Russian Aircraft Carrier “Kuznetsov,” January 1996. WIKIMEDIA/Commons
Daily Mail: Russia to send its largest warship to Syria as Putin prepares final push to destroy ISIS
* Admiral Kuzetnov battleship is equipped with fighter helicopters and jets
* Aircraft carrier will be based close to Syria so troops can attack and return
* Move comes in the wake of attacks on the weekend in Baghdad and Dhaka
* The 305m ship will lead Russia's Navy presence in the Mediterranean Sea
VLADIMIR Putin is preparing to send Russia's biggest battleship to Syria to crush ISIS at source.
The Admiral Kuzetnov is poised for dispatch in the autumn equipped with jet fighters and armoured helicopters ready to fight the terrorist group.
The move comes after the attacks on Bangladesh, where 20 hostages were hacked to death in a Dhaka restaurant, and Baghdad where 125 people were killed in a car bomb in the Iraqi capital.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: After this mission the Admiral Kuzetnov is to be modernised .... Russia To Modernize Its Lone Aircraft Carrier Next Year, New Carrier Program Could Start in 2025 (USNI News).
More News On Russia Deploying Its Aircraft Carrier To The Mediterranean To Launch Military Missions Over Syria
Warplanes of Russian aircraft carrier to be used in Syria Oct-Jan — source -- TASS
Russia's Largest Warship Headed For Syria -- Vladimir Putin's Plan To Crush ISIS Death Cult Once And For All -- Inquisitr
Russian aircraft carrier to take part in Syria operation by October -- ABNA
8 comments:
What's needed are 100k+ soldiers/interior ministry troops complete with logistical, armour, artillery and heavy air support to muck the country(ies) out. This should also include a well-funded and organized plan to re-build.
The problem with the above (one problem anyway) is that Exceptionalistan will see this as another Afghanistan moment and shovel in ever more support to its "moderate" fascist buddies.
How many tugboats are they going to send with the Kuzetnov this time?
Jay. I predict at least 2.
If the Russians want to put troops on the ground in large numbers In Syria, I say go ahead. Syria is not a situation that will be worked out peacefully for a very long time. Any nation dumb enough to put troops in in large numbers on the ground will find itself in a quagmire. Road side booms and suicide bombers follow what you think is a decisive victory. To look at it from the other side, do you think Hezbollah and the Iranian, can pull-out it's troops? No it s now a matter of national pride. Russia has moved from arms and techical support, to air operations and limited ground support. So I guess you can say they are already in it. Good luck with that.
Fact remains that russia will prob inflict more pain in 2 months on isis than the u.s has in 2 years
Fusion,
I'm not sure if your comment is directed at me. Nevertheless I will try and address it. 1.) There's a reason why Russia has only one of these. With modern anti-ship weapons especially those in the arsenals of Russia, China, and there allies such as Iran modern aircraft carriers are essentially obsolete. 3.) The Russian aircraft carrier may have utility against ISIS. At present, ISIS operating in Syria at least appears to be a potent land force but perhaps not much of a sea force at this time. 4.) The aircraft carrier is unlikely to face oppositikn from a Naval power. 5.) The anti-ship weapons of the US and it's "allies" are not as advanced as those possesed by Russia and it's allies. Hence a Russian aircraft carrier will not need to be as "good" as one would be who would go up against them.
In fact, the aircraft carrier is worse than obsolete against powers like Russia, China, and Iran. They are floating death traps. Even if the US could build and maintain 100 of these, they'd all perish in the first 5 minutes of a war with Russia or China. Even Iran could use speed boat swarming tactics to sink these things before the crew even knew what happened.
US defense needs would be best served by docking and dismantling all of these things we currently have. They don't contribute positively to our national defense and the costs to maintain are enormous. The funds spent here could be better used for our national defense. I also think it highly likely the materials used in these things could be put to better use.
Fazman,
I think you are correct. Truthfully I would have expected the Russians to have already defeated this enemy. It just goes to show this is a VERY tough enemy.
RRH,
The 100k+ troops is a good start. Will it be enough? The US and it's "allies" ran into problems because there were to few troops on the ground to provide for security for the populace or for infrastructure upgrades. Russuan troops are better trained, better led, and have better leadrrship at the civikian levels tgan the US does. Furthermore Russia does not face the intense and generally hostile news media America does meaning it is less cumbersome for them to get thins done.
I think this would be enough for Russia to take on and defeat all comers and provide the necessary security for rebuilding. It might even be overkill but overkill is probably what is needed for an operation of this magnitude.
In any dvent, Russia and it's allies are going to prevail. US and all "western" leaders need to understand this and act accordingly. We should look seriously at ways we can asist Russia here. Hopefullly the US and the "west" will get the right leadership before it's to late.
Post a Comment