You keep referring to that thought, but I think it is probably based on events and the arguments about the Ukraine.
I think you are wrong in thinking that the Ukraine events are not part of the chess game we are discussing.
After the breakup of the USSR, Russia's Baltic fleet was mothballed and essentially rusted, particularly their nuclear subs.These subs, that we have invested heavily in, when deployed have a tendency to change the deterrent balance.
Currently I believe that they are concerned about this and I also believe that the Ukraine move is all about the ports and pipelines and controlling the security and media (all information gathering) in and near the ports and shipyards. To do that, they need to control at least the entire Western and Southern Ukraine and all of it would be optimal.
This will enable them to build a sub fleet that is second to none to counter ours and shift the balance of deterrent power and as they do, they can control the message, and the prying eyes.
Since they are not there yet and have much work to do, the positioning of naval assets close to our shores reduce the missile travel time and temporarily fill that need until they have enough assets to do it without the subterfuge they have been using of late..
Maybe you misunderstood me, then. Let’s simply say that I follow Russian propaganda very closely (and frankly, there is no better source than FR for it). It’s the same excuse, again and again. “If only we didn’t do this, the Russians wouldn’t have done that.” Again, laughable.
Strategically, the Black Sea is a crappy place to base a fleet. There’s two chock points before the open water of the Med.
....”Since they are not there yet and have much work to do, the positioning of naval assets close to our shores reduce the missile travel time and temporarily fill that need until they have enough assets to do it without the subterfuge they have been using of late..”......
Interesting......and how do you see Putin’s moves in South America. I’d be interested in your opinion.
Thank you.