[Goose]

All fair points, and Petropavlovsk does seem geographically problematic for us. But I’m assuming that both Russia and NATO could have conflicts short of a nuclear Holocaust, and that conventional military tactics could be relevant to the outcome. Aside from Petropavlovsk, the other naval bases all seem problematic because those other bases are within ATACMS range of NATO territory and most of the bases are “hemmed in.”  Not to mention would have air superiority. The US has natural geographic advantages. It sure is nice that Russia doesn’t have a good place from which to attack San Diego or Norfolk or Honolulu, or most other major American naval bases. But even beyond those advantages, other NATO countries have major naval bases in areas far from Russian military sites. Devonport, Rota, La Spezia, etc.  I don’t see how any of those bases would be vulnerable to Russian attack.  Russia can credibly threaten to end the world, but I don’t think Russia can credibly threaten to invade any NATO country other than the formerly soviet Baltics. Given what we’ve seen in Ukraine, I have my doubts that Russia could take Finland even if NATO didn’t commit troops.

You are correct that attack from the air (including missiles) can destroy Naval bases, and  that is important. However, there are a couple of things that need to be kept in mind. First, the northern part of Norway, Sweden and Finland are effectively empty and very difficult launch anything from. Russia has a significant Army presence in the far North. NATO really does not.

Second, the other potential European Naval bases (and commercial ports) can be cut off from the continental US by Russian submarines and air power. A land war in Europe that is isolated from easy resupply and reinforcement from the US is a nightmare that has worried the Navy forever. The wide oceans favor the US only if we control them. If we don't, NATO won't last long in Europe.

Right now, Russia looks so inept that none of this matters. However, imagine what happens in Ukraine if none of the help we are sending can get there.  Also no LNG for civilian use in Europe. Different picture. The US sealift capability is questionable even when we have sea control. We still have to use foreign vessels. Without sea control, things go pear-shaped fast.

Fortunately, Russia at present does not have enough conventional sea power to threaten that control. They could make it messy but just don't have the horses. That condition unfortunately is not cast in stone, and the US is in the process of losing critical mass (of ships and especially personnel). Sometime soon, that needs to be addressed.

[Goose]

All fair points, and Petropavlovsk does seem geographically problematic for us. But I’m assuming that both Russia and NATO could have conflicts short of a nuclear Holocaust, and that conventional military tactics could be relevant to the outcome. Aside from Petropavlovsk, the other naval bases all seem problematic because those other bases are within ATACMS range of NATO territory and most of the bases are “hemmed in.”  Not to mention would have air superiority. The US has natural geographic advantages. It sure is nice that Russia doesn’t have a good place from which to attack San Diego or Norfolk or Honolulu, or most other major American naval bases. But even beyond those advantages, other NATO countries have major naval bases in areas far from Russian military sites. Devonport, Rota, La Spezia, etc.  I don’t see how any of those bases would be vulnerable to Russian attack.  Russia can credibly threaten to end the world, but I don’t think Russia can credibly threaten to invade any NATO country other than the formerly soviet Baltics. Given what we’ve seen in Ukraine, I have my doubts that Russia could take Finland even if NATO didn’t commit troops.

You are correct that attack from the air (including missiles) can destroy Naval bases, and  that is important. However, there are a couple of things that need to be kept in mind. First, the northern part of Norway, Sweden and Finland are effectively empty and very difficult launch anything from. Russia has a significant Army presence in the far North. NATO really does not.

Second, the other potential European Naval bases (and commercial ports) can be cut off from the continental US by Russian submarines and air power. A land war in Europe that is isolated from easy resupply and reinforcement from the US is a nightmare that has worried the Navy forever. The wide oceans favor the US only if we control them. If we don't, NATO won't last long in Europe.

Right now, Russia looks so inept that none of this matters. However, imagine what happens in Ukraine if none of the help we are sending can get there.  Also no LNG for civilian use in Europe. Different picture. The US sealift capability is questionable even when we have sea control. We still have to use foreign vessels. Without sea control, things go pear-shaped fast.

Fortunately, Russia at present does not have enough conventional sea power to threaten that control. They could make it messy but just don't have the horses. That condition unfortunately is not cast in stone, and the US is in the process of losing critical mass (of ships and especially personnel). Sometime soon, that needs to be addressed.