Putin confirms anti-ship missile deployment to Crimea

In a recently aired film titled 'Crimea: The Way Home" Vladimir Putin confirmed deployment of the K-300P Bastion-P anti-ship missile system to Crimea. The system was openly deployed to ensure overhead satellites would notice the deployment. The missile system effectively denies much of the Black Sea to surface vessels unfriendly to Russia.

en.wikipedia.org...

In the film Putin also confirmed his readiness to expand the military conflict with Ukraine using direct intervention if Ukraine ordered it's troops to fight the Crimean takeover. This confirms the real reason Ukrainian troops stayed inside their barracks during the takeover and did not resist. Putin also confirmed that strategic nuclear forces were included in the preparation of scenarios should Ukraine resist Russia's takeover of Crimea.

www.ibtimes.co.uk...

The film discusses Putin's theories on Western intervention in Ukraine prior to the Maiden revolution as well.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

Thank god IBT doesn`t mentions that Russia didn`t exceed the 20K troops number, for a moment I was worried they were going to blow the whole Crimea invasion narrative.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Breaking a base agreement rule is pretty small potatoes after you have annexed the whole territory.

Putin also said he saved the life of Yanukovich. If he didn't order Spetsnaz to protect his life that he would have been killed.

Someone owe's Putin a bottle of Vodka! If he can ever find him of course...

a reply to: noeltrotsky

You seem to have the order of things completely mixed up, I will give them again :

1) US violating The Budapest Memorandum by interfering with the political independence of the Ukraine

2) US violating Ukrainian law by making a coup in the Ukraine, and by so making the Ukrainian law sidelined

3) Crimeans asking for protection because they weren`t recognizing an unlawful government

4) Russian upholding the official treaty by sending not more as 20K troops to Crimea, so no invasion by Russia of the Ukraine

5) Crimeans, by being autonomous already and not having to recognize a government which was unlawful, simply having a vote about what they wanted for their future

a reply to: noeltrotsky

Can't be. Don't you know he is dead?

2nd

DO

From a practical military perspective this is not that big of a deal in my opinion. That is not to say that the weapon system is ineffective, but for it to have any effect at all it will have to be used offensively, in a first-strike scenario. If not, a primary target for Russia's enemies will be the destruction of this area-denial weapons system and others like it. The importance placed on the destruction of this particular missile site will hinge on what nations are involved in conflict with Russia, and what ships are in the missile's effective range, and also whether or not Russia's enemies have a navy in the first place.

The Chinese have been working with similar systems lately, and the US high command is aware of this fact, just as they are aware of Russia's weapons capabilities. In a war with China, US strategy on the sea will include things like blockading China, clearing the numerous mines that will be placed by Chinese forces, etc...Because of this heavy reliance on seapower, the US has pondered ways to render anti-ship missiles ineffective. In my personal opinion, attacks from the air combined with ballistic missile strikes are the most effective and least costly method. But in the military journals and literature there have been various ideas posed that in one way or another deal with the changes anti-ship missiles will bring about in military terms. They are by no means a game-changer in my opinion.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

Like they say in the entertainment business, they would say to this video:
"That's all very nice, but what did you do lately?"[

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

Sure it is a game changer, because it is a new approach to an old target.
The score will be aircraft carrier 0, barrage of missiles 1.
It's the modern story of aircraft against battleships.
Then, the aircraft came from without the domain of battleship so it could not respond in kind.
Same with an aircraft carrier these days to a barrage of missiles. The button, well out of range, was pushed to launch them as the carrier's pilots were donning their gear. I essence, there is no one-on-one game in town anymore.

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
From a practical military perspective this is not that big of a deal in my opinion.

It is a big deal. Russia owned that Sevastopol base for a long time and this anti ship missile was NOT located there. It wasn't allowed to be there by the Ukrainians, who agreed with the US and NATO that the Black Sea should not be so overtly controlled.

Now there is no base deal to stop Russia putting in the missiles. Now Russia practically owns the Black Sea.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: noeltrotsky

You seem to have the order of things completely mixed up, I will give them again :

1) US violating The Budapest Memorandum by interfering with the political independence of the Ukraine

You have it backwards, since Putin admitted to planning the annexation prior to the referendum. Which means regardless of the outcome or influences, he wanted Crimea.

originally posted by: IntroduceALittleIrony

It's not even worth responding to his BS propaganda unless you have extra steam to blow off. He posts this garbage all over ATS like he gets paid by the letter.

Not even close to the thread topic of course.

a reply to: IntroduceALittleIrony

There`s nothing backwards in the order of events.

The coup which took place, which was unlawful, instigated by US and by so against the The Budapest Memorandum were all preceding it. And when an unlawful coup had taken place and The Budapest Memorandum were trashed, both Crimea and Russia weren`t legally obliged to follow any treaty or law anymore.

The only thing you can debate is if Putin has pushed the asking for a referendum, but the wish has always been there with the majority of the Crimeans...so the pushing was nothing more as soft at best, if all.

Crimean residents protest against forced Ukranization in lost footage from 1993

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Crimean residents protest against forced Ukranization in lost footage from 1993

How about you provide a source that isn't a Russian blog?

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

but the wish has always been there with the majority of the Crimeans...

Seems it hasn't.

Over 90% of Ukrainian citizens voted for independence, with majorities in every region, including 56% in Crimea.

en.wikipedia.org...

But keep believing what your Russian blog tells you.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

They voted to be independent, and were autonomous for a great deal, but that all changed when the Ukraine became an US vassal state, so they wanted to be rather be with RF than be with the West...as the referendum proved...so yes, after independence wasn`t on the table anymore, it become clear what they wanted more with the referendum questions...

- Do you want to become part of a Western vassal state

- Or do you want to join the Russian Federation

The outcome of the referendum gives the answer to that question.

This is pretty much just PR move. Primary activty in the Black Sea from NATO would be to defend its coast lines in Turkey, Rumania and Bulgaria while keeping the Russian fleet trapped. And if NATO thought these things were a threat a TLAM strike would end it. Coastal defense batteries/missles are of some use against a foe outside of the US/UK/France but, when you have a much much further strike capability they become nothing but targets.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

They voted to be independent, and were autonomous for a great deal, but that all changed when the Ukraine became an US vassal state

So you can't refute the fact they wanted away from Russia with over 50% voting for it, because you just tried to dodge the facts...way to go.

They wanted to be independent...From Russia.

Autonomous doesn't change the fact they were Ukrainian and still had to abide by Ukrainian law.

Crimea is no different than a state in the US, because the states are free to govern themselves but they have to abide by federal laws that cover the whole US.

And the fact that Putin was planning this several weeks before the referendum shows he sent his own people there to prepare the population for the eventual annexation.

(Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin has said he ordered officials to start work on taking control of Crimea weeks before a referendum which, the Kremlin has asserted until now, prompted the region's annexation from Ukraine.

uk.reuters.com...

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
From a practical military perspective this is not that big of a deal in my opinion. That is not to say that the weapon system is ineffective, but for it to have any effect at all it will have to be used offensively, in a first-strike scenario. If not, a primary target for Russia's enemies will be the destruction of this area-denial weapons system and others like it. The importance placed on the destruction of this particular missile site will hinge on what nations are involved in conflict with Russia, and what ships are in the missile's effective range, and also whether or not Russia's enemies have a navy in the first place.

The Chinese have been working with similar systems lately, and the US high command is aware of this fact, just as they are aware of Russia's weapons capabilities. In a war with China, US strategy on the sea will include things like blockading China, clearing the numerous mines that will be placed by Chinese forces, etc...Because of this heavy reliance on seapower, the US has pondered ways to render anti-ship missiles ineffective. In my personal opinion, attacks from the air combined with ballistic missile strikes are the most effective and least costly method. But in the military journals and literature there have been various ideas posed that in one way or another deal with the changes anti-ship missiles will bring about in military terms. They are by no means a game-changer in my opinion.

From your practical military experience meaning you are an empty post.

2nd

DO

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

When they had three options, they choose to stay independent...but when that got trashed and only two options were remaining, there preference were with Russia...pretty simple actually...so their preferences were still with Russia all that time, or else they would have made the other choice...the option to stay part of an independent country wasn`t there anymore...thanks to Western meddling...

...long story short and not to keep running in circles anymore, they, just as the rest of the Ukrainians, wanted to stay independent, but when the Ukraine became a play field for the US World hegemon plans they wanted to be part of Russia again (they realized, it wasn`t for them allowed to stay independent by the West).