• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NATO Needs to Focus on the Black Sea

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,313
Reaction score
82,703
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
NATO Needs to Focus on the Black Sea

8/4/20
“Of two competing theories, the simpler explanation” is to be preferred, wrote William of Ockham, an injunction that some Western analysts and military leaders seem to have forgotten. After Russia sent troops into Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014, many in NATO convinced themselves that Moscow’s next target would be the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. The more logical inference is that Russia has military ambitions in the Black Sea region — and that Western Alliance members should turn their focus thence. There is no indication that Moscow has any intention of invading the Baltics. Russia has always seen the Baltics as different from the rest of the former Soviet Union. In short, when the Kremlin looks at Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania it sees Europe, and it had always played by different rules in Europe than in its self-designated “near abroad”. Rather than fixate on the Baltics, where the threat is low and a deterrent force is in place, NATO should pay more attention to the Black Sea region. There are four main reasons the Black Sea region demands more attention. First, three of the six littoral states – Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey – are NATO members and two – Ukraine and Georgia – were promised membership in 2008. Next, an examination of Russian military activities in the last decade-plus leads to the conclusion that the Black Sea and Eastern Mediterranean is the area of greatest geopolitical importance for Russia.

Third, the increasing alignment between Russia and Turkey deserves immediate and serious attention from all NATO capitals. If Moscow is able to pull Ankara into a strategic partnership that distances it from NATO, the security of the Alliance and all its members would suffer significantly. Finally, the Black Sea is an emerging energy hub that could allow Europe to diversify its energy sources away from Russia. But Turkey is key here, as well. The Black Sea region needs more attention. As Ben Hodges — former U.S. Army-Europe commander — and his co-authors argue, NATO should use the Enhanced Forward Presence model it deployed in the Baltics as a model for its Black Sea presence. This would entail beefing up the forces assigned to NATO’s Multi-National Division-Southeast (MND-SE) in Romania, deploying integrated air and missile defenses, and increasing the air policing of the region, as NATO has done in the Baltics. As Hodges and his co-authors argue, balancing the Alliance’s posture between the Baltic and Black seas would eliminate any gaps or seams for Moscow to exploit.

Russia's incursions into Georgia and Ukraine demonstrate Moscow's feeling of impunity in the Black Sea region. This needs to be corrected.

The port cities of Constanta in Romania and Odesa in Ukraine would make excellent hubs for NATO Black Sea activity.
 
Look at how culturally it is written about justifying ordinary imperialist plunder... But I can imagine what a hysterical piggy like squeal these gentlemen would make if Russia started talking about the need for Russian ships in the Gulf of Mexico, for example...
Playing with fire for banksters ends when they realize that money will not help.
This was well explained to them in 1949, when the USSR developed its own atomic bomb.. But new generations have grown up, who consider stories about the Nuclear Apocalypse to be giggles and jokes, and they will live forever, walking among the ruins of cities with glamorous models.
 
Last edited:
Sure, but make European NATO more self-reliant and able to stand on its own feet against Russia without the help of gigantic military and economic superpowers like the U.S. and China.
 
Look at how culturally it is written about justifying ordinary imperialist plunder... But I can imagine what a hysterical piggy like squeal these gentlemen would make if Russia started talking about the need for Russian ships in the Gulf of Mexico, for example...

Not NATO as a whole, mainly just US warmongers and imperialists. NATO should be able to hold its own against Russia. Dividing Europe between a U.S. and USSR side was intentional.
 
What exactly does the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have to do with the Black Sea?

Clearly geography is not a subject the OP is acquainted. Or the OP is one of those totalitarians that likes to beat people with unaccountable NATO forces, like Clinton did in Kosovo. NATO killed more Kosovars than the Serbs, and it was the Kosovars that NATO was suppose to be protecting.

NATO should have been disbanded 30 years ago after the break-up of the Warsaw Pact. It serves no useful purpose, other than as a club for fascists.
 
The UK has said the 2 new aircraft carriers we've just built are Nato assets.
There's a plan to base one in Asia and the other in Europe so that would be available for any duties in the Black Sea.
 
NATO Needs to Focus on the Black Sea



Russia's incursions into Georgia and Ukraine demonstrate Moscow's feeling of impunity in the Black Sea region. This needs to be corrected.

The port cities of Constanta in Romania and Odesa in Ukraine would make excellent hubs for NATO Black Sea activity.

Hopefully, the US will not get involved with doing the EU's dirty work for them.
 
The UK has said the 2 new aircraft carriers we've just built are Nato assets.
There's a plan to base one in Asia and the other in Europe so that would be available for any duties in the Black Sea.

They will make for some big targets.
 
What exactly does the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have to do with the Black Sea?

Clearly geography is not a subject the OP is acquainted. Or the OP is one of those totalitarians that likes to beat people with unaccountable NATO forces, like Clinton did in Kosovo. NATO killed more Kosovars than the Serbs, and it was the Kosovars that NATO was suppose to be protecting.

NATO should have been disbanded 30 years ago after the break-up of the Warsaw Pact. It serves no useful purpose, other than as a club for fascists.

That was moreover the UN than NATO itself but touche
 
They will make for some big targets.

They will have F-35B, Type 45 destroyer escorts and any other ships we can scrounge from willing allies but yeah, carriers are not exactly small targets.
I think the idea is for the UK carriers to give the US carrier fleet a bit of a break as they can be swapped in and out for US forces as the UK and US have been pretty integrated for a while now.
 
Hopefully, the US will not get involved with doing the EU's dirty work for them.

I'm not sure the EU is really geared to attack anyone as surely it would have to get permission from at least a solid majority of member states.
France for instance can't call for an attack all by itself if other parties don't agree.

I imagine that's why the EU didn't join in during the Falklands conflict.
 
I'm not sure the EU is really geared to attack anyone as surely it would have to get permission from at least a solid majority of member states.
France for instance can't call for an attack all by itself if other parties don't agree.

I imagine that's why the EU didn't join in during the Falklands conflict.

Another reason the power of NATO should be more evenly distributed among the other member-states and balanced between the US and France, Germany, Holland, Poland etc than so slanted toward essentially being a U.S. power projection complex.
 
They will have F-35B, Type 45 destroyer escorts and any other ships we can scrounge from willing allies but yeah, carriers are not exactly small targets.
I think the idea is for the UK carriers to give the US carrier fleet a bit of a break as they can be swapped in and out for US forces as the UK and US have been pretty integrated for a while now.

Putting tin cans in the Black Sea is going to accomplish what exactly?

Russia knows that European nations of NATO doesn't have the stomach for war, and you can include the USA for that matter.

NATO is useless, and the US Navy outside of it's submarine force, is totally incompetent.
 
Putting tin cans in the Black Sea is going to accomplish what exactly?

Russia knows that European nations of NATO doesn't have the stomach for war, and you can include the USA for that matter.

NATO is useless, and the US Navy outside of it's submarine force, is totally incompetent.

They can sail about and look scary and stuff.
I'm just saying the ships are available I have no idea what they do when out at sea other than being really anal about having clean decks for some reason.

Are you surprised that countries that were flattened by 2 world wars aren't exactly thrilled by the thought of having cites flattened by conflict again?
 
~.........................I imagine that's why the EU didn't join in during the Falklands conflict.
Not at all to take anything from what you say, but there was no EU at the time of that war (there was the EEC).

NATO didn't join in either BTW, but most EEC states supported the UK with diplomatic and (eventually) material aid.
 
Not at all to take anything from what you say, but there was no EU at the time of that war (there was the EEC).

NATO didn't join in either BTW, but most EEC states supported the UK with diplomatic and (eventually) material aid.

The US also secretly supported the UK in their war over the Falkland Islands. While publicly claiming neutrality between Argentina and the UK, President Reagan had developed a plan to loan a ship to the Royal Navy if it lost one of its aircraft carriers according to the former US Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman.
 
The UK has said the 2 new aircraft carriers we've just built are Nato assets.
There's a plan to base one in Asia and the other in Europe so that would be available for any duties in the Black Sea.

Those plans are in general just for public consumption

A ship is going to spend a third of its time at dock for maintenance. So at any given time The UK might only have 1 carrier at sea.

The UK does not have the funds to create two carrier fleets, so one carrier will be fairly unprotected.

The UK if I recall correctly has not bought enough F35 B jets to equip both carriers. It has plans to but has not at this time

More realistically the UK will operate just one carrier at a time, rotating planes and support vessels as required
 
Any

NATO push to the Black Sea will be dependent on Turkish support. Not something that is a certainty at this point in time.
 
Those plans are in general just for public consumption

A ship is going to spend a third of its time at dock for maintenance. So at any given time The UK might only have 1 carrier at sea.

The UK does not have the funds to create two carrier fleets, so one carrier will be fairly unprotected.

The UK if I recall correctly has not bought enough F35 B jets to equip both carriers. It has plans to but has not at this time

More realistically the UK will operate just one carrier at a time, rotating planes and support vessels as required

The carrier in Asia will be based there at all times so they don't need to sail back to the UK as it's quite a long way.
It will have a squadron of 24 jets (with more available to fly in as needed) as standard and the escorts will be from a fleet of the willing with local powers like Japan and Australia proving ships. Only the carrier will be based in Asia permanently with maybe a type 45.

Japan is also a big purchaser of the F35B and have some smaller carriers that can work in tandem with the UK carrier to make quite a formidable force all in all.

As you say though the UK can't afford 2 US style carrier groups and manning both carriers in conflict will be a struggle.
 
Last edited:
The carrier in Asia will be based there at all times so they don't need to sail back to the UK as it's quite a long way.
It will have a squadron of 24 jets (with more available to fly in as needed) as standard and the escorts will be from a fleet of the willing with local powers like Japan and Australia proving ships. Only the carrier will be based in Asia permanently with maybe a type 45.

Japan is also a big purchaser of the F35B and have some smaller carriers that can work in tandem with the UK carrier to make quite a formidable force all in all.

As you say though the UK can't afford 2 US style carrier groups and manning both carriers in conflict will be a struggle.


Manning both in peacetime is going to be a struggle

Here’s why Britain is struggling to form a fully effective carrier strike group

The above is a rational and reasonable article about the UK military and the difficulty it will have in trying to operate both carriers

Add in the financial difficulties arising from Covid 19:Brexit and trying to fund everything it needs will be very difficult
 
Last edited:
The US also secretly supported the UK in their war over the Falkland Islands. While publicly claiming neutrality between Argentina and the UK, President Reagan had developed a plan to loan a ship to the Royal Navy if it lost one of its aircraft carriers according to the former US Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman.
Yeah, I didn't mention the US since the point raised was primarily about European nations.

But there was support for UK from all over the world except, of course, from South American countries.
 
Yeah, I didn't mention the US since the point raised was primarily about European nations.

But there was support for UK from all over the world except, of course, from South American countries.

I remember it very well. It was very evident that Argentina was the aggressor, which explains the world-wide support for the UK. Even though some countries couldn't publicly say so without hurting their relationship with Argentina.
 
I remember it very well. It was very evident that Argentina was the aggressor, which explains the world-wide support for the UK. Even though some countries couldn't publicly say so without hurting their relationship with Argentina.
Notably, among the South Americans, Chile. But then their relationship with Argentina always was traditionally stressed.
 
Notably, among the South Americans, Chile. But then their relationship with Argentina always was traditionally stressed.

Not since Chile abolished their US-styled Social Security during the 1990s. Now Chile is the economic powerhouse in South America, owning most of the power plants in Argentina. Their economy is vastly superior to any other nation in South America. They also have a professional Navy that rivals Brazil and is superior to Argentina's Navy. All because they privatized the Social Security Ponzi scheme that the US continues to practice.
 
What exactly does the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have to do with the Black Sea?

1) The Black Sea is largely bordered by a long time NATO member, Turkey.
2) The Black Sea is considered to be an extension of the Mediterranean Sea which is definitely consider a NATO naval operations region.
 
Back
Top Bottom