RUSSIA HAS TEN WAR SHIPS "PERMANENTLY ASSIGNED" TO THE MEDITERRANEAN. THE U.S. HAS ONLY ONE WAR SHIP PERMANENTLY ASSIGNED. THE REAL QUESTION IS HOW TO DEFINE "PERMANENTLY ASSIGNED WHEN BOTH ARE INVOLVED IN A SHELL GAME.
The Russian navy has maintained a permanent detachment of about 10 warships in the Mediterranean Sea since late 2012. The United States has had a permanent "Sixth Fleet" in the Mediterranean Sea since before the Cold War. During the time it took for Republican administrations to extract the post Cold War "peace dividend "and democratic administrations to deliberately undermine our naval defenses, our so called "Sixth Fleet" shrank to a shore side command and control element in Italy, and one command and control ship. All other U.S. war ships of the "Sixth Fleet" are on temporary rotation out of what is left of our "Atlantic Fleet". The entire U.S. Navy which was nearing 600 war ships as the Berlin Wall fell, is now down to about 200 ships deployed around the world.
But Russia is playing a bit of a shell game as well. Russia�s has three main naval fleets and each have contributed ships to the standing Mediterranean force since it was first deployed, There is no standing command and control element in the Mediterranean. The Russian Black Sea Fleet commands the vessels. The Russians refer to their ten ship fleet as a "standing force" indicating its semi permanent status, it could expand or contract depending on future circumstances. The U.S. refers to its constantly fluctuating standing force as the "Sixth Fleet" because at one time it actually was a duly constituted fleet and still has an admiral and a flag ship. Referring to our rotating standing force in the Mediterranean as a "fleet" is a bit like a lingering image from a long ago dream. But of course if our government ever regains its sanity with an admiral and flag ship in place a real fleet could be restored with some permanent vessels, assuming the democrats don't quietly reduce the U.S Navy to a few destroyers to participate in the coming Muslim NATO fleet and some harbor tugs. The democrats would of course still call it the U.S. Navy and the lap dog media would assure that there would be no net work discussion of the shrinkage. The U.S. and Russia are both a bit pinched for funds and that helps drive the shell game approach to naval one up man-ship. Russia is waiting for the price of oil to go up since they seem to have a one trick pony economy. The U.S. could benefit from such a rise also if it were to eliminate its oil export band. But basically assuming that the Democrats hold on to the White House and the mixed bag of nuts that is the Congress continues on without adult supervision, naval shrinkage is the order of the day.
Russia�s permanent naval force in the Mediterranean is the latest example of Moscow�s ongoing attempt to expand its military presence or at least the perception of its presence around the world. In 2012 the Kremlin announced plans to spend trillions of rubles on upgrades to Russia�s armed forces by the end of 2020. Fat chance ,if the oil market doesn't improve. Recently, Russia has flown sporadic long-range bomber patrols to reach as far as the Gulf of Mexico, and touted these flights as "patrol expansions." The Bear has also conducted training exercises in the High Arctic where the U.S. has virtually no military presence but great economic interests . Earlier this year, Russia�s Black Sea Fleet conducted joint exercises with the Chinese navy in the Aegean Sea. The Aegean connects to the Mediterranean Sea between between the Greek and Anatolian peninsulas, i.e., between the mainlands of Greece and Turkey. Turkey is at least nominally a NATO member and will probably lead the alliance once Britain, the Netherlands , and Germany become Islamic Republics in the next 12 years. China certainly has no real interest in the area but the Dragon and the Bear are all about showing strength and reach right now while the U.S. and the Western Alliance are clearly on the ropes over their own foolishness. Only a resurgent West could reverse this trend and that is perfectly possible given the U.S. recent status as a large energy producer. But Europe and the United States are abominably governed and thoroughly invaded by fifth columns of Islamic terror cells and in the case of the U.S. ,Reconquestia political operatives. U.S. leadership is badly needed but highly unlikely to be forth coming. The chance of getting a Republican into the White House next election is vastly complicated by the real possibility of a Trump third party candidacy that could draw off 20% of the vote.
Map courtesy CIA Worl Fact Book
Our lead analysts Namazu has written about a second American century that could be shaping up. He bases it largely on the American oil boom and anticipation of the continuance of a free enterprise economic system within the United States. Now, three years since Namazu's optimistic predictions the minority of analysts here at American Admiralty Information Services see a much more pessimistic future unless somehow Hillary Clinton can be defeated and the Islamification of America marching lock step with the Reconquestia cease, followed by a return to sound monetary, budget, and naval / maritime policies. What we see on the horizon frankly is civil war unless the U.S.Democratic party is reduced to irrelevancy.Should that occur our confidence in the Republican party is such that we believe the decline of the U.S. will be significantly slowed but all indicators are that the Republicans while less proactively harmful than the Democrats are basically clueless. The U.S. is in bad need of a pragmatic administration and congress restricted in their pragmatism by only moral and humanitarian considerations determined by Christian principles, not progressive liberalism.Only massive deportations could accomplish that now.
