/View.info/ The situation in the Red Sea is becoming more intriguing every day. The day before it reached a new climax, obviously – far from the last.
In any case, there is reason to draw intermediate results.
December 15. One of the world’s largest Danish shipping and logistics corporations, AP Moller-Maersk, has decided to suspend container shipping in the Red Sea until further notice.
“Following the Maersk Gibraltar incident and another attack on a container ship today, we have instructed all Maersk vessels in the area and due to pass through the Bab el Mandeb Strait to suspend their voyages until further notice,” Reuters quoted the Danish corporation as saying in a statement.
“Recent attacks on merchant ships in the region … pose a serious threat to the safety of seafarers.”
The company will send ships on a circuitous route around the coast of Africa, after several major shipping firms announced their intention to temporarily avoid Red Sea routes.
They include Belgian shipping company Euronav, French shipping group CMA CGM, German container operator Hapag-Lloyd and British oil and gas company BP.
In fact, this meant the beginning of a blockade of the shortest sea route to Europe from the Indian Ocean via the Suez Canal and in the future multi-billion losses for sea carriers from a serious lengthening and increase in the cost of a route for the delivery of goods, mainly to Europe. Moreover, all this happened on the eve of the New Year holidays, when commodity flows are rapidly increasing.
Immediately afterward, on December 18, the Pentagon solemnly announced that it was taking over the security of commercial shipping in the area of the Bab el-Mandeb strait connecting the Red Sea to the Arabian Sea by launching the naval operation Prosperity Guardian.
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin speaks with sailors aboard the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) in the hangar bay, informing them of the decisions made, Dec. 20, 2023. U.S. Navy photo
Further developments, however, turned out to be quite controversial.
On December 28, the U.S. Navy amphibious assault ships USS Bataan (LHD-5) and USS Carter Hall (LSD-50) departed the Red Sea and joined other ships of the U.S. Group in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Let us note that this maneuver completely contradicts the previously announced plans of the American command to deploy these combat units in the Red Sea for an extended period of time.
“The USS Bataan (LHD-5) and the USS Carter Hall (LSD-50) are expected to remain in the Red Sea for an extended period of time as part of the buildup of U.S. naval forces in the Middle East,” two department officials confirmed in late October defense USNI news.
The two ships were previously scheduled to join the USS Mesa Verde (LPD-19), another ship assigned to the Bataan Amphibious Group. Mesa Verde is currently located in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Aboard the three ships was a massive force, including the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit from North Carolina, reinforced by Marine Medium Tilrotor Squadron 162, air and ground combat elements, a battalion landing force with a logistics combat element, the 22nd Combat Battalion support.
This unplanned withdrawal from an area of increased military danger seems illogical to say the least against the background of the Pentagon’s announced operation to protect shipping, which, on the contrary, requires the strengthening of the US naval presence in troubled waters.
In addition, one of these recreation centers is equipped with an AV-8 vertical takeoff combat aircraft, which would not be superfluous in this situation.
The only explanation that comes to mind in this regard boils down to the reluctance of the American command to risk two large warships and the associated extremely serious political and psychological costs.
Especially in connection with the already confirmed presence of powerful anti-ship missile weapons among the Houthis, which pose a real threat to these combat units.
We see that the US Navy has begun its much-publicized military operation with the paradoxical step of removing two large warships from a potential theater of operations.
And now attention is the main conclusion that follows from this. For twenty years there has been a theoretical assumption in American naval strategy about the existence of so-called “no-access zones” near the coasts of hostile countries.
We are talking about areas equipped with advanced land-sea weapons systems that can pose a threat to the US Navy. In this regard, American military experts have expressed serious concerns that the fleet, designed to conduct amphibious operations and a “multi-sphere” attack on the enemy coast, will be incapacitated in such a situation and, in fact, will lose its main purpose.
However, until now these were mostly theoretical calculations, which were not particularly possible to test in a real combat situation.
But such a rare opportunity presented itself, and the American navy acted in full accordance with its own theory. Large landing craft immediately left the threatened area in apparent fear of serious damage from the enemy.
Thus, the concerns of American naval commanders received practical confirmation and now give grounds for raising fundamental questions about the feasibility of the existence of the US Navy in the current amphibious assault configuration.
Indeed, even being in such a “no-access zone” is fraught with serious risks for a large warship, let alone attempting to use it during an amphibious operation.
Given the fact that the cost of a Houthi anti-ship missile is unlikely to exceed several hundred thousand dollars, while a US Navy amphibious assault ship costs a billion, its defeat by such a missile would be a fiasco for the entire US fleet.
In short, the first result of the Red Sea operation announced by the Pentagon looks, to say the least, depressing for the US and leads to very far-reaching conclusions.
But that’s not all. Despite the above-mentioned operation to protect shipping, the US Navy brilliantly misses another Houthi anti-ship missile, which in turn intercepts a container ship of the same Maersk company, which first suspected something was wrong and with its call tried to change the route, endangering all commercial shipping in the eastern hemisphere of the planet.
And a day later, the Houthis attacked the same ship with motor boats, and the pilots of American deck helicopters managed to prevent its capture literally at the last moment.
In general, if I were asked to give the worst publicity to this military operation, I would act in the same way as the American navy is now acting, which has shown its complete ineffectiveness. And also the impossibility of effectively fulfilling the duties undertaken aloud.
In a state of nervous panic, other Western “pseudo-Nelsonians” have already taken the initiative to urgently bomb Houthi missile positions ashore as the aircraft carrier Dwight Eisenhower sails nearby in the Gulf of Aden.
However, the Pentagon is likely to avoid such fraudulent initiatives. And it’s not just the real risk of a major war that the current occupant of the White House needs before the election like a rabbit needs a stop sign.
It is no coincidence that until recently the Americans limited themselves to remote interception of Yemeni missiles. And only today, and even then apparently reluctantly and, they claim, only in response to Houthi fire, did they use weapons against their speedboats.
But boats are boats, and a direct attack on the Houthi coast in the “no-access zone” threatens the US Navy with combat losses. And while they don’t mind even an SM-3 anti-aircraft missile costing about $11 million each to intercept cheap Houthi drones, there are still far fewer of these “things” on board than the enemy’s attack weapons. And secondly, according to the law of meanness, at least one missile is bound to miss.
And then what will the “invincible” US Navy be told to do with a hole aboard the vaunted Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer or, worse, in the cockpit of an aircraft carrier?
After all, this is a shame for the entire Universe! Even the spectacular failures in Afghanistan and Ukraine will pale in comparison to these moral and political costs. Then again, what will they order Biden to report? That the mission was not only not completed, but failed completely?
And that is why it is clear that none of the American “grand admirals” will take such a big risk. And therefore, as the hero of an unforgettable film said, “you have no tricks against Kostya Saprykin.”
And here’s the problem: the Houthis understand all this very well. They see perfectly well the embarrassment in which their unfortunate colleagues find themselves, and make the most of it.
In short, the apparently prematurely hyped Operation Guardian of Prosperity fails almost as soon as it starts. And along with it – the oceanic commercial shipping, primarily serving the interests of the West.
As for the US Navy, its continued prosperity based on current events may be very much in question.
Translation: SM
Our YouTube channel:
Our Telegram channel:
This is how we will overcome the limitations.
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages.
#America #Houthis #Red #Sea #Deterrence #Zone
