[Goose]

Speaking of trying to defend indefensible territory. Russia’s most important naval bases all exist in a similar shadow. Kaliningrad, St. Pete, Murmansk, Sevastopol, and Vladivostok would be overwhelmed by NATO and it’s partner countries in the event of WWIII. Of course, we all assume there will be no such war. The only reason NATO could even consider accepting the Baltics into the alliance was to assume that the purpose of the alliance - to defend against an attack by Russia - would never become operative. Russia lives by the same code, setting up totally indefensible naval bases that serve no purpose other than saber rattling.

I can't really agree with you here. Murmansk is a real tough nut. NATO certainly doesn't take for granted that it is "indefensible".  Quite the opposite. Lots and lots of effort continues to go into trying to neutralize Murmansk and it's ongoing surface and submarine threat. In fact, NATO doesn't even believe defending the northern coast of Norway is a given. Those boomers and their escorts in the bastions are not "saber rattling", but rather world ending.

Sevastopol is also pretty "safe", or it was until Ukraine became an open enemy of Russia. The Turks can keep the Russian Navy penned in where it can do no harm outside of the Black Sea, but NATO wasn't going in there to root them out either. The Black Sea is pretty much conceded to Russia, Navy-wise. Right now, the Russian Navy there is a mess, but that doesn't have to be true if this war ends in Russia's favor.

Vlad is not in a great geographic situation, but nobody really wants to fight in the SOJ either. Confined waters. Russia's problem there is it is just too far away from the rest of the country. However, Petropavlovsk is where the "real" problem is. Much like Murmansk, it's submarine threat is very formidable, and also like Murmansk it is not "hemmed in" by NATO territory.

The Baltic Sea is pretty much a "no go" zone for the US Navy. Large ships don't do well there. OTOH, before the end of the Cold War the Danes could close up the entrance totally with mines of various types in literally minutes. Unfortunately, they can't do so today. As in WW II, the Baltic isn't going to be an "important" Naval theater because it is just too dangerous for anybody to operate there. Russia will present some naval problems, but not many. In that, you are correct.

Obviously, all naval bases, both NATO and Russian, are vulnerable from the air. That is what makes the naval situation acutely interesting. Which side can defend their bases from the air will decide how well their Navy does. Russia has put LOTS of effort into defending their naval bases, but Putin has not continued that emphasis. Putin is a bit like Hitler in that regard. He neither values nor understands his navy as much as he should. He has basically eviscerated naval aviation. The irony is that Naval Aviation is launching many of the cruise missiles against Ukraine. The TU-22s are all ex-navy units.

[Goose]

Speaking of trying to defend indefensible territory. Russia’s most important naval bases all exist in a similar shadow. Kaliningrad, St. Pete, Murmansk, Sevastopol, and Vladivostok would be overwhelmed by NATO and it’s partner countries in the event of WWIII. Of course, we all assume there will be no such war. The only reason NATO could even consider accepting the Baltics into the alliance was to assume that the purpose of the alliance - to defend against an attack by Russia - would never become operative. Russia lives by the same code, setting up totally indefensible naval bases that serve no purpose other than saber rattling.

I can't really agree with you here. Murmansk is a real tough nut. NATO certainly doesn't take for granted that it is "indefensible".  Quite the opposite. Lots and lots of effort continues to go into trying to neutralize Murmansk and it's ongoing surface and submarine threat. In fact, NATO doesn't even believe defending the northern coast of Norway is a given. Those boomers and their escorts in the bastions are not "saber rattling", but rather world ending.

Sevastopol is also pretty "safe", or it was until Ukraine became an open enemy of Russia. The Turks can keep the Russian Navy penned in where it can do no harm outside of the Black Sea, but NATO wasn't going in there to root them out either. The Black Sea is pretty much conceded to Russia, Navy-wise. Right now, the Russian Navy there is a mess, but that doesn't have to be true if this war ends in Russia's favor.

Vlad is not in a great geographic situation, but nobody really wants to fight in the SOJ either. Confined waters. Russia's problem there is it is just too far away from the rest of the country. However, Petropavlovsk is where the "real" problem is. Much like Murmansk, it's submarine threat is very formidable, and also like Murmansk it is not "hemmed in" by NATO territory.

The Baltic Sea is pretty much a "no go" zone for the US Navy. Large ships don't do well there. OTOH, before the end of the Cold War the Danes could close up the entrance totally with mines of various types in literally minutes. Unfortunately, they can't do so today. As in WW II, the Baltic isn't going to be an "important" Naval theater because it is just too dangerous for anybody to operate there. Russia will present some naval problems, but not many. In that, you are correct.

Obviously, all naval bases, both NATO and Russian, are vulnerable from the air. That is what makes the naval situation acutely interesting. Which side can defend their bases from the air will decide how well their Navy does. Russia has put LOTS of effort into defending their naval bases, but Putin has not continued that emphasis. Putin is a bit like Hitler in that regard. He neither values nor understands his navy as much as he should. He has basically eviscerated naval aviation. The irony is that Naval Aviation is launching many of the cruise missiles against Ukraine. The TU-22s are all ex-navy units.