Russia and China are forced to turn into great maritime powers


Perhaps the main and undoubted advantage of the Russian special operation in Ukraine, which has been going on for almost half a year, and the current “Taiwan crisis” can be considered the final collapse of the artificially imposed stereotype about the supposedly exclusive “continentality” of Russia and China. The Anglo-Saxons, on the other hand, relied on control over the World Ocean and its trade routes and did not fail.


It would seem that China is traditionally a great land power, and the great achievements of the Chinese fleet of Admiral Zheng He remained far in the history of the Ming Dynasty. However, in the XNUMXst century, Beijing had to take up the construction of warships and submarines again, which is no wonder.

The width of the Taiwan Strait at its narrowest point is 130 kilometers. Nothing at all, but to overcome this short distance and return the rebellious island ruled by a pro-Western regime, aviation and a powerful navy with numerous landing ships and minesweepers are needed by force to clear the water area. For a possible de-blockade of the strategically important Strait of Malacca, connecting the Pacific Ocean with the Indian Ocean, if it is blocked by the combined navies of the Anglo-Saxon block AUKUS, China needs an even more powerful aircraft carrier fleet, which it is building with enviable perseverance and speed. Plus, the PRC still has a lot of territorial disputes with all its neighbors in the Southeast Asian region, to resolve which military force may be needed in its favor.

So it turns out that the "great land power" China must build and maintain a huge merchant and navy.

Another "great continental power" Russia, oddly enough, has similar problems. So, for example, it would be nice to carry out a landing operation near Odessa in order to take control of this strategically important city. We even have our own “unsinkable aircraft carrier” Crimea nearby, just like China has across the Taiwan Strait. However, there is no landing fleet in the Black Sea, as such, capable of performing such a task in the face of active opposition and the operation of the DBK with the Harpoon and Neptune anti-ship missiles. Russia also has its own "Malacca" - the Kuril Islands, located at a considerable distance from the main forces in the region, where potential adversaries objectively dominate - the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, dreaming of returning the "northern territories", and the US Navy.

For some reason, the importance of maritime trade and sea routes is always completely ignored in discussions about the "land" of Russia.

In particular, to supply the settlements located from Murmansk to the Bering Strait, either sea or sea and river transport is used simultaneously. Theoretically, it is possible to supply Chukotka or Kamchatka by land, but in practice this has to be done by sea. It is impossible to supply the Far Eastern islands of Sakhalin and the Kuriles with any transport other than sea transport. It is also worth mentioning the Kaliningrad region, which, after the introduction of Western sanctions, de facto turned into an "island".

Maritime trade is tied to life and economy the most important cities of Russia - St. Petersburg, Ust-Luga, Rostov-on-Don, Novorossiysk, Vladivostok and others. Even the deep onshore cities of Zelenodolsk, Nizhny Novgorod and Komsomolsk-on-Amur are closely linked to the sea, as ships and submarines have been or are being built there. Russian grain, coal, other natural resources, products of metallurgy and oil refining, etc. are exported through seaports. Also, products from the countries of Central Asia are transiting through our ports. Imports from China and other countries come back in containers by sea to Russia.

Separately, it is worth noting the sharply increased role of maritime trade in the issue of Russian oil exports. After the introduction of an embargo on its purchase by the countries of the collective West, it was necessary to urgently seek sales in Southeast Asia. India has become the largest alternative buyer of domestic oil products, which takes Russian oil at a discount with great pleasure. Since there are no main pipelines to India and are not expected, all these export flows also go by sea, with New Delhi insisting that the seller take care of the delivery.

We face similar problems in the gas market. For purely political reasons, Europe intends to significantly reduce the consumption of Russian blue fuel. The only sane alternative is the construction of new gas liquefaction plants and its shipment to the Southeast Asian market by sea on LNG tankers. But exporting oil and LNG requires an appropriate tanker fleet.

In other words, Russia is no "land power" in principle, and the importance of maritime trade for us will only grow continuously. This means that our country needs its own powerful navy capable of protecting the interests of the Russian Federation in the oceans. Otherwise, we will face the same problems that China has. This is an objective reality that has recently been fixed personally by President Vladimir Putin in the updated Naval Doctrine.
24 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladimir Tuzakov (Vladimir Tuzakov) 3 August 2022 17: 37
    +3
    Every expense must be justified. Today's events prove that the fleet is becoming very vulnerable to modern weapons ("Moscow" as an example). Conclusion: the main thing is an effective weapon, carriers are secondary and in everything. Then coastal strategic and other anti-ship missiles and long-range aviation with powerful and high-precision weapons, which is an order of magnitude more effective than ships in all respects. Here, tankers, gas carriers, bulk carriers, and so on need to be built, but they are no longer protected by ships, because modern weapons will reach anywhere (Zircons, Caliber and others). Conclusions: a large fleet is not needed, coastal defense is sufficient, here the strategic forces, including nuclear submarines, missile carriers, meet today's requirements, which fits into the old strategic triad, only the set of weapons has expanded to include non-nuclear, conventional ones ...
  2. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 3 August 2022 17: 54
    +5
    Russia and China are forced to turn into great maritime powers

    China is the largest economy in the world, which is 80-90% dependent on foreign trade and the supply of raw materials.
    The sea trade routes of the PRC are completely controlled by the USA and can block them.
    The build-up of the armed forces and the Navy is specifically a vital necessity for the PRC, as, for example, for Japan, Britain and other state entities that form the naval "fashion".
    The Russian Federation is the only state entity in the world that has all the natural resources in the world, but for various reasons, not everything is developed and can survive in complete isolation from the rest of the world.
    Russia once already tried to become a great naval power before the 1st World War and swelled huge funds from the military budget into the construction of an armored fleet, while the fate of the war was decided not at sea, on land, where the army throughout the war lacked equipment and ammunition. The Russian Federation is a land state and supporters of the construction of aircraft carriers are deliberately pushing the Russian Federation into the same rake.
    The fleet is necessary to accompany economic interests, protect the maritime economic zone, cover the areas of operation of nuclear submarines and external aggression in remote regions, and this is not a fact if there are other possibilities.
  3. Expert_Analyst_Forecaster 3 August 2022 18: 00
    +7
    We analyze the task - to become a great sea power.
    The goal is to resist enemies at sea. Protect your interests with the help of the fleet.

    Let's evaluate - is this task feasible?
    Against us are the USA, Japan, Great Britain, South Korea, Canada, Australia and even little things.
    Let's compare the resources available today. Compared? What are you cursing? It is what it is.
    Unless a miracle happens, we have no chance in the Navy race. At all. And this despite the fact that our enemies already have a fleet, but we actually don’t have it.
    I am taking out of brackets submarines, which are needed for completely different purposes.

    That is, the task is initially not feasible. But let's pretend it's not.
  4. Expert_Analyst_Forecaster 3 August 2022 18: 17
    +5
    Let's analyze the timing of building a competitive fleet.

    Let's say it's 15 - 20 years.
    I must say right away that I take the numbers from the ceiling, correct if you have reasonable numbers, and not taken from the yellow press articles.
    Do we have these 15-20 years? Can anyone guarantee that for the next 15-20 years we will be able to calmly build our mighty fleet? Who will agree that Japan will leave our Kuriles alone for this period and not lick their lips at Sakhalin, the Far East?

    Let's evaluate military security first. For how many years can we not be afraid of a nuclear war? They are not afraid in the sense that our strike will be unacceptable to NATO and / or Japan.
    I estimate this period at 4-5 years. Yes, this is a pessimistic option, but I do not really believe in our propaganda.
    And then what? To increase the security period, one must invest in a nuclear missile shield. It's not cheap, but necessary. Otherwise, all these aircraft carriers will remain under construction. As is now the case with China.
    Army, aviation, air defense, missile defense - should they be kept up to date? I think it's necessary.
    What about tankers, civil aviation - are we freezing development and construction?
    Microelectronics and a million other important areas - are we ignoring? Aircraft carriers - more important?

    If we start now to invest resources in the fleet in order to achieve parity with NATO, then with a high degree of probability in the next 5-10 years our state will either fall apart or be destroyed. This is a murderous arms race for us.
    1. Yuri V.A Offline Yuri V.A
      Yuri V.A (Yuri) 4 August 2022 02: 25
      -2
      Expert, for starters, what finger did you suck that Russia's goal is to achieve parity with NATO?
      1. Expert_Analyst_Forecaster 4 August 2022 03: 56
        +3
        Yurasik, you read the title and at least part of the text.
        This is not about parity with NATO in general, but about the idea promoted by the author of becoming a great maritime power. I know it's hard to read articles like this. But you tense up. Perhaps something will hit you in the head and you will see clearly.
        1. Yuri V.A Offline Yuri V.A
          Yuri V.A (Yuri) 4 August 2022 04: 37
          -2
          Expert, do not shift it to the author, be responsible for your "analyzes", and they are just talking about extreme neglect
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. The comment was deleted.
                      5. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • Pat Rick Offline Pat Rick
    Pat Rick 3 August 2022 18: 52
    0
    Perhaps the main and undoubted advantage of the Russian special operation in Ukraine, lasting for more than half a year,

    February 24 (second month of the year) - August 24 (eighth month of the year) = half a year.
    Today at us since morning - 03 August.
    The main thing to consider here is that we have 12 (twelve) months in a year, and not 10 (ten).

    And if, in fact,

    What you can't, you want. - Stretch your legs along the clothes. What you can't, you want. See WILL CUSTODY ... V.I. Dal. Proverbs of the Russian people
  • Expert_Analyst_Forecaster 3 August 2022 19: 02
    +1
    Separately, it is worth noting the sharply increased role of maritime trade in the issue of Russian oil exports.

    We will carry aircraft carriers. In order not to be distracted by the construction of tankers.
  • Vladimir1155 Offline Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 (Vladimir) 3 August 2022 19: 28
    +3
    Sergey is distorting again, firstly, China really depends on maritime trade and is an order of magnitude stronger than we are, and secondly, if we talk about military operations and the development of the Armed Forces, then we are obviously a continental power, and we need to develop missiles, aviation, ground forces, and if we talk about fleet, then we need to develop the submarine fleet, naval aviation and ..... escort ships .... on the seas they are of the third rank, and on the oceans frigates and corvettes, they and PLO around nuclear submarine bases will provide and, if necessary, escort a dry cargo ship and a tanker where it’s necessary ..... but we don’t need aircraft carriers and cruisers with destroyers, these are not escort ships, but show-offs that are useless in a war near their shores
  • Colonel Kudasov Offline Colonel Kudasov
    Colonel Kudasov (Boris) 3 August 2022 20: 30
    +3
    The fleet, in particular tankers and gas carriers, and the Navy are two big differences. It is unlikely that Russia can pull both. Coastal aviation and the submarine fleet, this should have stopped. Russia's carrier formations are definitely not affordable, but China, our ally, can do it
    1. aslanxnumx Offline aslanxnumx
      aslanxnumx (Aslan) 3 August 2022 21: 17
      +5
      It is we who consider the Chinese an ally, for them we are a zone of interest.
  • opportunist Offline opportunist
    opportunist (dim) 3 August 2022 23: 13
    -1
    Nobody has ever objected to Russia that Russia needs a strong fleet with large displacement ships. The big problem has always been financial. Russia does not have the financial resources to compete in this area with the United States and China, the two largest economies on the planet. The British fleet has two large an enviable aircraft carrier and only 9 large surface ships. The fleets of the other Anglo-Saxon countries are being built not for operations in the oceans on their own, but in cooperation with the American fleet. It is practically possible for Russia to follow the path of Britain in the next few years, i.e. build two large aircraft carriers and 9 large escort warships. The big problem is that such a fleet would not be enough in size and numbers to simultaneously cover the Black Sea of ​​the Pacific Ocean of Russia in the Arctic zone, as well as the Barents Sea. So, in practice, we again come to the conclusion that with the financial resources we have, it would be better to build more ships of medium or smaller displacement. Great Britain, like an American bulldog, wherever it operates, the British fleet acts as an escort for the American fleet, and on the other hand, Russia must cover all these areas , which I mentioned above, on my own. Therefore, the age-old problem was the limited state budget for wasting money on the fleet. In recent days, there have been many propaganda articles about Putin's speech, they say, Putin announced that Russia was challenging the Anglo-Saxon fleets in the oceans. Putin stated that the fleet would have sovereignty over our seas What are our seas The Arctic Ocean From the Kuril Islands to Vladivostok and the Black Sea.
    1. Yuri V.A Offline Yuri V.A
      Yuri V.A (Yuri) 4 August 2022 02: 34
      0
      Could you explain what these nine large British warships are?
      1. opportunist Offline opportunist
        opportunist (dim) 4 August 2022 08: 50
        0
        in fact their large ships may be less than nine. These ships are as follows: 1 HMS Daring 2 HMS Dauntless 3 HMS Diamond 4 HMS Dragon 5 HMS Defender 6 HMS Duncan are go-class destroyers with a displacement of over 8000 tons. They also have three frigates, four conventional submarines and only 1 strategic submarine. This is the whole and all the strength of the glorious British fleet.
        1. Vladimir1155 Offline Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 (Vladimir) 4 August 2022 09: 49
          -2
          I support your idea to write off all the old 1164 cruisers in the near future and not spend money on their repairs, as well as all the 956 destroyers that have not gone to sea for a long time, but for show are listed in the fleet ... and paint Kuzya and sell India to China, it’s enough for us 9 large ships like England, that is, 8 1155 undergoing modernization and one 1144 soon out of repair (this is not a joke, but we really need such a number of ships of about 8000 tons and above)
        2. Yuri V.A Offline Yuri V.A
          Yuri V.A (Yuri) 4 August 2022 10: 00
          +1
          The current payroll of the escort forces includes 6 EM type 45 and 13 FR type 23 (in the dimensions of our Gorshkov), ten nuclear-powered submarines, but most importantly, the construction of larger ships of the new generation is proceeding briskly. So, the British fleet is still quite
          1. Vladimir1155 Offline Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 (Vladimir) 4 August 2022 10: 45
            -2
            but how much is the displacement of our Gorshkov and how much is it less than the declared 8000 tons? the problem is not for kindergarten, you deuce! go learn materiel ..... but seriously, even the British clearly switched to frigates and abandoned unnecessary sea monsters of 8000 tons each
            1. Yuri V.A Offline Yuri V.A
              Yuri V.A (Yuri) 4 August 2022 11: 21
              -1
              I repeat: in the dimensions of Gorshkov (exactly according to the text) there are type 23 frigates. The next type of anti-submarine (for multi-purpose there is not enough displacement) will be the Glasgow type 26 frigate with a total VI of over 8000 tons, not to mention the promising destroyer - type 83.
              1. Vladimir1155 Offline Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 (Vladimir) 4 August 2022 12: 09
                -1
                type 23 frigates exist and there are 13 of them, that is, more than frigates in the Russian Navy, and 26 frigates and "promising destroyers" are only in a promising fantasy ...... it is not known how many there will be and when ..... and whether there will be destroyers generally
                1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Vladimir Khrebtov (Vladimir Khrebtov) 11 August 2022 12: 19
      0
      To become a great country, "Russia needs not a shepherd, but an executioner" To rule such a large and great country as Russia, democracy and liberalism must disappear from our understanding. Only the fear of punishing ourselves and loved ones will save us from the corruption that has devoured all of Russia. Our officials are no longer afraid of anything, even Putin, but it is necessary that at the mention of his name, like Stalin, they immediately swear with fear! And now even Peter would not put things in order. We need missiles, a submarine fleet and a nuclear-powered icebreaker with weapons. Svalbard must be liberated, Norway did not give a damn about its agreements with Russia. It's time to put everyone in their place, and for this we should not have oligarchs from the Forbes list. Resources should work for Russia, not for the West. But Putin will never go for this dispossession, he owes too much..........
  • Expert_Analyst_Forecaster 4 August 2022 04: 16
    +7
    I will contrast the construction of a powerful navy with the creation of civil aviation in Russia.
    The task is difficult, but an order of magnitude cheaper and technically feasible. And yes, deadlines are running out. If we live for 15-20 years without aircraft carriers (and they won’t be built before), then without our own civil aviation we will be very sour in three to five years. This is a question of the survival of the state as a whole.
    1. Vladimir1155 Offline Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 (Vladimir) 4 August 2022 09: 17
      +3
      I will support, of course, that aircraft carriers are so useless for Russia that civil aviation is better, and there is much better than a useless show-off vessel dying from one missile like Moscow, NVO clearly shows that rockets and artillery are most important in modern warfare, as well as camouflage, a large surface ship becomes just a ballast for a defenseless target, in the navy the most important thing is submarines and nuclear submarines, on land all types of missiles, mobile and camouflaged, it’s better to set up SSBNs, NNSs, nuclear submarines, aircraft, communications and reconnaissance satellites, drones, missiles, and you can also civil aircraft, gas carriers, bulk carriers, car factories, electronics factories, agriculture, roads .....
  • Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 4 August 2022 09: 31
    +2
    General words about nothing.

    forced to turn into great maritime powers

    Military? Economic?
    You can compare the production volumes of ships, for example, South Korea and Russia.
    Or the Russian Navy and ... S. Korea - which is more and how?

    Where is the transformation? How many ships sail under the flag of Russia and, for example, Turkey?
    Judging by the announcement of more and more new hyper-sonic missiles, Russia is turning into a Great hyper-sonic missile power, and not a sea power, etc.