Russia’s Black Sea failure throws doubt on utility of modern navies | General Sir Richard Shirreff
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 май 2024
- “The Ukrainians have demonstrated very effectively by their complete neutralisation of the Black Sea fleet with drones that you don’t need a navy”.
In response to Grant Shapps's announcement of twenty-five new warships, General Sir Richard Shirreff says the UK needs to “prepare its armed forces across the board”. There’s a likelihood we will be having to fight Russia on land”.
📻 Listen to Times Radio - www.thetimes.co.uk/radio
📍 Subscribe to our channel - / @listentotimesradio
🗞 Subscribe to The Times www.thetimes.co.uk/subscribe/...
📲 Get the free Times Radio app www.thetimes.co.uk/radio/how-...
"Ash tray on a motorbike" is a new one for me. Thanks Sir Richard!!
It’s a very old Australian expression 😏
It doesn't throw doubt on modern fleets. It throws doubt on obsolete, backward, corruption-ridden, badly maintained fleets.
Also the Black Sea fleet is in a special circumstance, which is an enclosed home port with most of the vessels idling. By contrast look at the US led Red Sea Houthi response - they have been hammered by drones and missiles and its been target practice for us.
@@Gnosticware dude, the Black Sea Fleet is alone in the Black Sea, it has no real enemies, it's only actual enemy is Ukraine which has no navy, and yet Ukraine has sunk or damaged a third of its ships inducing its pride and flagship...
@@johnnyenglish583 Dude. How naive you are?😂 British sent 100s of sea drones to hit Russian ships. Of course, some will pass and hit the ship .So, any ship which encounters such situation will have the same fate
There is no ship to be able to target all 100s of sea drones approaching it . Some anyway pass and hit. Russia now has its own sea drone.
@@Gnosticware the strait of hormuz is also enclosed waters. And you haven't sunk a single ship in spite of trying for months. In the meantime, the most modern and powerful ship of the Black Sea Fleet, the Moskva, was sunk with a single missile 😂😂😂
And no, it wasn't idling, it was in high seas after a terrorist missile attack against civilians in Odessa. It wasn't alone, it had its escorts, it could manoeuvre. But it was sunk without a problem.
Russia has never won a naval battle in it's entire history and why would that change now?
Yeah. Those damn 1700s and 1800s were a pesky period in history for the Russian Navy, eh?
😒
@@livingtribunal4110 That's why Russia has so little ocean front. They lost, lost, lost and now that need places like Syria to tie up their rust buckeets.
@@abrahamdozer6273
Carry on.
Continue to dine-out on your ´Kiev-in-three-days/Ukraine-in-a-few-weeks/Black-Sea-Fleet-destroyed´ levels of bullsh!t copium you enjoy being spoonfed daily by Western MSM
Loony.
Sinope 1853?
@@Mike-mm4mx That's still in Turkey .... hardly a glorious victory.
I wouldn't discount the navy's value altogether just yet.
Agreed. The contest between SLBM vessels, attack submarines, and ASW in the large oceans is still relevant. The Black Sea is simply by geography vulnerable to drones and shore-to-ship missiles.
Especially when the discounting is coming from a politically motivated General.
The General seems to forget that Britain is an Island.
This guy is forgetting Britain has several over seas territories that fall under its protection. Yes, we absolutely do need more ships. Our navy is our biggest asset. It is our logistical back bone.
If you have strong alliances, you don't need a strong navy, strong air force, AND a strong army. For one thing, you can't afford it (unless you are the US). While teh UK needs to a have a small potent ground force, it can afford to specialize somewhat. Of all the NATO members, the UK just reeks of navy. Go with your strength. Don't focus on just this one conflict.
The UK has always been a maritime power, not a continental power. When it engages in a continental war, the UK has always partnerd with a continental power. I really don't think that will ever change or should it.
Good point. Robust ASW capability is needed to keep the Atlantic open for Canada and the US to provide support. The UK is best positioned for this role.
You do if you rely on trade by sea, otherwise you're a dependent by definition
UK needs to maintain its fleet. It is the guarantor of British independence. Why change now?
Warfare has changed dramatically. The Ukrainians have torn up the old manual and ushered in a completely new era.
It isn't just navies which must alter fundamentally for a 21st century war. Land, sea and air all have to begin rejigging what materiel they will need. What they used to need no longer applies.
UK's performance in the Red Sea shows how far it has to go. It needs to form carrier strike groups
Of course you need a navy, but you also need an army and an air force too.
RUSSIA´S DISINTEGRATION APROACHES
Half of RuZZia’s Black Sea fleet has been transformed into submarines by Ukraine‘s naval drones and Neptune missiles😁
Well, in shallow coastal waters, the presence of drones may well be too risky for expensive warships to loiter. But in deeper waters, in the middle of an ocean, aircraft carriers probably have less to worry about and are still very useful for force projection.
They are a game changer (Ukraine can protect coastal shipping to some extent, without a navy to speak of) but they won't change the whole game
Geography is the deciding factor about the necessity of a navy and comparing the Black Sea, which is a pond, is irrelevant to covering oceans or deploying forces overseas.
Sooooo many desperate Russian bots...
Surprise, surprise...
So you’re an Ukraine bot then.
Is it your ability to not have an intellectual debate or are you only capable of MASS DEBATE?
The Black Sea is a bathtub compared to the Pacific or even Atlantic.
A bad navy, like Russia's, always has no utility. Whether good navies are obsolete is an open question, but probably not yet.
About the HM Navy Fleet it's not a secret anymore.
The Russian submarine fleet must be considered.
Wonderful analogy...as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike. WHY ON EARTH have Britain's government... AND many others...not have expert Secretaries of State in the field to which they are assigned? Absolutely bonkers situation at present. Thank for speaking out General.
And if Europe has to fight Russia on land, then the Atlantic needs to be kept reasonably safe for American and Canadian support. Russia has a serious submarine fleet, and therefore ASW needs to be up to the task. I would not for one minute assume that Russia would hesitate to employ its submarine fleet in support of a broader European war which the US gets pulled into via NATO.
Air power and the ground grunt. These two are a lethal combination.
Star wars, the time machine, doctor who, star trek, times radio, need I say more 😂
“You don’t need ships… I’m afraid this is posturing” Bwahahaha! Thanks guys, the most unintentionally hilarious statement of the month!
so what was your rank in the armed forces...... Or are you just an armchair general....
And what do you know about it ?
See your assumption is that Russia has a modern navy ,which is laughable .
That is just what I was thinking after I read the caption.
We will need a range of kit including ships but key is being a master of missiles in huge numbers.
When a war comes your way and you are not prepared for it you should be prepared to lose it. Be prepared to face it and it is less likely you will need to. Besides Britain would not be in this war on its own the combined armed services of Europe alone is far too big a bone for Russia to chew on. Now thrown in the Canadian and US armed Forces.
Nowadays we come with very useful friends for as long as we are willing and able to reciprocate. Failing to live up to their expectations of us would be devastating for Europe as a whole.
Wow! "You dont need a navy, you dont need ships"?! He surely cant mean that, right? The Ukrainians have been very effective in curtailing the Russian Navy, in he Baltic sea, true....but its real stretch to make the jump to saying a state surrounded by water doesnt need ships! Incredible!😳
So many failures in victory is unusual
It's interesting how consistent a narrative is being focussed on in these comments around perpetuating investment in the navy and in the UK's current investment being okay. Both stances which benefit Russian strategy... Odd that
And espcially in the light of the "not success" of the RN's aircraft carrier...is that not correct?
" si vis pacem para bellum "...!
I don't understand why the Ukraine doesn't use its airforce and navy.
Title and thumbnail very misleading. Barely mentioned in video.
It's been too long since we've had a major global war that directly affected enough of the West for people to take the threat of Russia seriously. It's been multiple generations. That last significant war of the West was the Gulf War, which ended up being such a rout that it actually ended up having the opposite affect, which is that the West is so powerful that we don't need to worry about any enemies. People think WW2 and the like just flared up overnight and suddenly the world was at war. It was a slow process over many years of allowing Germany to war against its neighbors and slowly spread, just like Russia is doing now.
Make this Sir Richard head of our army and Putin can start packing!
Yes, a primary Russian objective in this war is continued occupation/annexation/control of Crimea as home of a Russian southern fleet. A primary objective of the land war is control of a land corridor for rail supply of that treasured and important southern fleet. Therefore naval aspects of this war are unimportant. What?!?
5:00 - 8:04: Editor call in sick?
How did the waves become ruled by Britannia in the first place? Britain is an island, geography saving us many times through history, the navy has proved its worth.
Another Master of War, they are furking crazy.
As an American, thus an outsider, I have a hard time believing his narrative. Britain needs a modern navy, which it has. The Royal Navy, along with the Japanese navy, are our closest allies. If you improve your navy, given your limited resources these days, you are doing more than your share as part of the alliance network-- which is all anyone should expect.
And you should have a land based expeditionary force, maybe a couple battalions of Royal Marines, or its equivalent... but a fully functional army? Why? Do you really imagine that you'll be fighting Russia on your own? How absurd! Even if the US stand aloof (always possible), the entire EU stands between you and Russia. The EU has 3 times the population and 15 times the economy as Russia. They can jolly well defend themselves! You shouldn't be sending ground troops to fight in Eastern Europe, let the continental countries do that. You will do more than your share by having a modern navy!
I swear, sometimes senior military officers can be remarkably shortsighted.
4% of Poland's 1.8 trillion GDP is 78 billion.
2.5% of UK's 4 trillion GDP is 100 billion. The good general has his calculations wrong, 100 trillion would indeed be greater than 78 billion.
A layman's opinion; I think the navy is to be used around Taiwan...
Did you guys forget the fact that Turkey blocked the Russian fleet in the black sea? That played a big part of their failure.
Nah it was the sinking that did it
So you're saying that the confinement by Turkey did not combine with attacks by Ukraine to sink those vessels ?
where were thy going to go?
NO CHILDREN FROM UK SHOULD BE FIGHTING Ukraine's (America's) war WITH RUSSIA unless they are from families of MPs. Better to "make peace you fools" by Colonel Douglas Macgregor.
Uh..., Putin's belly button is failing...? 🤷♂️
General Sir Richard Shirreff is correct about the need to prepare to face down and defeat Russia in a land war. That should go without saying, under the circumstances Europe now finds itself in. However, we (the West as a whole) still are ruled and dominated by politicians wedded to the neoliberal economic ideology that "the market" will solve all problems. Too few of them are willing to recognise the reality that *they* need to respond proactively against what Russia is doing in Ukraine, and against the influence and interference, and, one might add, state sponsored terrorism Russia has been exercising right across the West for well over a decade. It's argued that the West is self-deterring in the face of Russian nuclear posturing. That might be true to some extent, but the relative lack of action also fits well into their existing ideology: they don't need to be decisive leaders, like Roosevelt and Churchill, because "the market" will lead! Some countries of course are fully aware of the threat that lies ahead, foremost amongst them Poland and the Baltic republics. Plus, of course, Finland and Sweden -- they would not have clamoured to join NATO if the Russian threat was not real. And President Zelensky, of course, is the only current Western leader who lives up to the measure of Roosevelt and Churchill, although Macron shows some signs of being a wannabe in that category.
So, being fully prepared to fight and defeat Russia on land is now a strategic imperative for Europe. Poland, for one, is certainly preparing for that eventuality. But Russia won't be defeated on land alone. While there might be questions about the validity of navies for littoral combat -- what Russia's Black Sea Fleet is failing miserably at in the face of Ukraine's asymmetric forces, unlike Western navies facing down Houthis in the littoral conflict in the Red Sea -- strong naval forces nevertheless will be required to secure the strategic lifeline across the North Atlantic, hunt down and combat Russia's underwater threat, and interdict Russia's sea-based economic lifeline. They will also be required to deter or combat Russia's likely allies, especially Iran (the Persian Gulf will need to be secured in any conflict with Russia). Six new amphibious warfare ships for the RN will do nothing to secure the North Atlantic, or against Russia's submarine threat, much less against Russia's massed army, but they will have utility: in the Arctic, which is a strategic priority for Russia; in the Baltic, if NATO was ever required to take Kaliningrad to secure its rear area; in the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and other areas where littoral warfare would be required, possibly as a precursor to landing the Royal Marines to secure particular objectives -- as long as there are enough Royal Marines to carry out such operations!
And, of course, there's the Falklands. Whatever ones views about those islands, the UK needs to be able to defend them. One of these amphibs is likely to be on call at short to medium notice to deploy to the South Atlantic if the Argentines ever start to show signs of interest in stirring things up again, unlikely as that might be given the huge decline in Argentine military capabilities in the last 40 years.
So, while it might seem strange to prioritise the purchase of six amphibs at this time, there is a strong imperative behind the decision. But, it should be a matter not of six new amphibs *or* investment in the land forces, but six new amphibs *and* investment in land forces. And, after all, Royal Marines are land forces. If there aren't enough of them then six largely empty amphibs certainly should be called out as political posturing.
When wars begin, military truisms are broken. In WW 2 it was the role of the Battleship. The Carrier became the most important ship. The drones are changing things in the Ukraine. England was broke after WW2. The U.S. is headed that way. A weak economy cannot support a strong military. And each conflict makes the economy even weaker.
Shovels and computer chips for a navy the General is always a good laugh just like UK military forces of less than 100 thousand Question How long would UK forces last in Ukraine 2 or 6 months?
Russia has never been a serious naval power. It never recovered from 1905 humiliation by Japanese. In 2001 part of the U.S. response to 9/11 was construction of nuclear powered submarines.
0:53 this guy is the former deputy head of SHAEF? This do nothing scone - eater was a former deputy leader of Forces in Europe? This known nothing, that does not realize you need *ships* to get the British Army anywhere outside the UK? Is he thinking the entire British Army, it's few tanks, all the artillery, all the support and supplies needed to confront any other force in Europe *is going to all be airlifted into combat* ? Does he seriously not know what *Royal Marines* and their ships do? They are the spearhead of any "expeditionary" or "landing forces", that secure the way in for *Any LaNd aRmY" (as he keeps pointing out for no reason). This guy demonstrates once again why we don't put "squadies" in charge of important things. Ships that can transport troops and their supplies are just as needed as more tanks for the UK armed services - these ships just usually aren't as "glamorous" and don't usually get this kind of .. attention.
Hawk
Well, by the time the ships are done being built, Ukraine will have won and those ships would be very useful in the Pacific.
😅😂🤣
Typical army general... the Russian fleet is worthless. In the best of times it was limited to submarines with no surface force which could measure up to a major western power. Modern weaponry gives effective, modern navies abilities to control the sea, trade, and strike very far inland without the use of ground troops which has always been very messy.
A modern navy with the ability to control the sea, trade, and strike very far inland without the use of ground troops? Is there a navy other than the US Navy that can accomplish all of that?
This guy seems to have forgotten we are in NATO😂 Have you even thought about how Russian ships carrying thousands of solders to the UK shores with the intention to invade would work without NATO detecting them or them being sunk on route 😂 a land war with Russia VS UK is never gonna happen unless the UK forces go into Ukraine or Russia to fight. Give up the worrying ffs.
I've agree with Gen Shirreff here. He has always been on the mark and UK forces need the manpower, not ships that will be sunk.
It's quite plausible that the offensive in the Kharkiv area is a feint intended to draw troops from the rest of Ukraine and away from the real offensive.
The best way to protect the Russian black sea fleet is for the Russians to capture Odessa.
I think that's what the real offensive will be.
And will they take Odesa by May 20th? Please tell us, botski. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha
@@boink800 They've been practicing with bridging equipment.
Given how little of the alloted aid money actually went to the Kharkiv fortifications and minefields, it could be the same on the west bank in Kherson.
@@s0ycapitan They will take Kharkiv by May 20! Ha ha 😂 🤣 😆 😄 😅 😀 😂
Russia doesn't have enough troops to press their Eastern offensive. Exactly where do you think they would conjure a sufficiency of troops for an offensive on Odesa?
In case you hadn't noticed, Ukraine has been decimating the Russian troop carriers. Even if Russia scrounged together enough manpower, just how do you expect those troops to be transported?
And, last but not least, the Russian navy is hugging the Russian coast. So much tonnage has already been sunk that no risks are being taken by the remaining vessels in the Black Sea.
@@lindabastable3021 I'm pretty sure they have plenty of everything.
It's Ukraine short of everything, particularly fit well trained motivated manpower.
That's why they either ran away or surrendered in Kharkiv.
The Russian army is the best in the world right now.
European🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺 Union Parliament Ukraine maidan Georgia🇬🇪 maidan organization Neo 💩🇧🇪🇫🇷🇬🇧🇩🇪
So many coloured revolutions at a time, tiz so promising.
We're an island. We won't be fighting a land war with Russia. We need ships for our career fleets. We need more missiles, air defence, planes, and drones. Russia and Ukraine have armies from the 1980's, and they use tactics from the 1940's. They fight with what their training and equipment allows. Poland could defeat Russia on its own, they are far stronger than Ukraine. It would take Russia 5 years with a war time economy, in a peace time environment, to get anywhere near the capacity they had before 2022.
Who are these idiots who spend uk 🇬🇧 taxpayers money on useless stuff for the army. This has been going on for about 20 years now. I want to know what is going on 🤷♂️
I don't think 2% is a big deal, unless you feel UK should be defenseless
He is so right , but politicians are weak and self interested with short term thinking , all
Politicians :(
The host: I'm tewwibly concerned that Gweat Bwitain may have to fight in Wussia! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
USA lost a whole fleet in Pearl Harbour, UK lost six modern battle ships during Falklands war. 😅
They won those wars in the end 😅
P. S. Russia lost a few ancient Soviet ships on Black Sea. All our modern fregattes and corvettes with Kalibr missiles are safe as their fire range is approximately 2000 miles 😁
Russia lost it's entirre fleet to the Japanese in 1905 if you're on about ancient battlefields.
Russia lost a flag ship to a country with no navy ... that's a first in world history. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha
The USA did not lose its aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbor. Check your real version of history.
@@abrahamdozer6273 This botski likes to fabricate its own version of history, claiming that everything for Russia is *PERFECT*
The US did not lose its aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbor. And the US won the Battle of Midway just six months later.
The Russian army is moving forward and capturing new territory. Failure? For ukraine.
Zoom the map out. Russia's captured around 18% of Ukraine and that hasn't changed in two years. Marginal gains exchanged for terrible losses isn't a winning strategy.
And yet, Russia 1 tv told us that Russia would only need three days to take Kyiv. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha
Putin 🤡💀🪳🩸
Russia hasn't been the aggressor tho , the US and NATO have, the same as the US didn't like Russian missiles close, hence the Cuban missile crisis, US and NATO, total double standards
Russia keeps expanding its territory and influence. Empires are aggressive. Missile submarines can be close. Soviet innocence. Soviet infallibility. Soviet infinite resources. Soviet victory addiction. Soviet fall. Russian innocence . . . It is the nature of the Russian leadership brains that make periodic self-defeat likely, but, of course, they are "always right". Gorbachev himself said so.
😢😢😢my condolences to the NATO pact for the disastrous defeat by Russia,but that's not the worst...besides the military defeat, you also experienced a geopolitical defeat from Russia and China, which is much worse....NATO geniuses gained 20 million inhabitants Swedish and Finnish and lost 7 billion inhabitants, South America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and a good part of Europe are today on the side of Russia and China... with your aggressive geopolitics, you made Russia the strongest military power in the world and China the strongest economic power and soon a military power...
what can we say about the western media and the pentagon....
a million lies, propaganda of hypocrisy
fake reports...
all in all, NATO and the Western media are the object of ridicule around the world
One of the most heart-warming posts I´ve ever read.
🤭
😮😮@@livingtribunal4110
Thanks for the update, Mr Putin..
The biggest loss for the west is undermining the dollar and euro and their own financial system. That in fact is what ends their hegemony.
Weird that a single nation. Ukraine .. is holding up Russia.
How is the " World seconds strongest military " losing to a nation they border? Its year 3 of this 3 day special needs operation.
How is Russia failing against the poorest nation in Europe?
Hahaha everyday I see the most ridiculous titles about the war… Russia is winning and thank god they are… love Russia, China and Iran!!!! Long live the resistance….. ❤
800+days of a 3 day war! Russians aren’t that smart.
Are we saying that "superpower" Russia now has to rely on China? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha
Russia can't even take the Donbas bud, its time to face reality.
@@foilhat1138 It´s time for you to take your meds and get back in your padded cell