Military coup in Sudan showed why Russia needs UDC and aircraft carriers

41

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."
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

41 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -5
    26 October 2021 11: 58
    Yes, the very phrase "chase the Papuans", so beloved by Russian turbopatriots, suggests that they are no different from the Belgians, British, Americans and representatives of other colonial nations.
    1. +2
      26 October 2021 12: 16
      Well, we no longer bring the light of the achievements of the advanced socialist system to the world. We are now a medium-sized capitalist predator and behave accordingly.
      Good or bad, I am taking it in parentheses. The point is that, as a capitalist country trying to conduct a neo-colonial policy, we do not pull out, because we do not have the appropriate tools.
      1. -5
        26 October 2021 12: 23
        Well, we no longer bring the light of the achievements of the advanced socialist system to the world.

        Yes, I beg you. Exactly the same colonialism was there, only with the mark "socialist".

        Good or bad, I am taking it in parentheses. The point is that, as a capitalist country trying to conduct a neo-colonial policy, we do not pull out, because we do not have the appropriate tools.

        my comment did not apply directly to your article. I really liked the article.
      2. 0
        28 October 2021 09: 33
        Instruments? First of all, Kuzya has not gone anywhere - there is a pelvis, and the fact that another one will appear will not be better! And how does French de Gaulle help France? Where did you help in Africa? Or where did you help? And the UDC is under construction. Yes, it is the UDC that is needed for such operations. I am in the past - a sailor, a submariner, it is true, and an aircraft carrier may be needed, but ... ONE ... TWO is the maximum. This is the United States in no other way can not, it is stupid to take an example from them.
  2. 0
    26 October 2021 12: 28
    Quote: Cyril
    Yes, I beg you. Exactly the same colonialism was there, only with the mark "socialist".

    Very controversial. Alas, I cannot paint whole footcloths to justify it. Very busy. And why? I can't convince you anyway smile
    1. -3
      27 October 2021 13: 46
      The USSR in the same way pumped minerals from the countries of the same Africa. And some colonial powers developed the infrastructure of their colonies in the same way, opened schools, hospitals, and industries. A striking example is the former British possessions India, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada. There is no difference, only ideology.
  3. +3
    26 October 2021 13: 03
    It was not worth the Russian Federation to start a story with a supply point in such unstable state formations. It would be better, together with the PRC, to agree on a military base, somewhere in Central America, closer to the Sshasovites.
    1. -1
      26 October 2021 13: 21
      If desired, the United States can turn any state education into an unstable one. Especially in his "backyard".
      The key question here is, what are we going to do with this later? Is it possible, for example, to help the Maduro regime if they try to overthrow it through local proxies? Do we have similar tasks at all? Are there appropriate tools to solve them? If anything, Russia has already invested about $ 20 billion in Venezuela or so.
      Or are we, as a great continental power, which doesn't need your UDC and aircraft carriers, will we sit on the defensive?
  4. -2
    26 October 2021 13: 29
    The question is not whether they are needed or not.
    The question is how much it costs to spend money.

    Or spend this money on the World Cup, pay the players' salaries, make the Olympics, buy cars for the champions, put tiles on the OD.
    1. -1
      26 October 2021 13: 41
      And this is a matter of priorities that the authorities set. But if the Kremlin is not ready to defend by force the interests of its oligarchs over the hill, then why go there at all, into someone else's clearing?
      If you really want to, then you have to comply. Or do not climb.
      1. -3
        26 October 2021 16: 34
        You're right. But:
        Again, this is not the question. And the question of price / quality ratio.
        What will there be enough money for if you build a palace, and yachts, and the ChMF, and fly to dachas in Italy, and support deputies, PR people and TV.

        Enough for 2 UDC - just to chase the barmaleev, where the owners left the clearing.
        1. 0
          27 October 2021 11: 26
          Enough for 2 UDC - just to chase the barmaleev, where the owners left the clearing.

          Why did you decide that the owners left the clearing there? everything is in place there, and rather crowded.
          1. 0
            27 October 2021 11: 37
            According to various articles and programs, the owners are gradually moving away from the dense tutelage of African countries. Those are trying to develop multi-vector, and some are not bad.

            And where, for example, the French are still tightly seated, no one pokes too much from the side
            1. 0
              27 October 2021 13: 30
              Nonsense. Nobody lets Africa go anywhere. On the contrary, now the old colonialists will fight for it with China.
              And here we are, so beautiful.
              Multi-vector, is this, for example, Libya?
              1. 0
                27 October 2021 13: 50
                Remember the standard old history course? Colonialism - Neo-colonialism - and the current, neo-neo - you can already have more, but money does not smell ...

                The last thing I met - "Conversations about Africa: The Unconquered Masai" was reviewed by the Goblin. 3 countries are mentioned, where both are good and multi-vector. And several countries are mentioned side by side under the strict control of France, where it is bad.

                And as China climbs into Africa - in the internet there are articles and maps. And as Russia - too ...
                Algeria, a former French as an example, takes our weapons, and drives hydrocarbons by itself ... in a share ...
                Is Libya Serious?
  5. +2
    26 October 2021 14: 10
    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."

    The key word is "if". Is there such information?
    Suppose Russia has poured millions of dollars into the Sudanese economy (insert the name of any country). There was a coup and Russia was asked to leave. Is Russia supposed to start a war? Deploy a couple of Marine battalions and start fighting?
    By the way, Mitrofan Moskalenko will become the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet. And he will not go to any Pacific Fleet or Northern Fleet. This is a more realistic scenario. You can land on the Black Sea. And aircraft carriers are not needed for this.
    Here, with the near zone, it is impossible to ensure security. And swing to the far.
    1. -1
      26 October 2021 19: 06
      The key word is "if". Is there such information?

      There are explicit actions of the near-Kremlin oligarchs

      Suppose Russia has poured millions of dollars into the Sudanese economy (insert the name of any country). There was a coup and Russia was asked to leave. Is Russia supposed to start a war? Deploy a couple of Marine battalions and start fighting?

      options seem to be described:
      1) wipe off and proudly sue
      2) do not wipe off and send troops to support the overthrown government against the junta.
      1. +1
        26 October 2021 21: 24
        Intention is not action, after all. And what matters is not the actions of the near-Kremlin oligarchs, but the specific decisions of the government.
        Option 1 - to sue it just don't wipe it off. True, the chances are few, but it is true.
        Option 2 is a war with complete disregard for international law.
        Example. In Ukraine, Russia has lost billions of dollars (at least $ 3 billion of the first tranche). Russia has filed a lawsuit. But she did not fight with Ukraine. This is not in Africa, it is very close and even aircraft carriers are not needed. But the Russian Government did not agree to this. Despite the permission of the State Duma.
        It is better to rely not on intentions, but on real decisions.
        1. 0
          27 October 2021 11: 18
          Option 2 is a war with complete disregard for international law.
          Example. In Ukraine, Russia has lost billions of dollars (at least $ 3 billion of the first tranche). Russia has filed a lawsuit. But she did not fight with Ukraine. This is not in Africa, it is very close and even aircraft carriers are not needed. But the Russian Government did not agree to this. Despite the permission of the State Duma.

          Listen, but in the text it is written in plain text that this is not about intervention in violation of the MP, but about assistance to the government collapsed by the junta, with which we have agreements. Or do you pretend you haven't read it and just interpret it as you please?

          But the Russian Government did not agree to this. Despite the permission of the State Duma.

          And not the Federation Council? smile
          And where does the Government have to do with it? Is it declaring war in the Russian Federation? lol
          1. 0
            27 October 2021 12: 53
            Maybe the Federation Council. This is not the point. The bottom line is that they have not declared war on Ukraine. Although there were economic losses.

            About the intervention. How else can the landing of airborne battalions and the conduct of hostilities be interpreted? When did Russia (USSR) provide assistance to the government overthrown by the junta? Maybe in Chile, or in Ukraine? Does Russia have a military assistance agreement with the ousted government? Or an agreement to create a base?

            ARTICLE 18. STATE OF WAR
            1. A state of war is declared by federal law in the event of an armed attack on the Russian Federation by another state or a group of states, as well as in the event of the need to comply with international treaties of the Russian Federation.
            2. From the moment of the declaration of a state of war or the actual start of hostilities, wartime begins, which expires from the moment the cessation of hostilities is declared, but not earlier than their actual cessation.
            1. 0
              27 October 2021 13: 27
              You are such a big original smile
              Are you working with my text or with your fantasies about it?
              The text says the following:

              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. Here, let's say, billions of dollars have already been invested in Sudan, and a Russian PMTO has been opened in Port Sudan. Supposethat the military junta says goodbye to Moscow and refuses to fulfill the treaties signed by the ousted government.

              This is a hypothetical situation, huh?

              Does Russia have a military assistance agreement with the ousted government? Or an agreement to create a base?

              And you turn everything upside down. Normally.

              About the intervention. How else can the landing of airborne battalions and the conduct of hostilities be interpreted?

              How do you interpret the military assistance of the Russian Aerospace Forces to Syria? What amazes you so much?

              Maybe the Federation Council. This is not the point. The bottom line is that they have not declared war on Ukraine. Although there were economic losses.

              The bottom line is that you don't understand very well what you are talking about.
              1. +1
                27 October 2021 13: 43
                Again twenty-five.
                If there has been a coup and all previous agreements have been nullified, then what kind of military assistance are we talking about? In Syria, the situation is completely different. There the Russian Aerospace Forces at the request of the legitimate government, which was not overthrown.
                The whole problem is not what the world community will interpret and how. I guarantee you that even if Hitler comes to power in Sudan (conditionally), as well as in Ukraine, any actions of Russia in the UN will not receive any approval. And all this will be interpreted as aggression.
                But again, this is not the essence of the question and the article. As I understand it, you are still trying to ditch the Russian Navy by building aircraft carriers and creating AUG. At best, Russia will be able to create a full-fledged AUG in 10-15 years. And now she is busy creating ships in the near zone and ships that support the deployment of strategic missile carriers.
                As a reserve for the future, these notorious UDCs are being created. "You don't have to end the academies" to understand why one of them will become the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet. The Eastern Mediterranean is more important than any Sudan. These ships will work as a large landing craft, and in the event of a crisis, they can strengthen the naval group based on Tartus. Perhaps the second UDC will remain on the Black Sea. But it can go to the Pacific Fleet. There, too, they will find work. But I would leave on the Black Sea.
                In essence, your article - Russia will build aircraft carriers in 10 years, at least. Currently, these ships are redundant for the Russian Navy. Any group of ships sent to the shores of the Sudan will be destroyed in the event of an armed conflict. Any group of Russian ships based on Tartus will destroy any American AUG. Because it will rely on Khmeimim.
                You overestimate the importance of Africa and underestimate the importance of the Eastern Mediterranean. That is why you are writing articles without really understanding the goals of the military development of the Russian Federation.
  6. 0
    26 October 2021 18: 14
    What nonsense. I never saw a single argument in favor of aircraft carriers. Which at the present time are like "white elephants".
    The author invites us to follow the path of the United States. And behave like the United States.
    There are cheaper and more effective tools for successful cooperation with the "Papuans" whom the author wishes to drive with aircraft carriers.
    1. -2
      26 October 2021 19: 05
      Everyone saw, you didn’t see alone. There is something to think about.

      The author invites us to follow the path of the United States. And behave like the United States.

      we have been following the path of the United States since 1991, only we cannot behave like that due to the absence of 11 AUG

      There are cheaper and more effective tools for successful cooperation with the "Papuans" whom the author wishes to drive with aircraft carriers.

      We are talking about a situation when the Papuans overthrew the pro-Russian regime and do not want to cooperate with us
      1. +1
        26 October 2021 23: 15
        Everyone saw who this is?
        And we have not followed the US path since 2004. And thank God.
        What is a "pro-Russian regime"?
        I repeat for the alternatively gifted - Russian aircraft carriers are not needed. She is not the USA, she does not make money out of thin air. The whole world is not trying to crush. All these auges will only suck up the budget, which will cause irreparable damage to the real fleet.
        And I will repeat again - there are much more effective and cheaper means to ensure the interests of the oligarchs.
        1. -1
          27 October 2021 11: 18
          I repeat for the alternatively gifted - Russian aircraft carriers are not needed. She is not the USA, she does not make money out of thin air. The whole world is not trying to crush. All these auges will only suck up the budget, which will cause irreparable damage to the real fleet.

          Judging by the comment, you are alternatively gifted here wink You don't know or understand anything at all about the needs of the "real fleet"
          1. -1
            27 October 2021 11: 37
            Yes of course. I am more interested in the real needs of Russia, and not in the fantasies of the scribblers. I told you twice that there are much more effective and cheaper means for projecting power, but you are like a parrot.
            It has long been no secret that some interested persons are trying to impose unnecessary things on Russia, such as aircraft carriers. For they are a black hole for the budget.
            If we are to invest in new (for us) types of weapons, then stratospheric bombers are much more promising. Leave the aircraft carriers to the Ukrainians.
            1. -1
              27 October 2021 11: 45
              stratospheric bombers are much more promising

              And who is the science fiction writer? laughing

              I told you twice that there are much more effective and cheaper means for projecting power, but you are like a parrot.

              I just, unlike you, own the subject.

              It has long been no secret that some interested persons are trying to impose unnecessary things on Russia, such as aircraft carriers. For they are a black hole for the budget.

              You are simply incompetent in what you comment on. Repeat tales told by outright pests. If you are interested, I have about a dozen articles on this portal, where, step by step, for people like you, everything is chewed up on aircraft carriers. I see no reason to repeat myself.
              If interested, find and read. If not, then also in FIG.
              It is useless to persuade you, anti-aircraft sectarians, in principle.
              Good luck
              1. -1
                27 October 2021 13: 23
                Yes, I read a few.
                Miserable, unconvincing, far-fetched arguments.
                As for the "fantastic" stratospheric bombers, the United States already has several flying as laboratories. Apparently, not everyone was dull there. Aircraft carriers are the last century, but only the stubborn or committed ones believe in them.
                1. -1
                  27 October 2021 13: 31
                  Well, everything is clear. wink Who would talk about stubbornness.
                  Take a walk come on
  7. -1
    26 October 2021 19: 24
    Author, are you a sailor? Or do you really need a piece of land in Sudan, then why? and why turn the people of a sovereign country against yourself? none of today's political cohort can explain the construction of an aircraft carrier. but to tear off a piece of the Mostaki state budget pie everyone, especially in today's Duma
    1. 0
      26 October 2021 21: 02
      Cool. It turns out that aircraft carriers are needed for a company "close to the Prigozhin structures" to fill their pockets and to raise money for a floating nuclear power plant if they don't want to pay. And what then is constantly exported by airplanes to London, but they take it out so that forgotten ingots are lying on the take-off? To build a nuclear power plant there? Will they change their minds or the government will change the vector? What if aircraft carriers will immediately bomb the country, Russia will start? What prevents the same Chinese from raking out Africa for a long time without having aircraft carriers there? Maybe smart policy and economic expansion are more effective than aircraft carriers?
      1. 0
        27 October 2021 11: 21
        We are talking about the tools needed to implement the country's policy. Good or bad, morally or not to fight for the interests of Prigozhin, deliberately taken out of the brackets.

        What prevents the same Chinese from raking out Africa for a long time without having aircraft carriers there? Maybe smart politics and economic expansion are more effective than aircraft carriers?

        And what will China do when the African regime loyal to it is overthrown and asked to leave, what will the burnout of investments mean? Are you deliberately engaged in demagoguery, replacing the essence of the question?
    2. 0
      27 October 2021 11: 24
      Author, are you a sailor?

      And what does it have to do with whether I am a sailor or not?

      Or do you really need a piece of land in Sudan, then why?

      It seems to be needed under the PMTO of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and grew. companies to develop resources

      and why turn the people of a sovereign country against yourself?

      Who are these people: those who were overthrown, or those who were overthrown?

      none of today's political cohort can explain the construction of an aircraft carrier

      what does it have to do with a political cohort in general, if it is a purely military issue. the military all know perfectly well why the Russian Navy needs aircraft carriers, in contrast to the illiterate ignoramuses in the comments.

      but tearing off a piece of the Mostaki state budget pie is everything, especially in today's Duma

      what does the Duma have to do with it?
  8. 0
    27 October 2021 09: 47
    Why an aircraft carrier? There is the Airborne Forces and to drop the division by parachute. The "natives" will immediately scatter. To intimidate, the landing party can first break the bottles with its head
    1. 0
      27 October 2021 11: 21
      Or they will be caught and their heads will be cut off on camera.
    2. 0
      27 October 2021 11: 28
      Quote: Spiritual
      To intimidate, the landing party can first break the bottles with its head.

      and bricks, my friend, bricks!
  9. 0
    27 October 2021 11: 28
    it would be better to invest money in Russian oil and gold! And send Africa away, let the Chinese joke around there!
  10. 0
    27 October 2021 21: 32
    Personally, from the context it is clear to me that E. Prigogine rather than Russia wants to "drive the Papuans"

    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 is constantly heard ...

    And if he shows a willingness to drive them out, like the "old" colonial powers, he should immediately show his readiness to show the ENTIRE spectrum of abominations, inevitably associated, as it turned out, with this very colonialism. And then how is Russian colonialism going to be better than British, Belgian, French and all the others? Is he going to show the world the wonders of humanism and philanthropy?
  11. 0
    28 October 2021 18: 18
    Anyone who claims that Russia is a "continental power", we have no interests abroad and we do not need a fleet either a stupid stupid person or a provocateur
  12. 0
    30 October 2021 05: 59
    Well, if you are going to defend blacks, Arabs, Asians, Latin Americans, then of course you need very very aircraft carriers and inside Russia there is no life or peace for the Russian people, abandoned villages, cities, downtrodden, frightened Russian guys already do not go to discos "Caucasus rules", where are these vaunted maroon berets why don't they patrol the subway !!! ??? Build aircraft carriers !!!!