Military coup in Sudan showed why Russia needs UDC and aircraft carriers
When it comes to aircraft carriers and the UDC, a lot of "witty" comments immediately pop out in the spirit that the aircraft-carrying ships of Russia are completely unnecessary, since we are a "continental power", we have no interests abroad, we are not going to capture African countries, aircraft carriers only "chasing the Papuans" are suitable, and we are the US Navy AUG, if anything, we will drown them with "Zircons" and "Calibers" without any problems. But life itself puts everything in its place, showing who is right and who is not.
Several years ago, the Russian leadership clearly outlined a vector for a return to Africa and the countries of the Middle East. The once strong positions there were lost after the collapse of the USSR. The Kremlin's increased attention to the "black continent" and its resources is obviously associated with lobbying the interests of large oligarchic clans. The name of businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin and the Wagner PMC associated with him, which is actively operating in the Middle East and Africa, is constantly heard. It got to the point that the French authorities directly asked the Russians to get out of Mali and other traditional zones of influence of Paris on the continent. The recent attempt by the Russian Ministry of Defense to acquire a naval base (PMTO) in Port Sudan is undoubtedly an integral part of the new policy Of the Kremlin in the African direction.
It is obvious that the thesis that Russia has no interests abroad that need to be defended is already fundamentally wrong. Today our country is openly trying to pursue its own neo-colonial policy. It is a fact. However, the big problem is that Moscow's ability to project military force in a remote theater of operations, in comparison with Washington, Paris or Beijing, is extremely limited. If we are already going to the “Papuans”, then we need to be ready to “chase” them and be able to “capture an African country”, as our numerous “witties” ironically wrote about something unnecessary in the comments.
Let's move from general reasoning to practice. The day before, another coup took place in Sudan, and the military seized power in the country. We will not delve into now who is right and who is wrong. We will proceed only from the interests of Russia. What is there so interesting for us?
At first, this is the same PMTO, which made it possible for the ships of the Russian Navy to stop, be serviced and repaired in the Red Sea. This, by the way, is one of the strategically key global trade routes. Initially, Russia could get a base in Port Sudan for free, but after Khartoum turned on the back one and began to link the issue of opening a PMTO with providing Sudan economic assistance.
Secondly, in 2015, a Russian company carried out geological exploration in Sudan and established the presence of significant gold deposits. In 2017, a structure associated with businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin signed an agreement to develop them. Work has not yet begun, but experts warn in advance about local specifics. Tribal groups are actually engaged in racketeering, demanding ransom for the opportunity to calmly conduct economic activities. This means the need for constant serious armed protection and support for Russian projects in the region, administrative and even military.
Thirdly, there is also oil in Sudan. True, most of the best deposits left with the separation of South Sudan. By the way, China and the United States were active in this process. But even after losing 75% of its proven reserves, Khartoum has something to offer Russian developers. However, this is a serious matter, requiring large financial investments and political stability in the country.
Finally, back in 2018, the Sudanese authorities signed an agreement on the possibility of launching and using a floating nuclear power plant of the Akademik Lomonosov type.
So what do we see? There is a poor African country with rich deposits of natural resources that are of interest to Russian companies. It is also possible to open on its territory the first naval base of the Russian Navy on the Red Sea. Under this matter, naturally, intergovernmental agreements should be concluded. And now a military coup is taking place in Khartoum. What's next?
Let us emphasize once again that we deliberately take the question of who is “good” and who is “bad” in parentheses. The point is that as a result of a coup, in principle, any agreements with the previous government can be nullified. For example, billions of dollars have already been invested in Sudan, and a Russian PMTO has been opened in Port Sudan. Suppose the military junta says goodbye to Moscow and refuses to honor the treaties signed by the ousted government. So what? Let’s straighten up and go to the exit? Or will we defend the interests of our country, regardless of the local situation?
Well, then we will need to support the ousted government with which Russia has these agreements, and be able to quickly form an expeditionary force, right? And from what? The Russian Aerospace Forces are in Syria at the invitation of official Damascus, which in every possible way supports the presence of the Russian military contingent. And in Sudan, the military came to power, who, for example, will be hostile. What then? How and with the help of what will the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation carry out an operation to restore the constitutional order in Sudan?
And here it turns out that being able to “capture an African country” and “drive the Papuans” is very useful. For the operational transfer of two battalions of the Marine Corps, the UDC "Ivan Rogov" and "Mitrofan Moskalenko" currently under construction will be needed. (By the way, it would be nice if there were more than two universal amphibious assault ships in the Russian Navy, since the Sudan could be repeated, for example, in Venezuela.) But how to land marines with armored vehicles on a defended hostile coast? Sorry, of course, members of the "aircraft carrier opponents sect", but without an aircraft carrier, or better a couple, there is nothing you can do about it. Ship missiles are good, but their ammunition supply is very limited, and you will have to drive cruisers and frigates to reload over three seas. The most optimal tool for clearing the coast for the subsequent landing of troops is carrier-based aircraft. That is, you need an ATAVRK of the Ulyanovsk type, or two. Fighters and attack helicopters will demolish all fortifications and firing points, and then the UDC will take over. By taking control of a strategically important point on the shores of the Red Sea, the Russian Ministry of Defense will receive a bridgehead on which it will be possible to land and deploy the necessary military contingent.
Naturally, all this should be legally carried out not as an intervention, but as an action to support the official government overthrown by the military junta. As you can see, the practical use of aircraft carriers and helicopter carriers suddenly turns out to be non-zero. Who would have thought. If the Kremlin really wants to play neo-colonial games, then it needs to have the appropriate tools in its hands in order to "drive the Papuans."
- Sergey Marzhetsky
- Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
Information