcome of this War,like MLRS,HIMARS,ATCMS,Storm Shadow,CR2 and Leopard 2 i think you are mistaken.

          • Which military commentators are they, then?

            The Ukrainian counteroffensive might not have broken through all the Russian lines but they’ve captured some territory and the goal now seems to have changed to wiping out Russia’s artillery advantage through accurate counter-battery fire.

            Even if you can call it a failure, what of it?! Did we give up in 1940 after Dunkirk? Did the Allies give up after Market Garden and let Nazi Germany keep what they still had?

            No.

            And if you think MLRS, HIMARS etc haven’t had an impact on this war then you haven’t been paying attention. All those systems kept Ukraine in this war. That’s a major effect.

            Storm Shadow etc has enabled Ukraine to strike at sites in Crimea, forcing the Russian Black Sea Fleet away from the peninsula, meaning that the Kerch Bridge is the only quick way to resupply/reinforce Russian forces in Crimea. Destroy that and everything has to come through Donbass and Zaphorizhzhia, which is a long trek that Russian logistics will have trouble with. That’s significant.

            F-16s will enable Ukraine to have more control over their airspace, enable them to provide air support to their ground forces. If Ukraine had had operational F-16s and trained pilots this summer then they’d have had far more success pushing through Russian lines than they’ve had. Lack of air power and air superiority has been a major factor in this.

          • You need to do some serious research rather than spout what the MSM is telling you – ive given a clue as to one source above ( Time Magazine) NYT is another,there are many sources to look at .

          • And perhaps you need to stop listening to, and taking as gospel, the likes of RT – aka the Mouth of Sauron.

          • And yes while Ukraine can strike deep behing Russian Lines with the array of donated Weaponry now at its disposal none of them will fundamentally change the course of the War,Russia will still hold around 20% of Ukranian territory regardless.As for your view of the F16 if you think that that will enable Ukraine to have more control of their Airspace that is wrong too,Russia has evolved it’s equipment and tactics to that of a Sniper in the Air,any F16’s won’t last long.

          • “Russia has evolved it’s equipment and tactics to that of a Sniper in the Air,any F16’s won’t last long.”

            Snipers in the air?! Don’t make me laugh! More like liquored-up hillbillies with shotguns in the air.

            Ukraine’s main weakness during this counteroffensive has been lack of air support. F-16s will definitely help with that for next year.

            Yes, they’ll lose some, because that’s how war goes. I’m sure you’ll see the first loss of an F-16 and decry how useless they are, just as pro-Kremlin trolls did at the first loss of a Leopard II or Bradley IFV as well.

          • Establishing air superiority, or at least local air superiority, is a prerequisite for a successful and rapid ground offensive. That’s basic stuff.

          • That is correct Graham, but if Ukraine could not achieve this with their SU27’s and Mig 29’s they won’t fare any better with F16’s, it’s the wrong Fighter for Air Superiority.

          • Why has Zelensky always asked for F-16s then?

            From LM website about the F-16 – “Designed as an air superiority day fighter,…”

          • Why did Zelensky ask for F16’s ? – good question that might not be easy to answer,likely that they were the only realistic option which are (a) available in the right numbers withing a reasonable timeframe and (b) the right Aircraft to Train and operate on which is not a simple exercise by any neans – anything in the F15/18 and Typhoon class just wouldn’t work in those regards.LM are in the business of selling Aircraft,they can correctly claim that the F16 is an Air Superiority Day Fighter but the current examples are far removed from what is being offered to Ukraine – despite upgrades they will be 40+ years old,a big difference in capability.Paired with AEW no doubt they will be effective up to a point but to my knowledge Ukraine does not possess any persistant AEW assets while Russia can with it’s A50’s.

          • Thanks Paul, would donor nations supply F-16s that were over 40 years old? Would they still have them?

          • Well yes – the examples being provided are from ex Dutch,Belgian,Danish and Norwegian stock so are in effect 40 years old.

        • Good points.
          It makes sense for Ukraine to counter-move slowly and cautiously and on a small scale – they cannot afford for their troops to be outflanked or to present a massive and concentrated target – and they are unused to rapid CA manouevre on a very large scale. Conversely they also do not want stalemate ie just holding the Russians to their existing positions.

          To make slow but measurable progress with incremental recovery of territory allows time for more and more effective western kit to arrive such as ATACMs and the F-16s. Slowness of the advance minimises UKR casualties and the contnued lack of Russian success further discredits Putin and demoralises his larger forces.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here