Military-strategic value of the Crimea.
Friends! Since the publication of the article "Crimea - the most powerful military hub": http: //cont.ws/post/97214
it has already been quite a long time, but "letters of workers" continue to knock in the mail.
Basically, these are hysterical squeezes of Ukrainian dishes and hypocritical worst of our national traitors, but there are questions from normal people. The main topic of misunderstandings: "Crimea you need (for us) to fill the Crimea weapons to protect the Crimea? Strange logic!"
Well, of course, the article was set out only the momentary aspects of the protection of the Crimea from the possible attack of the enemy, and the geopolitics were affected only in general terms. Now I will try to fix this shortcoming.
I emphasize - in this article, I leaving the humanitarian themes beyond the humanitarian topics associated with the Crimean, I highlight only a military aspect.
So! Why and why Putin decided to take away the Crimea from Ukraine?
NB! The most important, systemic, key, really affecting Russia's safety, but for some reason constantly forgetting factor:
Russia since 1988 is a participant in a very inconvenient and disadvantageous "Treaty on the liquidation of medium and low-low missiles (RSMD)". It is not possible to exit this contract possible due to rationalism - loss will be more than bonuses.
Low-range ballistic missiles have a radius of a lesion from 500-1000 km.
Middle range ballistic rockets - 1000-5000 km.
The same class includes the winged ground-based rockets with a radius of the lesion of more than 500 km.
You can come down the details, and if you take the point, then in Russia, Europe and the United States at this time, the classes of missiles of "medium and low-distance" in service are missing.
What this meant in practice and what we had at the time of joining the Crimea:
The fact that with a limited military (nuclear or non-nuclear) conflict at the European Theater of Military Action Application of NATO missile strikes on the European part of our territory is possible:
1. From the territory of NATO countries - operational-tactical RK (analogues of our "Iskander") with nuclear or non-nuclear BC.
2. From the territory of NATO countries - front-line bombers - nuclear bombs.
3. The most dangerous - from the districts of the Barents, the Northern and Mediterranean by the seas by the forces of AUG (Avianemian impact group), and (or) shock applies - wragular rockets with nuclear or non-nuclear BC.
Directions, areas where the most dangerous blows and damage zones can be applied on this map blue:
Very unpleasant alignment, but not fatal:
1. In the attack of NATO suddenness would not work (sticking in the three seas Auga - it's as a parachute that is distcreted behind the Stirlitz), and the "dead zones" would not allow to deal with (massive attack of the winged rockets) our armed forces, management systems, communications , and other infrastructure.
2. The performance-tactical rocket complexes (even equipped with nuclear BC) are frankly weak for guaranteed fulfillment of such tasks, and their limited radius of the lesion does not allow to reach many goals on the European part of the Russian Federation.
3. NATO-reserved NATO bombers, loaded by the YAB would mostly destroyed our air defense.
Therefore, in response to an attack, Russia would inflict a crushing counter blow and literally incited Europe.
Now consider that we would have as a result of the conversion of the Crimea to the US database:
The entire scenario threatening in complete destruction above is changing dramatically, assuming that the Crimea became the NATO base.
Look at the red lines on the map number 1 - the launch area of \u200b\u200brockets moved to vital objectives on the territory of Russia for 1000-1200 km, halvening the recent time and cover almost the entire European part of Russia:
In addition, in this case NATO, laughing, would have walked around the continuity of a medium-range missile in Europe - it would be enough to keep 5-7 cruisers and frigates (like "Tykitoroga and Arli Burk", respectively) with 300-400 "TomAgas" on board - elegantly and clever!
Thus, to p. 1.2.3. It would be added extremely profitable for NATO and literally killing for us a factor! No wonder Putin, calculating the layout, gave the script for a dangerous, but the only true scenario of the joining of Crimea - our Western "friends" of choice just did not leave us.
What do we have now?
Thanks to the accession of the Crimea, we took the threat of a sudden and efficient (with a tz. NATO) a missile attack and loosely covered the curtain flank.
Moreover, now we are controlling the entire water area of \u200b\u200bthe Black Sea, and with the adoption of:
1. Modernized submarines of the class "Varasavyanka", armed with covered missiles with a radius of the defeat of 1500 km
2. Modernization under the same CR missile cruiser "Moscow"
3. Returning of the Black Sea Fleet ship type "Buyan" with these same rockets
4. Stipging on combat duty Tu-22M bombers
we will keep at the sight of most of Europe and sea areas of possible launch missiles with AUG USA:
Those, nishtyakov, we have even legitimately by the accession of the Crimea, we still went around the "Middle and Minor Range Racqueries Treaty" (made what the United States and European Allies were planned to be planned to make a significant extent to the advantage NATO forces in Europe, due to the fact that we have been literally surrounded by the "friendly" ring of NATO military bases at this political moment.
Putin did not simply return to Russia what belonged and belongs to it - the great strategist Putin radically reformatted military-strategic miniators in the most important region of the planet, thereby declaring the world that the epoch of the monopolar world order is completed. Putin changed the world!
Now you understand the indignation of the "Western world" and the degree of hatred of this "world" to us?
Imagine what is going on in the soul of President Obama, who Putin "did" as a schoolchild?
Do you understand how we were lucky with the fact that the Great Russia finally is a great president who calculates the situation for ten moves forward?
I hope now you understand why theses like:
"... Well, why did it need it? What a difference, because in the Baltic States, Germany and Poland there are already NATO bases, and this is even closer than the Crimea!"
Maybe voiced or by ignorance, or fools, or enemies?
I hope now you have received an exhaustive answer to the question: "Why do Russia need Krymnash?"
Well, that's good, that you, friends, understood everything!
Now stop the gone about a small deterioration in the quality of life and a minor reduction in the level of consumption is the price that we have to pay for the fact that we have shown our teeth to our Western partners! It is better to get beer from refrigerators, pour popcorn, sit down in the chair and watch the spectacular drama in Realtime - the titanic battle for the geopolitical interests of Russia in the territory of the former Ukraine.
Those who understand - especially highly appreciate the fact that for the first time we for the first time had a chance to watch the mentioned battle not from the trenches - in the blood, lice and shit, and sitting in soft chairs - in warm houses and apartments.
Remember and appreciate it!
PS. Let me allow the liberals-liberals and other enemies of Russia to start snot, fight in hysterics and scold me, shouting: "Yes, who is going to attack you, to whom you need, circle civilized people and friends, only you are gopnik and cattle." You can do it right here and right now.
The article "The Bear seats a new Berlogue in the Black Sea", printed in the magazine The National Interest, is interesting not only to Americans, but also to domestic readers. It gives although popular, but a fairly detailed analysis of the strategic picture in the pool of the Black Sea, which has begun three years after the Crimea became Russian. The general meaning of the material is that after a rather long break, Moscow was able to regain almost complete control of this water area, having received a non-simply unspecified aircraft carrier, and the possibilities comparable to those who would give a large and expensive fleet. And it is possible that big.
The journal enjoys credibility due to the fact that it publishes articles of well-known economic, political, technical and military-strategic experts. The team that makes up the editorial board is headed by Henry Kissinger, in the latitude of knowledge and the ability to think no one doubts. This article was written by an associate professor of the Department of History of the American University of Iraq B. Kayoglu and the teacher of the Irabul Galatasaray University B. Kurtadarkan, who had previously written a book about wars and weapons of the future. The basis of the editorial policy of "National Interest" traditionally serves political neutrality when considering any armed conflict, hypothetical, current or already completed, and his at least a bilateral assessment by the eyes of each of the conflicting parties. The opinion of the journal specialists is perceived, as a rule, seriously and military leaders of countries, economists and politicians.
What happens when a dog licks a person's face? What happens when will you make a "bar" every day? 35 wise Jewish sayings
Black Sea Policy NATO
The article of respected authors is even more interest because it contains a hidden criticism declared by the North Atlantic alliance of targets in the Black Sea basin. Briefly the essence is that NATO is striving to allegedly to hold Russia, and for this it places near its borders of the arms system of explicitly offensive purposes, as well as objects that ensure their cover from a likely response strike. In addition to ground-based airfields, the combat capabilities of fleets of countries are increasing in the number of Black Sea, Bulgaria, Romania, and, of course, Turkey with Navy, superior to Russian ChF and tonnage, and by the number of shock units. The landing ships and boats intended for the definition for landing on other people's coast deserve special attention. In addition, information on the transmission of Ukraine (as long as the unknown) number of plastessions written off from the combat composition of NATO countries, but what is called "on the go", is impaired in the press. These ships, of course, are outdated, and morally, and technically, but the proximity of their probable bases to the Crimea will partially level this flaw. Among them, again, the landing military vessels are called.
Why the cats are killed by the killed animals home what will happen if a month to give up the alcohol and sweet 11 signs that an angel keeper visited you
How is the "deterrence"
The fluid analysis of the developing situation leads to the idea that the "deterrent policy", adopted and voiced by the NATO leadership, is to demonstratively prepare for offensive military actions in the hope that Russia, frightened the possible attack, will begin to somehow retreat and Take your position in the region. Realism in such logic is not enough, but not only in this problem. For a long period, mostly came to the 90s, the Euro-Atlantic military unit did not feel uneasy. The Black Sea included ships of different countries NATO, often not even to perform some training tasks, but just for the sake of the flag demonstration. Having denoted the presence, some ships left, and they came to replace others.
What are the "poisonous" people useful for you as a date of birth determines all your further life like a cat can destroy your life?
The situation has changed
Changes in the structural organization and composition of the Black Sea Fleet, not really tracked. It has already been familiar to that the ChF is deployed in the Ukrainian Crimea temporarily, and it should be noted, there were not only reason to hope for the fact that after the end of the rental period to Sevastopol, NATO ships will be moored. The Black Sea Fleet was not a formidable combat unit. To put it on the bottom, in 1993 there would be enough of the Navy of Turkey. Everything has changed after the Kiev Maidan. The peninsula was gone not only from Ukraine, but also from possible plans for Brussels to further "containment" of Russia. And it is strategically important. From the Crimea, you can control almost the entire water area of \u200b\u200bthe Black Sea.
Flot Island Concept
Until the Black Sea Fleet was based on the Ukrainian territory, his secondaryness was recognized in Russia. The changes began when in the spring of 2014, the Minister Shoigu announced that the development of technical means and infrastructure of the entire Russian fleet, including the ChF as its part, large money is allocated. The equivalent of $ 2.41 billion is supposed to spend on the construction of not only warships, but also coastal defensive objects whose capabilities have increased significantly in recent years. The Black Sea is relatively small, and if in the times of Ushakov or during the second world opponent, it was necessary to meet with submarines, destroyers and cruisers, now theoretically can be protected from sushi.
6 scenes in which really drunk actors were filmed with the best haircuts for those who are 505 scientific "facts" who were incredible
For this, there are modern anti-relocated complexes that allow you to affect any goals at huge distances with high accuracy. Ground airfields in Crimea are much more efficient than any aircraft carrier, and air defense systems and pro are able to fully cover from air attacks. In a significant increase in tonnage of the Black Sea Fleet and the number of its combat units, it makes no sense: first, it is very expensive, and secondly, the geographical position of the peninsula is that no Armada can be compared with it.
"Bubbles" zones
The authors of the article were called "bubbles" some access areas by which Russia is able to block individual zones of the Black Sea and Eastern Mediterranean. Turkey also has an extended coast, but the position of the peninsula is beneficial because it is deeply "crushed" into aquatic space, which makes it possible to effectively use rocket weapons and monitor together with military bases deployed in the Caucasus and Kuban, the entire water area.
The security system based on the objects of the peninsula is based on the latest technical means, such as the latter generation radar, mobile missile systems "Bastion" and "Iskander", radiotechnical intelligence products, aviation and much more. The possibilities of the fleet, which at least does not have great shock power, but with such support, receives a number of advantages compared to any likely opponent. It should be noted that the authors of the article did not limit the capabilities of the Crimean military group by one of the Black Sea.
Is it possible to attack the Crimea?
In the 90s, the situation in the region has developed in favor of Turkey, which raised its Navy and introduced into its composition a large number of modern ships intended for the conduct of offensive operations. These include Corvettes of the Ada Class and the frigates of type TF-2000, built, taking into account the requirements of small visibility, as well as said landing ships and helicopters, capable of ensuring the rise and landing of American F-35 generation fighters. Until recently, it was believed that such an expensive Armada is able to solve almost any combat missions related to the disembarkation of the expeditionary corps and its support. Now Russia has all the possibilities not only to block individual sections of the Black Sea Water area, but even if necessary, prevent the exit of ships from their own bases, as it was in 1853 in Sinop.
conclusions
The authors of the article indicate the advantages of the concept of integrated use of ships and coastal systems in Russia to provide regional dominance. It has the advantages of the active maneuverable fleet, but at the same time devoid of its drawbacks, as vulnerability and high costs.
Now I don't even want to argue about the situation that would have formed in the case of basing in the Crimea of \u200b\u200bNATO forces. However, nothing is written about this in the article National Interest.
Crimea, strategically important object for Russia?
By the way, about paying for the placement of the Russian military base: no broken penny did not receive. Virtual payment is a "discount" on the purchased gas, as a result of which GAZ Ukraine received two times more expensive than the countries of Europe, which are much further from the supplier. - 3 years agoWithout a doubt, the Crimean Peninsula is the most important strategic object for Russia! They say this phrase that the one who owns the Crimea owns the Black Sea. Imagine how important the naval base was important for Russia in Sevastopol, what for her (for renting the territory and water area) Russia paid the fabulous money, sold gas at a preferential price! The return of the Crimea to the Russian Federation for Russia is a great acquisition. And saving economically. Now our military units are located in Russia, and you do not need to pay anyone, you do not need to be depending on the mood of the Ukrainian rulers. Now we are the owners ourselves!
Crimea is a tourist business that seems very beneficial for investment investments. Crimea is fertile lands that can be obtained by rich crop of the same mesh cultures. By the way, the food industry is sufficiently developed in the Crimea, which processes its own products. The chemical industry is also developed. And in the Crimea, the production of own gas has already been activated. So everything is fine with Crimea and Russia! They are mutually needed to each other!
Skiba Lyudmila
No economic and strategic value of the Crimea for Russia does not represent, as well as for Ukraine. The question is only in the political plane. The region has long been "killed,", 80% dated the general Ukrainian budget. In addition to the resort business for holidaymakers, there is no long-distance business there for a long time. Vineyards are destroyed by Gorbachov and Ligachov, when combating alcoholism and slowly begin to recover, and agriculture has come to full decline in Stalin. There is no own water on the peninsula, electricity is not produced, all major agricultural products (potatoes, milk, butter creamy and vegetable, meat), sugar versed from neighboring regions of Ukraine. The bulk of the population is military retired SA and Navy with a high pension. The cutoff of the Crimea from the territory of Russia a priori cannot be an important strategic object. The hype around the Crimea under the guise of "return" of lost lands is an attempt to raise the falling rating of V.V. Putin, which gave its results.
Alexander29.
Of course, strategically important is the placement of troops in any quantity, access to the sea and the control of the Black Sea Water area, this is promoting to the West and the placement of certain strategic means of protection against the American systems moving to the east. This is again the distribution of the military forces between the first Russian Federation and America.
The strategic meaning of Crimea
amfora: There is a common belief that the Crimea has strategic importance for the safety of Russia and this was due to his return in 2014.
Let's check if it is.
To assess the strategic importance of the Crimea for the security of Russia, it is necessary to find out from which modern threats of the peninsula and the military bases located on it allow you to protect the country.
1. Nuclear strike.
Will the Crimea somehow protect Russia from a nuclear strike?
Unlikely.
Early detection and anti-missile systems can be placed in other regions no less, but even more efficiently. Smolensk and Pskov are located west, not to mention Kaliningrad. Maykop on one latitude with Sevastopol. Sochi south.
In general, options for placing detection systems and anti-missiles are quite enough without the Crimea. Some advantages for the placement of detection systems on the peninsula probably exist, but they are unlikely to be so principled.
At the same time I remind you that Russia has military satellites that can track start-ups from any points. And if I'm not mistaken, it is the satellites today are the main means of detecting launch missiles.
You can go on the other hand - what if the US placed anti-flashes or launchers directly to the Crimea?
However, from the point of view of the placement of American anti-absorption or nuclear weapons, Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk are also dangerous. Moreover, Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk are located closer to Moscow than the Crimea. And the Sumy is even closer.
It turns out that it does not have any unique advantages over other regions to prevent the nuclear strike or the placement of nuclear containment forces to other regions - neither for Russia or the United States.
2. Control airspace.
Here you can bring the same arguments.
The RLS and air base systems can be placed south and west of the Crimea in other regions of Russia.
Crimea is closer to other regions located to Romania and Bulgaria, but is it fundamentally, given the prospect of the placement of NATO forces in Ukraine, for example in Kharkov?
Is it more convenient from the territory of Crimea it is more convenient to intercept and track NATO scout airplanes and drones, which can be based under Kharkov than from Belgorod, Voronezh and Kursk?
Control of Turkey airspace?
But Sochi, Maikop, Krasnodar, Novorossiysk are located approximately at the same distance from Turkey as the Crimea.
Open the card and look at yourself.
3. Monitoring the water area of \u200b\u200bthe Black Sea.
Sevastopol - the base of the Black Sea Fleet of Russia.
But the fleet could be relocated to Novorossiysk, there are all the necessary conditions for this.
Moreover, the construction project of military bases in Novorossiysk really existed and it seems to be even started to build them, just after the return of the Crimea, this project lost its meaning.
You can again go on the other side - what if the US Navastopol appeared in Sevastopol?
But the United States with the same success can build a base in Odessa.
As in the case of the forces of nuclear deterrence and detection of launches, both for Russia and the United States there are alternatives to the Crimea. Alternative for Russia - Novorossiysk. Alternative for the USA - Odessa.
Therefore, it is not necessary to talk about the uniqueness of the Crimea even in relation to the placement of naval bases.
And how can the American fleet so much threaten the security of Russia from the Black Sea water area?
Tomahawki?
But forgive the US flew in the Black Sea, the US fleet itself turns out to be a blow that Russia may not even apply the fleet from its territory. Rockets of the middle and low range, which has Russia, as well as aviation - allow you to destroy the enemy's ships anywhere in the Black Sea.
From the history of the Second World War it is known that even controlling the Crimea, Germany was not a hostess on the Black Sea. And this is at a time when there were no modern missiles and tactical nuclear weapons.
Also, from history, it is known that in the case of the war in the Black Sea, it is easier to enter what to get out of it.
Therefore, the uniqueness and importance of the Crimea in terms of the safety of Russia is somewhat exaggerated.
Another question is that the relocation of the Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol in Novorossiysk is a very expensive event. But it is unlikely that it would be more costly than the construction of a bridge in the Crimea, other investments in the development of the peninsula, as well as losses caused by sanctions.
If you summarize all the costs that Russia suffered after the return of the Crimea, they will certainly exceed the cost of removing the fleet to Novorossiysk.
Separately, it should be noted that the Crimea does not have a land message with Russia.
If we talk about defense potential, then the stood bridge does not play a role, because himself is a very vulnerable object and can be quickly disabled, after which the Crimea will actually become an island.
Crimea and military bases located on its territory are very vulnerable from the point of view of supply.
Therefore, the Crimea is not so much ensuring the safety of Russia as it becomes a vulnerable place, which Russia itself should defend.
Let us also remind you to the goals of the initial accession of the Crimea to Russia, which was carried out by Suvorov by order of Catherine.
The slave trade flourished in Crimea, the Russians sent to the Crimea, whom the Turks were taken captured during the raids. At the redemption of captured funds were sent, quite large. The border provinces suffered from regular raids - it was akin to modern terrorism.
Suvorov was instructed to take the Crimea to end the "terrorist threat" that emanated from the Crimean Khanate. What was done.
The Crimean Khanty of those times can be compared with Ichkeria 90s, which was a source of banditry, terrorism, place of trafficking in persons, the place of release of fake dollars and so on.
But in 2014, Crimea did not carry those threats in terms of security for Russia, which existed in the Epoch of Catherine.
You can say so:
In terms of security, the Crimea did not stand out among other regions of Southeast Ukraine - Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporizhia, Sumy regions.
Therefore, for a fundamental strengthening of Russia's security in the West direction, not one Crimea should have joined, and Crimea together with Eastern Ukraine, that is, to create Novorossia.
Crimea without Eastern Ukraine, without Novorossia is a greater degree of Russia's vulnerability than protection against external threats.
However, the Crimea still has strategic importance.
But this value is not a military, but reputational, domestic political.
Crimea carries a large reputational value, ensures power the image of the defenders of Russia and collectors of Russian lands.
Crimea is the pride of Russia. Not in vain in the past was called the pearl in the crown of the Russian Empire. And here you do not need to forget that modern Russian power is restorers of pre-revolutionary Russia in modern realities, which means "pearl in the crown of the Russian Empire" has a special meaning for them.
Crimea - icon.
This is its strategic meaning.
That is why the president spoke a lot about Corsun, sacred places, history, but never said about the defense potential and the value of the Crimea for the security of the country.
And the military bases did not bear it from the Crimea because it was nowhere to or too expensive, but because it would become a shame, a sign of retreat, defeat, and the president decided to transfer military bases from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk under pressure from external forces forever It would be a reputation as an amusement, a husher, who is not able to defend the interests of the country.
And the Kremlin did not want to become a lose.
The Kremlin does not like to look like a loser, on the contrary - the image of modern Russian authorities is built on victories - a victory at the Olympics, the Soviet victory in the Great Patriotic War, privatized by the modern Russian authority, the liberation of Palmyra ...
The Kremlin last years is engaged in triumphism, about it without. Therefore, to admit an explicit and obvious retreat, defeat, the crumple - a sign, historical, sacred place - it was impossible.
Crimea is really strategic.
But this is not a military-defensive, but a military-historical, reputational, imaging, sacred value.
But also strategic.
Sources - http://amfora.livejournal.com/
You can convince each other to be hoarse, but military people are used to looking at the cards. And it is useful for us to look at the world by their eyes. And at the same time answering a somewhat exciting blogosphere of questions.
Is it possible to lock our fleet in the Black Sea?
From the moment the Crimea finally passed under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation, such an opportunity did not have such an opportunity.
"Iskander complexes fully control the coast of the entire Black Sea, including the Bosphorus Strait," explains the dear ART201045. They automatically turned Russia into the host of the Black Sea. If the complexes were even nearby, in the Krasnodar Territory, they could not fly to the Bosphorus to the Bosphorus.
Control Dardanelles are not so important - the shed is too wide to be a barrier for our warships. But lay mines to the bottom of a narrow Bosphorus and thereby block the passage through it, quite real. But the Turks, of course, will never become so risking. Because the missiles "Iskander" are capable not only to clear the strait, passing the bridges, but also to turn half-Istanbul into the ruins.
That is, locked our fleet in the Black Sea in the event of the war, it will not be possible. In addition, the geographical position of the Sevastopol base allows you to look after all the coast - Turkish, Romanian and Bulgarian. Georgian and Ukrainian in the calculation do not take, okay?
Does the Crimea need to the Americans?
The goal of Maidan was exactly the Crimea, clearly visible on this map.
The fact is that the restrictions on the range of use of Tomahawk do not allow Americans today to keep Moscow and quite most of the European part of Russia. The placement of the base in the Crimea would solve the problem, which for many years for a few decades does not give peace to our strategic enemy.
In addition, if the peninsula switched to the US protectory, we would lose all the advantages that we have today. Which is very important not only in a military sense, but also in economic - one of the most important our trading paths would be under the control of the Americans.
About the Black Sea Fleet as a combat unit would have to forget. The whole southwest of the country would not be protected, Russia would automatically turn into a third world country. Americans with full right would take their conditions to dictate us
"The first disarming blow to the Russian Federation should be applied precisely with the waters of rockets," Art201045 writes with knowledge. - The main areas from which the strikes must be deposited on the map. But the entire European part is not affected from these areas, and to focus the shock group in the Black Sea is hiddenly impossible, and the effect of surprise that would predetermine the success, would be questionable. Having permanent bases in the Crimea (Sevastopol, Feodosia, Donuzlav, Kerch) such a task would be solved. From the Black Sea, the entire European part of Russia, capturing the Southern Urals, and even the western part of Kazakhstan, would be subjected to blows of Tomahawk.
We could not accept this with this.
Will American bases for Kharkov appear?
This is also a frequent question that is emerging on social networks. Basically, of course, the Ukrainian patriots are convinced of this, which can not get used to the loss of the Crimea.
After the Crimean Peninsula became Russian, the appearance of American bases in Ukraine lost all meaning. "The blow from the rear will need to be robing something, which means that it is necessary to keep a solid grouping in the south and southeast of Ukraine, able to withstand the blow and not to let the troops in the depths of the country to protect the bases," explains the Ase of the military affairs ART201045. NATO will not agree to such an adventure, no matter how much Kiev persuades him.
The base is not only soldiers and weapons. It would have to build a complete infrastructure for many tens of billions of dollars - roads, barracks, parks for equipment, workshops, warehouses, fuel storages and much more. In short, what will be instantly destroyed at the first attempt to start the war. This is only Zadornov, the Americans are stupid - the military with such categories is not thinking. They are accustomed to the enemy to respect and even overestimate. Just in case.
____________________
Of course, the entry of Crimea to Russia has created us serious international problems. But they do not go to any comparison with problems that we would appear, it becomes American.
it has already been quite a long time, but "letters of workers" continue to knock in the mail.
Basically, these are hysterical squeezes of Ukrainian dishes and hypocritical worst of our national traitors, but there are questions from normal people. The main topic of misunderstandings: "Crimea you need to fill Crimea weapons to protect the Crimea? Strange logic!"
Well, of course, the article was set out only the momentary aspects of the protection of the Crimea from the possible attack of the enemy, and the geopolitics were affected only in general terms. Now I will try to fix this shortcoming.
I emphasize - in this article, I leaving the humanitarian themes beyond the humanitarian topics associated with the Crimean, I highlight only a military aspect.
So! Why and why Putin decided to take away the Crimea from Ukraine?
NB! The most important, systemic, key, really affecting Russia's safety, but for some reason constantly forgetting factor:
Russia since 1988 is a participant in a very inconvenient and disadvantageous "Treaty on the liquidation of medium and low-low missiles (RSMD)". It is not possible to exit this contract possible due to rationalism - loss will be more than bonuses.
Reference:
Low-range ballistic missiles have a radius of a lesion from 500-1000 km.
Middle range ballistic rockets - 1000-5000 km.
The same class includes winged rockets. ground basing With a radius of lesion more than 500 km.
You can come down the details, and if you take the point, then in Russia, Europe and the United States at this time, the classes of missiles of "medium and low-distance" in service are missing.
What this meant in practice and what we had at the time of joining the Crimea:
The fact that with a limited military (nuclear or non-nuclear) conflict at the European Theater of Military Action Application of NATO missile strikes on the European part of our territory is possible:
1. From the territory of NATO countries - operational-tactical RK (analogues of our "Iskander") with nuclear or non-nuclear BC.
2. From the territory of NATO countries - front-line bombers - nuclear bombs.
3. The most dangerous - from the districts of the Barents, the Northern and Mediterranean by the seas by the forces of AUG (Avianemian impact group), and (or) shock applies - wragular rockets with nuclear or non-nuclear BC.
Directions, areas where the most dangerous blows and damage zones can be applied on this map blue:
Very unpleasant alignment, but not fatal:
1. In the attack of NATO suddenness would not work (sticking in the three seas Auga - it's as a parachute that is distcreted behind the Stirlitz), and the "dead zones" would not allow to deal with (massive attack of the winged rockets) our armed forces, management systems, communications , and other infrastructure.
2. The performance-tactical rocket complexes (even equipped with nuclear BC) are frankly weak for guaranteed fulfillment of such tasks, and their limited radius of the lesion does not allow to reach many goals on the European part of the Russian Federation.
3. NATO-reserved NATO bombers, loaded by the YAB would mostly destroyed our air defense.
Therefore, in response to an attack, Russia would inflict a crushing counter blow and literally incited Europe.
Now consider that we would have as a result of the conversion of the Crimea to the US database:
The entire scenario threatening in complete destruction above is changing dramatically, assuming that the Crimea became the NATO base.
Look at the red lines on the map number 1 - the launch area of \u200b\u200brockets moved to vital objectives on the territory of Russia for 1000-1200 km, halvening the recent time and cover almost the entire European part of Russia:
In addition, in this case NATO, laughing, would have walked around the continuity of a medium-range missile in Europe - it would be enough to keep 5-7 cruisers and frigates (like "Tykitoroga and Arli Burk", respectively) with 300-400 "TomAgas" on board - elegantly and clever!
Thus, to p. 1.2.3. It would be added extremely profitable for NATO and literally killing for us a factor! No wonder Putin, calculating the layout, gave the script for a dangerous, but the only true scenario of the joining of Crimea - our Western "friends" of choice just did not leave us.
What do we have now?
Thanks to the accession of the Crimea, we took the threat of a sudden and efficient (with a tz. NATO) a missile attack and loosely covered the curtain flank.
Moreover, now we are controlling the entire water area of \u200b\u200bthe Black Sea, and with the adoption of:
1. Modernized submarines of the class "Varasavyanka", armed with covered missiles with a radius of the defeat of 1500 km
2. Modernization under the same CR missile cruiser "Moscow"
3. Returning of the Black Sea Fleet ship type "Buyan" with these same rockets
4. Stipging on combat duty Tu-22M bombers
we will keep at the sight of most of Europe and sea areas of possible launch missiles with AUG USA:
Those, nishtyakov, we have even legitimately by the accession of the Crimea, we still went around the "Middle and Minor Range Racqueries Treaty" (made what the United States and European Allies were planned to be planned to make a significant extent to the advantage NATO forces in Europe, due to the fact that we have been literally surrounded by the "friendly" ring of NATO military bases at this political moment.
Putin did not simply return to Russia what belonged and belongs to it - the great strategist Putin radically reformatted military-strategic miniators in the most important region of the planet, thereby declaring the world that the epoch of the monopolar world order is completed. Putin changed the world!
Now you understand the indignation of the "Western world" and the degree of hatred of this "world" to us?
Imagine what is going on in the soul of President Obama, who Putin "did" as a schoolchild?
Do you understand how we were lucky with the fact that the Great Russia finally is a great president who calculates the situation for ten moves forward?
I hope now you understand why theses like:
"... Well, why did it need it? What a difference, because in the Baltic States, Germany and Poland there are already NATO bases, and this is even closer than the Crimea!"
Maybe voiced or by ignorance, or fools, or enemies?
I hope now you have received an exhaustive answer to the question: "Why do Russia need Krymnash?"
Well, that's good, that you, friends, understood everything!
Now stop the gone about a small deterioration in the quality of life and a minor reduction in the level of consumption is the price that we have to pay for the fact that we have shown our teeth to our Western partners! It is better to get beer from refrigerators, pour popcorn, sit down in the chair and watch the spectacular drama in Realtime - the titanic battle for the geopolitical interests of Russia in the territory of the former Ukraine.
Those who understand - especially highly appreciate the fact that for the first time we for the first time had a chance to watch the mentioned battle not from the trenches - in the blood, lice and shit, and sitting in soft chairs - in warm houses and apartments.
Remember and appreciate it!
PS. Allowedliberal hypocrites and other enemies of Russia to start snot, beat in hysterics and scold me, shouting: "Yes, who is going to attack you, to whom you need, circle civilized people and friends, only you are gopnik and cattle." You can do it right here and right now.
Yesterday, legal procedures for the accession of Crimea to Russia were finally completed.
Now it is not only two full-fledged subjects of the federal, but also the new Crimean Federal District.
Since the reunification took place both de facto and de Jura, it makes sense to consider purely geographical and geopolitical aspects of the changed situation, the configuration of which three months ago it was impossible to even suggest. Without hysterics, smearing snot and rudiments of the information war.
1. Demography, population of Russia and Ukraine.
It is estimated for November 2013 - January 2014 The population of both countries was:
Russia - 143667 thousand people. (Trend 2010-2013 - annual increase + 250-300 thousand people.)
Ukraine - 45229 thousand people. (Trend 2010-2013 - an annual decline of -150-180 thousand people.)
Crimea population at the end of 2013:
Crimean Republic - 1965 thousand people.
Sevastopol - 389 thousand people.
What happens after the joining of the Crimea?
Russia - 146021 thousand people. (101.6%)
Ukraine - 42875 thousand people. (94.8%)
The reduction in the population of Ukraine is 5.2%, and an increase in the population of Russia is less significant, 1.6%.
The ratio of countries in the population (Ukraine to Russia) prior to the accession of Crimea was 31.48%, and now - 29.36%.
That is, now less than a third.
In my opinion, if we consider the solution isolated from the general situation, it is very strange: a separate federal district is created only for two subjects of the federation and for a total area of \u200b\u200bjust 26.1 thousand square meters. - almost twice less than one Moscow region (!), Which 45.9 thousand square meters.
Rational sense arises only in two cases:
1) A separate federal district is created for the full integration of the new territory in the legal and economic system of Russia and so that all decisions on the claims of Ukraine and the management of its nationalized state actors are concentrated in one hands,
2) The Crimean District is "Licken" for the future of the full-fledged South-Western Federal District, and all practical issues of rapid integration of new territories with friendly and ethnically close populations will be run around.
Perhaps closer to the truth of the assumption 1.
And as soon as the goal is reached, the individual district will be abolished and attached to the southern one.
But this is only an assumption.
It is curious that the completion of the accession of the Crimea and Sevastopol was celebrated by a large saluel in Moscow, Sevastopol and Simferopol (30 volleys) - something similar to salutes about the liberation of large cities and the capitals of the Soviet republics in the Great Patriotic.
Here, for example, yesterday's salute in Sevastopol:
Photo from asaratov.
However, we were a little distracted.
Let's go further.
3. Straight geopolitical consequences Reunion:
3.1 Russia received strategic control over the entire Black Sea region, as Crimea is located almost in the center of the Azov-Black Sea basin. Radically increased the possibilities of Russia in terms of control over sea and airspace in the Black Sea area
3.2 Russia received unlimited control over the Base of the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, the possibility of full update of the Black Sevastopol, as well as all marine ports and military bases in the Crimea, somehow:
Kerch ferry crossing
- Kerch Sea Trade Port
- Kerch Sea Fish Port
- Feodosia Sea Trade Port
- Yalta sea shopping port
- Sevastopol Sea Trade Port
- Sevastopol Sea Fish Port
- Evpatoria Sea Trade Port.
All this property will now be not only Russian de facto, but also controversial de-Yura, from the point of view of Ukraine and the Euro-Atlantic community countries.
3.3 Kharkov agreements are denounced, the annual fee of Ukraine in the area of \u200b\u200bapprox is released. $ 100 million / year, as well as a variety of accompanying duties, which raided at least a third of this amount. Also disappears the legal basis for the discounts of Ukraine for gas, and it will pay the full European price (approximate aquesing - the rise in price is approx. $ 3 billion / year).
3.4 In the total balance of "Prices of Crimea" it is also necessary to enter released funds for the arrangement of Novorossiysk, as the main base of the ChF in the national territory (this is several billion $), as well as the cost of reformatting and strengthening the infrastructure of the Southern Military District, in the event that Crimea It remained for the fully hostile government of the new Ukraine and could also become the center of the basing of NATO ships. This is no longer just a few, but several dozen billion $ in the 10th-year perspective.
3.5 The actual disappearance of the Navy and the destruction of the system of their basing, as well as training systems. Ukraine is locked in two limited basins (Odessa and Azov), and the second pool is completely under the control of Russia.
4. Exceptional economic zones countries in the Black Sea.
The configuration changes radically.
Let's see schematic maps (in German, did not find other sensible).
4.1. Here is the picture for the 2005th.
Solid lines - de jure delimitation between Turkey and the USSR, this is a recognized official line.
Points are exemplary informal lines of distinction of exceptional zones of post-Soviet countries, as well as Romania and Bulgaria.
Look - Ukraine legally controls about a third of the Black Sea basin, she got the most "ladies" part of the Soviet legacy. It is more controlled only Turkey. Russia received a rather modest part in the east.
4.2. Now - a picture on 21.3.2014 (painted a coryavo, but the principle is understandable).
Ukraine is divided into two pools and loses about 70% of what she had. Previously (not so long ago), weak Ukraine lost part of the Western zone, where the more unfinished Romania pressed her neighborhood of the shelf zone about. Snake.
Russia after the joining of the Crimea receives not just approximately equal to Turkey an exceptional zone (approx. 40% of the pool), but also actual control over the Black Sea, since its zone is located in the geographical center of the subregion.
Red feature - Kerch Strait.
Prior to this, Russia paid for the passage of his courts through Kerch - the Yenikal channel OK. $ 15-25 million Every year, now the situation is mirroring. Russia receives almost complete control over the Azov Sea, as well as over the passage through the Kerch Strait.
Now Ukraine will have to pay for the passage of this channel (all export-import of products through the ports of the Azov Basin remaining), the amount is still incomprehensible.
5. Nationalization of the Crimean Republic of the former state assets of Ukraine On the territory of Crimea.
Main assets can be viewed on this infographics from RBC
But, as I understand it, not everyone is listed here.
In addition, the ports go to Russia (see above, paragraphs. 3.2), you need to watch Kerch and Sevastopol shipyard and shipyards, what is their belonging.
In the nearest agenda, a full-scale land transition of Kuban - Crimea with multi-band car and 2-bedroom troops, but this is a matter of at least two years, even if this project concentrate serious resources.
Previously, in 1944-45, such a land bridge over the Kerch Strait existed, but in a very fermented execution, here is a photo:
It is curious that in this temporary bridge, it was even time to drive Stalin on a promotional train, on returning from the Yalta conference for three powers, but at the end of February - early March 1945. The bridge was destroyed by ice torus and was no longer restored.
In Soviet times, until 1987, there was a railway ferry, but he now does not function, in the passenger version. In the cargo - exists.
So the establishment of an intensive regular message in option 2 objectively gets into the very first priorities.
However, there is also a maritime supply and passenger message.
7. Railway questions.
Crimean railway They are divided with Ukrzaliznica, and most likely, the number of trains in the message with Ukraine will be significantly reduced, because the Crimea ceases to be part of it. In addition, it is not clear that Russia will be with trains of Russia - Crimea (Let's say, Moscow - Simferopol, Petersburg - Sevastopol) and how much they will be reduced, which intersection mode will be installed for passengers.
Behind the race of the transition of warships in the Crimea under the Andreevsky flag, for which the Internet-rigoric wrestling is now sailing, the rail processes are completely gone, and then curious collisions took place.
In particular, the Ukrzalisnik already in late February realized that the Crimea floats, and took measures to distil the territory of Ukraine the most modern units of rolling stock, in returning the most ancient units with an expiring resource.
So overtakes from the Crimea, for example, the most modern train (see
Loading...
