Russia-Georgia Conflict: News From the War zone

[S400]

The danger for Nato ships is not from the black sea fleet but the Su-24s and Tu-22s if it comes down to a shooting war. It'd be a turkey shoot which makes more sense if Turkey joined in.

This is true only as long as one presupposes a lack of air support for the US/NATO forces. I find it beyond unlikely that any form of shooting war would be entered into without the support of a carrier group (more likely to be two or more carrier groups) nearby. Air superiority is the most fundamental element of US/NATO warfighting.

 

[kato]

Two CVWs would typically be only some 100 fighter-strike aircraft.

Turkey with its 200 F-16 and 100 Phantoms itself would be far more important in that context - especially if more than just the 4th Air Army (itself with some 30 Su-27 and 70 MiG-29 supported by A-50s along with two SAM regiments and a few MiG-31 from the 185th ATC) would be faced in any capacity.
The only other viable NATO forces in theater would be Bulgaria's dozen or so MiG-29, and whatever the USAF currently has at Incirlik, which wouldn't be all that much.

 

[S400]

Two CVWs would typically be only some 100 fighter-strike aircraft.

Turkey with its 200 F-16 and 100 Phantoms itself would be far more important in that context - especially if more than just the 4th Air Army (itself with some 30 Su-27 and 70 MiG-29 supported by A-50s along with two SAM regiments and a few MiG-31 from the 185th ATC) would be faced in any capacity.

Where you might argue quantity I would argue quality. And not only of the aircraft, as pilot training has at least as much sway over the outcome of any air conflict. With all the talk of the US military being stretched thin, or run down, there is the flip side that much combat experience is being gained.

In any case, if this situation somehow devolves into a Russian/NATO shooting conflict I have serious reservations about it being contained in such a small theater.

Hopefully this isn't straying too far off topic.

 

[bey1919]

Why should turkey help nato to cover in black sea or to protect from russian air force ?? turkey wants to remain netural turkey and russia improved releations after cold war and there is no point to protect nato and EU interests in black sea .. Turkeys first aim is to make sure nomore harm is going to come from north iraq because of the actions of USA ....

 

[swerve]

Why should turkey help nato to cover in black sea or to protect from russian air force ?? turkey wants to remain netural turkey and russia improved releations after cold war and there is no point to protect nato and EU interests in black sea .. Turkeys first aim is to make sure nomore harm is going to come from north iraq because of the actions of USA ....

Turkey is a member of NATO, & has been for over 50 years. Much longer than Spain, let alone Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, etc.

The EU & NATO are not the same. Several EU members are not in NATO, & vice-versa.

 

[swerve]

This is true only as long as one presupposes a lack of air support for the US/NATO forces. I find it beyond unlikely that any form of shooting war would be entered into without the support of a carrier group (more likely to be two or more carrier groups) nearby. Air superiority is the most fundamental element of US/NATO warfighting.

Why put carrier groups into confined waters in close proximity to a hostile coast, when you have land bases close by? Three NATO countries border the Black Sea, & they have continuous land & air routes across NATO territory to western Europe.

 

[S400]

Why put carrier groups into confined waters in close proximity to a hostile coast, when you have land bases close by? Three NATO countries border the Black Sea, & they have continuous land & air routes across NATO territory to western Europe.

Very good point. I guess I was contemplating more of a unilateral response - sadly this seems to have become a common theme from where I hail.

Carrier groups may still be an option should overflights be granted, but basing for hostile action be denied. Obviously if a NATO wide response is enacted this would not be the case.

There is something to be said for never needing to ask if you can land.

 

[Chrom]

Turkey is a member of NATO, & has been for over 50 years. Much longer than Spain, let alone Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, etc.

The EU & NATO are not the same. Several EU members are not in NATO, & vice-versa.

You still didnt answered WHY Turkey should help US and offer own airfields. NATO (let alone US) cant force Turkey to do it. Remember, Turkey denied US/NATO access to its airfields for operations against Iraq/Iran.

Thats said, should Turkey deny NATO its airfields, any CBG's passage through straits will be also denied. So this is moot point.

 

[kato]

Actually makes me wonder about one thing - have any military ships used the full land path to the Black Sea at any time since its completion 15 years ago?

I.e.
Rhine river
Main river
Main-Danube canal
Danube river

And yes, i realize there's no way you could transit a CV through that.

 

[ASFC]

Austria might have something to say (neutrality and all that) but I would think Serbia would put a stop to it-no point having NATO ships pass through your country that are on their way to confront your ally is there?

 

[bey1919]

carrier and so likely ships cant pass from dardanelles and from istanbul due to agreements !!! so it would be better for USA and nato try to reach over moldavia , ukrain, maybe romania ı m sure they can open bases for USA and nato !!!!!but turkey is out of question ı m sure we are more concerned about our economical relations with russia it is more important for us !!!trading value is high !!form now on decreased value of bussines can be seen in laleli (textile trade center ) basicly it is not our interest to open base or let USA or Nato ships pass from istanbul .Turkies security concerns is more on nort ıraq and security concerns grow after the US accupation in ıraq

[Mod edit]
Welcome to the forum, & I hope you enjoy your time here - but could you please take a look at the rules? In particular, Rule 18 - punctuation. & spelling. http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php
[/Mod edit]

 

[Topmaul]

Why do you people want to go to the military option first? Georgia is not worth the life of one US Service member. They started a fight that they could not win so now they are suffering the results of their policy. Pure and Simple don't pick a fight unless you can win. If 90 percent of the population your about to attack have Russian passports and your on the Russian boarder maybe you should re-think your decision making process. This issue is over Russia won this round face it, this one is over CHECK-MATE. Now we need to get these two wars which we have been screwing around with over and won so we can get back to the cold war. Or the Russians will run circles around us again. Our military is pinned down, and worn out, we need a few years to rebuild and the Russians know it.

Putting a Carrier in the Black Sea is about well you know what. The Black Sea is a Russian Lake how would we feel if a hostile fleet took up position in the Gulf of Mexico?

 

[Grand Danois]

Why do you people want to go to the military option first? Georgia is not worth the life of one US Service member. They started a fight that they could not win so now they are suffering the results of their policy. Pure and Simple don't pick a fight unless you can win. If 90 percent of the population your about to attack have Russian passports and your on the Russian boarder maybe you should re-think your decision making process. This issue is over Russia won this round face it this one is over CHECK-MATE. Now we need to get these two wars which we have been screwing around over and won so we can get back to the cold war. Or the Russians will run circles around us again. Our military is pinned down, and worn out, we need a few years to rebuild.

It is a persistent policy of the Russians to issue passports and stir up things, arm groups, making sure things stay hot, playing them against each other.

They play divide and rule - the Caucasus being the glaring example.

However, the Russians also have small enclaves inside a number of European countries ranging from 5-30% of the pop. Since 2006 they have issued passports. In one place - Moldova, which except for the ethnic cleansing in the 90s, is similar to the situation in Georgia. The Baltics also have a minority, and they're inside NATO.

So it's not about who fired the first shot. It's about who works to create a rot and who works to keep a lid on things and solving issues.

Now, the EU can keep a lid on the issue in the Baltics - that's why EU is of greater threat to Russia than NATO. Russia lose influence in their "near abroad" if things aren't a rot.

Which is why the issue is wider than a fool of a Georgian president.

And Putin is testing the waters with this.

 

[Firehorse]

Regarding CTF/CBG in the Black Sea, I doubt Turkey would have allowed it in, and besides their volnurability (the Russian AF has many long range ALCMs/AShMs that can be launched from far inland, behind PVO/fighter cover, also see my posts in http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=150104&postcount=13) , I don't think there is any available and close by. By the time it arrives 2-3 weeks from now, the situation on the ground will surely change. US warships scrap visit to Georgian port-source
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=315491

I expected that at this point, USN won't be forcing the issue and use Batumi.

Georgian police forced from disputed village
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=315196

Finally MI-24s showed up!

Q&A: What could happen next in Caucasus conflict
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=314910
An intersting observation:

Abkhazia and South Ossetia are in different situations. Abkhazia, with a self-estimated population of around 340,000 and a sub-tropical climate with tourism potential, may try to survive as an independent country under Moscow's security umbrella.
South Ossetian leaders have already stated that, although they first want to have their independence recognised, they may then consider becoming absorbed into Russia. With a population of around 70,000 and little economic activity, South Ossetia's ability to self-sustain is doubtful.

 

[swerve]

carrier and so likely ships cant pass from dardanelles and from istanbul due to agreements !!!

Not true. The Montreux Convention of 1936 (the agreement you refer to) states that if Turkey is at war, or considers itself to be in immediate danger, it may suspend the rest of the Convention, & allow through, or bar, whatever shipping it chooses. Articles 20 & 21, or thereabouts, if I remember correctly.

but turkey is out of question ı m sure we are more concerned about our economical relations with russia it is more important for us !!!trading value is high !!form now on decreased value of bussines can be seen in laleli (textile trade center )

I've stayed in Laleli, & I'm sure its economy would suffer from a reduction in Russian trade. But Laleli is not Turkey. In 2007, Russia provided 14% of Turkish imports, & took 4.4% of Turkish exports. The EU provided 43.9% of imports, & took 61.7% of exports. Who is more important?

 

[swerve]

You still didnt answered WHY Turkey should help US and offer own airfields. NATO (let alone US) cant force Turkey to do it. Remember, Turkey denied US/NATO access to its airfields for operations against Iraq/Iran.

Thats said, should Turkey deny NATO its airfields, any CBG's passage through straits will be also denied. So this is moot point.

No, I didn't. It's up to Turkey whether it agrees to any putative NATO operation in Georgia. All I was doing was pointing out what looked to me like the errors of 1) conflating NATO with the EU & 2) forgetting that Turkey is a member of NATO. It therefore has a say in what NATO does.

BTW, Turkey has never refused NATO access to its airfields. It has refused the USA access, & also barred overland transit of US troops & equipment, but not when engaged in a NATO operation. There have been no NATO operations against either Iraq or Iran. The USA is not NATO, & the US-led operations against & in Iraq have all been outside NATO, for the very good reason that a large number of NATO countries, including Turkey, refused to accept them as NATO missions. NATO members do not have to act solely within a NATO framework: they may, & many do, undertake independent actions. NATO is not like the Warsaw Pact.

Turkey has co-operated with the NATO mission in Afghanistan, sending troops & civil reconstruction teams, & assisting NATO logistics, including the use of airfields.

 

[Firehorse]

http://vologda.kp.ru/upimg/photo/138078.jpg?0,33820490478028
The caption says: CM launched from a USN ship can reach Sankt-Petersburg and Iran".

Moscow’s plan is to redraw the map of Europe
By Mikheil Saakashvili
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fa0035f0-...uid=70662e7c-3027-11da-ba9f-00000e2511c8.html

He has some valid points, but also ommits that ethnic regions had cleansings in Georgia's favor when Mr. Dzhugashvili a.k.a. Joseph Stalin ruled the Soviet empire. http://www.toy-soldier-gallery.com/Articles/Stalin/Stalin.html

What about the principle of self-determination? The Kurds were supposed to be allowed a state after WWI, but they are still fighting. OTH, Germany or Poland may start issuing their passports to the residents of Kaliningrad anclave- what would Russia say then?

Huge fire at the ammunition dump in the Ukraine- 3 days and going!
http://www.lenta.ru/news/2008/08/27/long/

As with that train blown up in Georgia, I suspect sabotage!

 

[Chrom]

No, I didn't. It's up to Turkey whether it agrees to any putative NATO operation in Georgia. All I was doing was pointing out what looked to me like the errors of 1) conflating NATO with the EU & 2) forgetting that Turkey is a member of NATO. It therefore has a say in what NATO does.

BTW, Turkey has never refused NATO access to its airfields. It has refused the USA access, & also barred overland transit of US troops & equipment, but not when engaged in a NATO operation. There have been no NATO operations against either Iraq or Iran.

Swerve, of course Turkey cant refuse NATO access to its airfields - as ALL NATO decisions are taken unanimously, so it would be paradox if Turkey denied that. But Turkey may well block access to any NATO member, and block any NATO decision which lead to NATO-wide operation requiring access to Turkey airfields. It that sense Turkey can refuse NATO access to its airfields.

This is all semantic and formal. We are however more interested about practical outcome. And in practice, Turkey CAN deny NATO access to its airfields. By simply not signing NATO-wide operation. Moreover, Turkey can block ANY NATO operation (except most basic ones) - regardless if it requires Turkey airfields or not.

The USA is not NATO, & the US-led operations against & in Iraq have all been outside NATO, for the very good reason that a large number of NATO countries, including Turkey, refused to accept them as NATO missions. NATO members do not have to act solely within a NATO framework: they may, & many do, undertake independent actions. NATO is not like the Warsaw Pact.

Turkey has co-operated with the NATO mission in Afghanistan, sending troops & civil reconstruction teams, & assisting NATO logistics, including the use of airfields.

Thats what i said. If ALL NATO members INCLUDING Turkey will feel the need to start operation against Russia - ofc airfields will be granted. If not - then Turkey is not obliged to anything. And as i said, right now Turkey is rather friendly to Russia and will not help in any NATO (let alone US) operation against Russia.

 

[bey1919]

turkey will refuse and has refused any access which will lead crash aginst its neighbours espacially concerning Rusia and iran and maybe syria .Turkey is not in afganistan to support Nato or USA turkey is in afganistan for the sake of afgan people serving like medical care , school bulding etc ....Turkish point is clear .We buy natural gas from russia, estimated 50 billion dollars of trade valume also better relations in İran trade valume is also increasing ..That agreement is clear not more then 45000 tons...it doesnt say peace time or war time basicly if we want and we should actualy close the pass to black sea turkish point is clear you wanna pick a figh ?? pick a fight over someone elses place, not from black sea try over ukrain poland , belarus , finland, Russia is there D so there is nato in germany ..You guys can send regiments from germany by land till russia. İt is clear turks is not on nato or EU or US side

[Mod edit]
Please take note of my comment in your post no 351, & look at the rules. In particular, Rule 18 - punctuation. & spelling. http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php
[/Mod edit]

 

[Chrom]

Moscow’s plan is to redraw the map of Europe
By Mikheil Saakashvili
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fa0035f0-...uid=70662e7c-3027-11da-ba9f-00000e2511c8.html

He has some valid points, but also ommits that ethnic regions had cleansings in Georgia's favor when Mr. Dzhugashvili a.k.a. Joseph Stalin ruled the Soviet empire. http://www.toy-soldier-gallery.com/Articles/Stalin/Stalin.html

What about the principle of self-determination? The Kurds were supposed to be allowed a state after WWI, but they are still fighting. OTH, Germany or Poland may start issuing their passports to the residents of Kaliningrad anclave- what would Russia say then?

Nothing. World history repeatedly showed what in international relations formalities dont mean much. Only pure political and military influence. If some country CAN keep separatists at bay and is strong enough to defend itself against foreign separatist-supporters - then the province will remain in said country (like Chechnya or Ireland.. or even Texas). If the country is not strong enough to either defeat separatist or they foreign supporters (like in Kosovo, or Georgia) - then said province have good chance to become independent.