4 ms·

> Shell if the Army and Air Force continue to get all the attention in Ukraine This is a great point that I started thinking about 2-3 days ago, i.e. that the

> Shell if the Army and Air Force continue to get all the attention in Ukraine This is a great point that I started thinking about 2-3 days ago, i.e. that the present war in Ukraine is, almost by definition, a continental war (think Napoleon or the Eastern Campaign in WW2), and, as such, that an organisation like the US Navy might feel like it has been left out (like this quote actually emphasises). At which point it gets tricky when it comes to justify your budget, as in: "why should we assign so much money to the Navy when we're most worried about a continental war?". The "solution" that I saw in my head for this dilemma (from the POV of the Navy) was a re-emphasis on Taiwan and on China, i.e. trying to bring forward (again) the danger that the Chinese pose to Taiwan and to SE-Asia more generally speaking. That's a lot of sea/ocean for the Navy to cover and protect.

giardini 5y ago
paganet says>""why should we assign so much money to the Navy when we're most worried about a continental war?"."< Russia values the coastal territory it has grabbed b/c d they can use it to support a navy, something Russia has historically always wanted and needed (to project military power). But they have always done poorly and continue to do so: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-russias-military-is-so-shabby-214049654.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-russias-military-is-so-sh... Thwarting Russia's naval progress is cost-effective since it takes tremendous resources and history to run a navy effectively. Only Great Britain and the USA have been successful at establishing modern multi-ocean navies.
- bluGill 5y ago
  Russia can't operate the little Navy it has, better bases won't help.
- paganel 5y ago
  I do think Russia/USSR has focused primarily on the "heartland" [1], they have had some navy power but it looked almost always as an afterthought (their nuclear subs are a special, almost separate, case, they're more nuclear-oriented than sea/ocean-oriented). The US (following Britain) has of course almost been a world power that has focused on the Rimland-like spaces (plus islands like Japan). Having one aircraft carrier or ten-eleven won't make that much of a difference when the battle happens on the steppes of Eurasia (like it is now happening in Donbas), there are only so many such carriers that one can place inside a "small" sea like the Black Sea (assuming that they'll be allowed to pass the Bosphorus). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_J._Spykman#Geostrategic_ideas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_J._Spykman#Geostrateg...
nradov 5y ago
The military pivot towards treating China as the primary adversary already happened during the Obama administration, well before the current war in Ukraine. Russia can cause some trouble but they are too poor, weak, and corrupt to ever be a serious strategic competitor. All major defense procurement programs are now primarily focused on producing a force that will be able to defeat China in a major regional conflict across the entire western Pacific theater.

giardini 5y ago

paganet says>""why should we assign so much money to the Navy when we're most worried about a continental war?"."< Russia values the coastal territory it has grabbed b/c d they can use it to support a navy, something Russia has historically always wanted and needed (to project military power). But they have always done poorly and continue to do so: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-russias-military-is-so-shabby-214049654.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-russias-military-is-so-sh... Thwarting Russia's naval progress is cost-effective since it takes tremendous resources and history to run a navy effectively. Only Great Britain and the USA have been successful at establishing modern multi-ocean navies.

bluGill 5y ago
Russia can't operate the little Navy it has, better bases won't help.
paganel 5y ago
I do think Russia/USSR has focused primarily on the "heartland" [1], they have had some navy power but it looked almost always as an afterthought (their nuclear subs are a special, almost separate, case, they're more nuclear-oriented than sea/ocean-oriented). The US (following Britain) has of course almost been a world power that has focused on the Rimland-like spaces (plus islands like Japan). Having one aircraft carrier or ten-eleven won't make that much of a difference when the battle happens on the steppes of Eurasia (like it is now happening in Donbas), there are only so many such carriers that one can place inside a "small" sea like the Black Sea (assuming that they'll be allowed to pass the Bosphorus). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_J._Spykman#Geostrategic_ideas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_J._Spykman#Geostrateg...

nradov 5y ago

The military pivot towards treating China as the primary adversary already happened during the Obama administration, well before the current war in Ukraine. Russia can cause some trouble but they are too poor, weak, and corrupt to ever be a serious strategic competitor. All major defense procurement programs are now primarily focused on producing a force that will be able to defeat China in a major regional conflict across the entire western Pacific theater.