Russia joins NATO in submarine rescue drills

Discussion in 'Americas' started by lambu, Jun 1, 2011.

  1. lambu

    lambu Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    77
    Location:
    banglore
    MOSCOW: A task force from the Russian Black Sea Fleet led by diesel submarine Alrosa is taking part in NATO naval drills off the coast of Spain, the Russian Defence Ministry said.

    Bold Monarch is the world's largest submarine rescue exercise held every three years.

    This year's exercise is being conducted between May 30-June 10 near the Spanish port of Cartagena, and involves submarines, ships and aircraft from both NATO and non-NATO countries, including Russia.

    "The Russian task force comprises diesel submarine Alrosa, salvage tug Shakhtyor, auxiliary vessel KIL-158, and rescue vessel Epron," a Russian Defence Ministry's spokesman said Monday.

    This is the first time a Russian submarine has participated in any NATO exercise.

    Alrosa, a Kilo class submarine, will play a part of a "vessel in distress", bottomed at the sea floor.

    Ships equipped with a range of sophisticated debris clearance, diver assisted gear and submarine rescue vehicles will attempt to salvage the sub and rescue its crew.

    Russian auxiliary vessel KIL-158 carries an advanced Seaeye Panther Plus underwater remotely operated vehicle (ROV), the spokesman said.

    Panther Plus was adopted by the Russian Navy after an incident with Russian submariners in the Bering Sea in August 2005, when Russia's AS-28 submersible became tangled in a fishing net at a depth of about 190 metres (about 620 feet).

    The ROV can operate at depths up to 1,000 metres (3,000 feet).

    Russia joins NATO in submarine rescue drills | Black Sea Fleet | | Indian Express
     
  2.  
  3. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,163
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Good.

    Russia has been trying to forge special relationships with Germany, Italy, France and Poland. There is a lot of cooperation between Russia and these countries these days. Some examples are:
    • French collaboration in LADA Cars.
    • French collaboration in Mistral.
    • German collaboration with NordStream.
    • Italian collaboration with Sukhoi-Superjet.
    • Oil and other trade with Germany and Italy.

    Russia wants to create enough trade ties with these major European players so that US cannot pressurise them to antagonise Russia. Weaken NATO unity perhaps? Smart move and good job!
     
  4. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    If you can't defeat them then join them...
     
  5. lurker

    lurker Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    2
    Actually NATO unity has gotten stronger... rather than dividing NATO, NATO countries are tying Russia to Europe.
     
  6. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    " NATO countries are tying Russia to Europe"

    That's actually the startegy of NATO. And at the moment they're facing their best chance of accomplishing this with the leadership of Medvedev in Kremlin as opposed to the more hawkish (I might say megalomaniac) Putin. With Russia firmly in in the camp of the Western powers this group's strength will be unrivaled. China, if it continue on its silent (actually bellicose) strategic arms flexing in Asia and elsewhere, will be the odd man out, the equivalent of the the USSR during the Cold War.
     
  7. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,163
    Location:
    EST, USA
    I would have believed that but for the Missile Defense Shield closer to Russia's borders and the 'democratic' revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia.

    USSR wasn't alone during the Cold War. It had the whole of Eastern Europe, much of Latin America and India; and PRC upto the Sino-Soviet split. PRC right now is the real odd man out and in much worse condition than the USSR. On top of that, they don't even have the technological capability to challenge the West the way the USSR did. In those days, USSR could occupy the whole of continental Western Europe all by itself without any help from her satellites.
     
  8. lurker

    lurker Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    2
    The missile defense shield is still in discussion, so I believe that we should wait to judge it until it takes its course. Neither Ukraine nor Georgia were NATO members, but France now is, having recently rejoined NATO.

    The reason I say that NATO unity has become stronger is because of the release of its post cold war mission statement, the membership of another Western country, and the general lack of dissatisfaction with the alliance in any member government. No one wants to leave it, despite its involvement in Libya and Afghanistan. In fact its a show of its strength that its member states are relatively unified in their support for the alliance despite these issues. If Russia's goal is a weak and divided NATO, Russia has failed so far.
     
  9. civfanatic

    civfanatic Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Location:
    తెలంగాణ
    NATO, as it exists now, is a redundant organization. Since the collapse of the USSR and Warsaw Pact, it has lacked a clear purpose. It was orginally NATO's plan to expand its organization right up to Russia's borders, which it has accomplished to some degree, but which Russia improving its relations with select NATO countries, and signifiying its dissatisfaction with further expansion via the South Ossetia War, that goal is now deemed unwise and is no longer pursued.

    The reality is that NATO countries are far more dependent on Russia for natural gas and energy than Russia is on any NATO country. Russia is simply using its leverage to its advantage, by pursuing friendly relations that will benefit itself in the long run.
     
  10. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,397
    Likes Received:
    2,314
    Actually, NATO unity is falling apart. EU nations are tired of fighting American lead wars, especially when America won't fight a European lead war. The operating budget has been cut by a third, US bases are closing, and NATO command shows itself incompetent in executing war aims. The European relationship to Russia has nothing to do with the US in any context and France dominates ties to Russia. Russia sent a submarine to act in distress for real world experience the next time their subs end up at the bottom of the ocean.
     
    pmaitra likes this.
  11. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    "NATO, as it exists now, is a redundant organization. Since the collapse of the USSR and Warsaw Pact, it has lacked a clear purpose. xxx"

    There may be some truth to the widespread allegation that NATO has been left high and dry after the collapse of the USSR and Warsaw Pact in terms of mission, but I think there is a very simple logic that keepos NATO intact: What do the member countries have to gain in case they disband NATO? Separation and uncertainty. What are they going to lose in continuing to stick around NATO? Nothing, as NATO participation has been ingrained deep in their governmental and security insitutions.

    To its members NATO is their most important source of comfort while to the enemies of its members NATO is the greatest source of discomfort.
     
  12. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    "Actually, NATO unity is falling apart.xxx especially when America won't fight a European lead war.xxx"

    Don't believe everything that you hear on Al Jazeera or BBC. NATO without the US cannot effectively operate as a cohesive fighting force. The US' public absence in Lybia by all indications is merely make believe so as not to upset demestic US politics (which is already weary of additional wars). US assets are still ever present in the skies over and beside Lybia.

    BTW, without US weight the UN resolution pushing for humanitarian intervention in Lybia would not have pushed through.
     
  13. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,397
    Likes Received:
    2,314
    US combat sorties have declined from 40% in the first week to less than 1% after the US pullback. France has pulled 40% of combat sorties replacing the US as leader of Operation Harmattan. US contribution now consists of a dozen recon assets which is nothing in the scheme of this conflict. With two aircraft carriers, 5 fighter squadrons, 1 Tiger attack squadron and nearly a dozen warships deployed, France is the leading power. It is NATO that is breaking the cohesion of the operation by arguing every little thing France and the UK want to do.

    BTW, it was France and the UK that pushed the resolution through and it was France that got the Arab League to back it... not the US which wouldn't have passed without the Arabs. So much for that theory.

    Another BTW.. Sarko was the one who got Russia to denounce Gaddafi at the G8 summit, not Obama.
     
    Godless-Kafir likes this.
  14. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    "BTW, it was France and the UK that pushed the resolution through and it was France that got the Arab League to back it... "

    Maybe some of the Arabs. But as a whole that organization only listen to the most powerful in the room. The fact is that the Obama administration was totally in favor of humanitarian intervention in Lybia, the US Congress and the DEfense Department on the other hand that were weary of a new conflict. Of course what we know of only is the public statements of the leaders of the Western powers and the fact that aisde from the first French salvos of the intervention, the US military lead the initial coordinated NATO aerial assault of Gaddafi's air defense assets.
     
  15. lurker

    lurker Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    2
    Which is why France rejoined it? Your own leaders action's disagree with you and prove that at least there is a perception in the French government that NATO is not falling apart, who would join a decaying alliance? I never spoke about how the Euro-Russia relationship has anything to do with the US, but the NATO-Russia relationship does, and this thread is about NATO. That said improved Euro-Russia relations would be a benefit to the US in that it offers Russia security path other than China.

    That dissatisfaction with American led wars has not translated into dissatisfaction with NATO membership, unless you can point to a country whose government desires to leave NATO.

    American led war, French led war, or Canadian led war, NATO is a more effective fighting force and security guarantee than any single member, and all acknowledge it, thus there is no desire to leave it.

    NATO command may be incompetent (or may not), but it is still a more effective fighting force than any single European NATO member.



    US bases closing and the budget tightening in these crappy economic times means nothing.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2011
  16. lurker

    lurker Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    2
    I notice the US kicked down the door for ya.

    When did France get a second carrier?
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2011
  17. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,397
    Likes Received:
    2,314
    Rafales were already over Libya before US even got out of the Paris summit.

    France has four aircraft carriers, one CVN and three LHDs.

    My leaders want an EU military, France rejoining the alliance is the only way to have more say in European defence issues as long as the US still dominates it. Sarko has engineered several parallel defence pacts outside the framework of NATO that undermines US influence. The recent action in Libya with France and the UK leading the way with US pullback is the perfect example of things to come. NATO is falling apart when it comes to US lead wars as in Afghanistan with nations already having pulled out.

    The NATO-Russia relationship doesn't have much to do with the US when the whole exercise was to test a French rescue system that Russia might be interested in acquiring. The only thing antagonising Russia is the continued US insistence on deploying more shit on its borders. It has no issues with the EU as it relies on it for its economic welfare.

    When the Socialists regain power, France will again leave NATO. It can't be replaced until EUFOR is strengthened to substitute it.

    The budget is being reduced to oblivion while EUFOR budget increases, American and British bases in mainland Europe are closing fast, Russia is redeploying to counter their real threat, China, Europe is leading her own wars... the days are numbered for obsolete alliances with no purpose.

    The US is broke, it means everything.
     
  18. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    "It can't be replaced until EUFOR is strengthened to substitute it"

    A pipe dream. The French may always think they're exceptional but that's only their thought. Without the Western alliance they're nothing. Without the arm twisting of the US and Britain France would not even be able to get the support of its former colony Algeria in any UN votation... But if they feel better thinking this way then why spoil it? Go ahead Frenchies your exceptional!
     
  19. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    The over aggressive response of France in the Lybian crisis can be explained by its shameful failure in the Tunisian Jasmine revolution. How pathetic, France was caught unaware by the democratic revolution happening right in its former colony? It was the US, as in almost all successful Arab revolutions that followed, that worked behind the scenes to insure its success. No less than the French Foreign Minister has admitted this amateurish French oversight:

    "We in the Elysee did not see this coming. It was the Americans who took matters in hand. They were convinced that the survival of the regime though violence, would plant the seeds for the Islamists. The U.S. military talked with their Tunisian Counterpart and Ben Ali was asked to leave the territory without further delay.”

    The truth of the matter is that it was only in countries where the US exerted enormous leverage that these so called Arab awakenings have been successful, owing in no small part to US pressures. Now, may I ask Mr. Frenchie here, what credit can France claim in these successful Arab revolutions? Has its political and military pressures aided in bringing about a successful democratizations in any of these countries? The last time I checked France is still a second rate world power who cannot punch above its weight without US' help.

    It seems that humility has never been part of the French vocabulary...
     

Share This Page