Russia Eyes Naval base in Med
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Russia Eyes Naval base in Med
DefenseNews: Russia Eyes Naval Base in Mediterranean
REUTERS, MOSCOW
Russia should have a permanent naval presence in the Mediterranean, the head of its navy said Aug. 3, mirroring the military ambitions of the Soviet Union.
"The Mediterranean Sea is very important strategically for the Black Sea fleet," Adm. Vladimir Masorin said during a visit to the base of the fleet in the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol, RIA news agency reported. "I propose that, with the involvement of the Northern and Baltic fleets, the Russian navy should restore its permanent presence there."
Buoyed by huge oil revenues and with President Vladimir Putin showing increasing assertiveness, Russia has been boosting military spending while at the same time using diplomacy to broaden Moscow’s influence, especially in the Middle East. A Russian force would further extend Moscow’s influence in the Middle East and it would share Mediterranean waters with the U.S. 6th Fleet, whose home base is in Italy.
During the Cold War, the Soviet navy had a permanent presence on the Mediterranean, using the Syrian port of Tartus as a supply point, said military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer, adding that the port could be revived as a base.
"It has been the dream of our admirals for a long time to restore our naval greatness and keep the task force we had under the Soviet Union," he said.
Russia’s new assertiveness has created friction and prompted some Western policy-makers to make comparisons with the Cold War.
Putin has said Russia would target its missiles at sites in Europe if Washington went ahead with a plan to build elements of a missile defense shield in eastern Europe. He has also suspended Russia’s compliance with an arms control treaty.
Masorin did not say where the fleet would be based and a navy spokesman could not be reached for comment...... "We still maintain a naval station in Syria, but that has been mostly standing empty because, after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the naval task force was withdrawn," Felgenhauer said, adding that Russia had so few ships it would be unlikely to tip the strategic balance in the Mediterranean. The surface fleet right now is very small. There have been excursions [into the Mediterranean] several times in the 1990s but I do not think right now we have the naval capability to keep a sizable force there all the time," he said.
If Russia does build up a base in Syria, it could anger Israel, which has criticized Moscow for supplying weapons to Damascus.
Russia’s Kommersant newspaper said in 2006 that the Russian navy had dredged the port at Tartus as preparation for deploying a force there. But the newspaper said the navy was, in part, using the Syrian base as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Ukraine over its lease for Sevastopol. Moscow rents the facilities for $93 million a year under a 1997 agreement that lasts until 2017. Ukraine has sought to increase the price.
REUTERS, MOSCOW
Russia should have a permanent naval presence in the Mediterranean, the head of its navy said Aug. 3, mirroring the military ambitions of the Soviet Union.
"The Mediterranean Sea is very important strategically for the Black Sea fleet," Adm. Vladimir Masorin said during a visit to the base of the fleet in the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol, RIA news agency reported. "I propose that, with the involvement of the Northern and Baltic fleets, the Russian navy should restore its permanent presence there."
Buoyed by huge oil revenues and with President Vladimir Putin showing increasing assertiveness, Russia has been boosting military spending while at the same time using diplomacy to broaden Moscow’s influence, especially in the Middle East. A Russian force would further extend Moscow’s influence in the Middle East and it would share Mediterranean waters with the U.S. 6th Fleet, whose home base is in Italy.
During the Cold War, the Soviet navy had a permanent presence on the Mediterranean, using the Syrian port of Tartus as a supply point, said military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer, adding that the port could be revived as a base.
"It has been the dream of our admirals for a long time to restore our naval greatness and keep the task force we had under the Soviet Union," he said.
Russia’s new assertiveness has created friction and prompted some Western policy-makers to make comparisons with the Cold War.
Putin has said Russia would target its missiles at sites in Europe if Washington went ahead with a plan to build elements of a missile defense shield in eastern Europe. He has also suspended Russia’s compliance with an arms control treaty.
Masorin did not say where the fleet would be based and a navy spokesman could not be reached for comment...... "We still maintain a naval station in Syria, but that has been mostly standing empty because, after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the naval task force was withdrawn," Felgenhauer said, adding that Russia had so few ships it would be unlikely to tip the strategic balance in the Mediterranean. The surface fleet right now is very small. There have been excursions [into the Mediterranean] several times in the 1990s but I do not think right now we have the naval capability to keep a sizable force there all the time," he said.
If Russia does build up a base in Syria, it could anger Israel, which has criticized Moscow for supplying weapons to Damascus.
Russia’s Kommersant newspaper said in 2006 that the Russian navy had dredged the port at Tartus as preparation for deploying a force there. But the newspaper said the navy was, in part, using the Syrian base as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Ukraine over its lease for Sevastopol. Moscow rents the facilities for $93 million a year under a 1997 agreement that lasts until 2017. Ukraine has sought to increase the price.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Some-r-set
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the news that carriers might be built does this now mean a return to the build up of conventional weapons (ie- non-nuclear)?
'spesh in the Med'. Perhaps we'll see allies of Russia (ie the Chinese PAFN- who they conduct exercises with) perhaps using the port?
Or is there no reason to be worried?
'spesh in the Med'. Perhaps we'll see allies of Russia (ie the Chinese PAFN- who they conduct exercises with) perhaps using the port?
Or is there no reason to be worried?
I wouldn't put too much store in the carriers - I did hear a nasty rumour that buried in the very very very small print of the announcement that was made about them, that they have been delayed by 2 years.
What should be interesting is the standoff we will now get between the US Sixth (?) Fleet based in Italy and a new Russian Mediterranean Fleet. Might make things a bit more interesting in the Med. However, I wouldn't worry too much about the RN, I very much doubt they will be playing seriously in the Med at the rate mothballing / building is going at.
What should be interesting is the standoff we will now get between the US Sixth (?) Fleet based in Italy and a new Russian Mediterranean Fleet. Might make things a bit more interesting in the Med. However, I wouldn't worry too much about the RN, I very much doubt they will be playing seriously in the Med at the rate mothballing / building is going at.
I wonder if they have the funds to clean up those ticking time bombs threatening marine life not only near the Kola peninsula.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again, the short-sightedness of NuLab's relentless decommissioning of RN vessels is becoming apparent. No-one is about to suggest that Russia will become a principal conventional threat to the UK, but if it increases its strength in the Med - where we have several sovereign assets - we could find ourselves in a very, very weak position.
The RN is like an insurance policy. It might be expensive, but it's there to guard against disaster. When you start to chip away at it, disasters become more expensive. You wouldn't halve your home insurance in the face of increasing floods, so why halve the Navy in the face of increasingly powerful fleets in Russia and the Far East?
The RN is like an insurance policy. It might be expensive, but it's there to guard against disaster. When you start to chip away at it, disasters become more expensive. You wouldn't halve your home insurance in the face of increasing floods, so why halve the Navy in the face of increasingly powerful fleets in Russia and the Far East?
is this deja-vu, or what? Spent some years on a small rocky mediterranean island looking for and at various pieces of rusty, floating soviet iron ... including their 'through deck' cruisers ....
