Russia seeks permanent navy presence in Mediterranean

#1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070803...erranean_dc;_ylt=Ap6hLUChpyeIJo2WDXEV0_Fm.3QA

Russia's navy should have a permanent presence in the Mediterranean Sea, navy chief Admiral Vladimir Masorin said on Friday, 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," Masorin said
...
During the Cold war, the Soviet navy had a permanent presence on the Mediterranean Sea, leasing a base in Syria
 
#2
Why do you need one Sergei?

It was the same after Yalta I believe, Stalin demanding a base that he had no justification to have!
 

TheIronDuke

On ROPS
On ROPs
Book Reviewer
#4
If you lot are going for the Arctic and the Med, why not just have the bit in between? We'd turn a blind eye. Straights we would.
 
#5
Isn't the russain navy rotting away in Murmansk and vladvyvostockskistalin?
 
#6
Ridiculous.
 
#7
Old news anyway - they've been trying it for years. I just find it comical that the Russian Navy - according to this article is going to resource the commitment from the Northern and Baltic fleets - Tsushima anyone? Btw - if you're a Hull-based trawlerman (if the EU hasn't wiped you out) I'd be a bit worried now.

Final point is that the Med is a lost cause - the Germans have got the towels on the sun loungers already.
 
#8
Augustus said:
Sergei - what precisely was the point of your post?
It's a good question. Frankly speaking I would like to see your comments. Is it for good or for bad?

After the end of the Cold war a delicate geopolitical balanse in Mediterranean had vanished. Previously the Soviet union was able to stop bombings of Libya namely sending warships to Tripoli haven. Now Russia is voided this capability. War with Yugoslavia would be unthinkable because anti-aircraft system of Soviet warships whould shoot down 'unidentified flying objects' over Yugoslavian territory. It would be hard for British submarine to fire missiles toward Belgrade - peacefull European city.

Of course our Israeli friends would be unhappy if Russia would send a lot of weapons to Syria in exchange for naval base but it is realpolitik.

Likely our American friends would take into account Russian naval presence in Mediterranian in their plans. Btw, maybe it would prevent a stupid and senseless adventure (one of many). So who knows how many lives of American (and British as well) servicemen would be saved.
 
#9
Uh... the Soviet ships arrived weeks after our bombing raid on Tripoli and had zip to do with any sort of prevention plan and everything to do with a useless show of force that no one gave much credence to. The Black Sea fleet was a waste of resources to build and maintain from the get go and would have served only as a means of depleting NATO ASM stocks were the cold war to turn hot. Hopefully Putin and company have more sense then to sink funding into a known money pit and this is just the Navy being froggy.
 
#10
Admiral Vladimir Masorin said:
Russia's navy should have a permanent presence in the Mediterranean Sea
The Rest of the world said:
F*ck off!
Tell me where Russia borders the Med. No. Exactly.
 
#11
KGB_resident said:
Augustus said:
Sergei - what precisely was the point of your post?
It's a good question. Frankly speaking I would like to see your comments. Is it for good or for bad?

After the end of the Cold war a delicate geopolitical balanse in Mediterranean had vanished. Previously the Soviet union was able to stop bombings of Libya namely sending warships to Tripoli haven. Now Russia is voided this capability. War with Yugoslavia would be unthinkable because anti-aircraft system of Soviet warships whould shoot down 'unidentified flying objects' over Yugoslavian territory. It would be hard for British submarine to fire missiles toward Belgrade - peacefull European city.

Of course our Israeli friends would be unhappy if Russia would send a lot of weapons to Syria in exchange for naval base but it is realpolitik.

Likely our American friends would take into account Russian naval presence in Mediterranian in their plans. Btw, maybe it would prevent a stupid and senseless adventure (one of many). So who knows how many lives of American (and British as well) servicemen would be saved.
Sergey, You normally talk sense. This is just crap. Are you basically saying that the free world will be saved from the ravaging West because Russia has the money to start paying for a Navy again?

All hail that savior and peace maker extraordinare, Mother Russia!

Personnally I prefer the world now without the atomic stand-off that was the Cold War. We don't need Russia deciding it needs to play thug again.
 
#12
smartascarrots said:
Admiral Vladimir Masorin said:
Russia's navy should have a permanent presence in the Mediterranean Sea
The Rest of the world said:
F*ck off!
Tell me where Russia borders the Med. No. Exactly.
Our American friends have the whole fleet in Mediterranian and tell me where are American borders?
 
#13
KGB_resident said:
smartascarrots said:
Admiral Vladimir Masorin said:
Russia's navy should have a permanent presence in the Mediterranean Sea
The Rest of the world said:
F*ck off!
Tell me where Russia borders the Med. No. Exactly.
Our American friends have the whole fleet in Mediterranian and tell me where are American borders?
Where exactly does the US have a permanant base of operations in the med??
 
#14
Generally called a Carrier group, isn't it? Big stick....
 
#15
KGB_resident said:
smartascarrots said:
Admiral Vladimir Masorin said:
Russia's navy should have a permanent presence in the Mediterranean Sea
The Rest of the world said:
F*ck off!
Tell me where Russia borders the Med. No. Exactly.
Our American friends have the whole fleet in Mediterranian and tell me where are American borders?
At the eastern end, beneath Palestine.

Without the oil that Russia (or rather Siberia) controls they would be a complete irreverence in the modern world. A toothless old drunk of a country that should really be concentrating on the many problems within its own borders rather than trying to 'big it up' on the world stage.

Gees, some people say that the UK has trouble letting go of its Empire, Russia is far worse.

A paranoid, totalitarian, crime-ridden, delusional wannabe democracy in which very few actually profit from their countries massive natural resources and only if they are good girls and boys and bend down and take it from Emperor Putin.
 
#16
Khyros said:
Uh... the Soviet ships arrived weeks after our bombing raid on Tripoli and had zip to do with any sort of prevention plan and everything to do with a useless show of force that no one gave much credence to. The Black Sea fleet was a waste of resources to build and maintain from the get go and would have served only as a means of depleting NATO ASM stocks were the cold war to turn hot. Hopefully Putin and company have more sense then to sink funding into a known money pit and this is just the Navy being froggy.
Khyros, I hope that you don't deny that Soviet navy was an important factor in 1986 and American planners took it into account.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/March1999/0399canyon.asp

A high alert status characterized Soviet vessels in the Mediterranean monitoring ship and aircraft movement. Libya's vast air defense system was sophisticated, and its operators were acutely aware that an attack was coming.
...
News of the raid was broadcast while it was in progress. One aircraft, Karma 52, was lost, almost certainly due to a SAM, as it was reported to be on fire in flight. Capt. Fernando L. Ribas-Dominicci and Capt. Paul F. Lorence were killed.
...
The combined Air Force-Navy raid resulted in 130 civilian casualties with 37 killed, including, it was claimed, the adopted daughter of Qaddafi.
Another funny story

http://www.lostbattalion.com/t-cw_3.aspx

It was September 1981.
...
we were ordered to sail with FFG-7, the Oliver Hazard Perry, to sneak up on the Soviet Flagship in the Mediterranean, the "large antisubmarine warship" Leningrad , currently operating in Libyan waters.

I was skeptical we would be successful. Besides being the flagship of the Soviet Navy in the Mediterranean, the Leningrad had a goodly number of radars and over 20 helicopters for air search. When you consider that the Libyans were feeling very watchful on their territory, the odds looked slim that we were going to sneak up on them.

A day later, we were towing the Oliver Hazard Perry back to port. She had a single turbine engine design and when it failed, she was immobile. It was a bad day for Democracy. We dropped her off in Marseilles and, four days later, alone, we were back on our original mission of hunting bear and antagonizing a minor power.
...
As soon as our ship broke the horizon, the Soviet escort destroyer, a Krivak, raised steam, and sailed to intercept us. Once we were identified, the Leningrad raised steam, and started running away. The maximum speed of the Leningrad was about 38 knots, while ours was 33, and she began to pull away from us.
...
I was disappointed at our inability to get a close-up view of this ship, when suddenly, the cloud of smoke emanating from her stack ceased. Her engines had failed! So it was, we closed on to the flagship of the Soviet Navy, at 5 knots. By my estimate, there was over $100,000 of camera gear on deck, none of it government owned, and we were snapping pictures with abandonment.

Of course we offered to provide technical help. Our kind offer was ignored.

It was a bad for day for Communism.

After the initial cruise by, we took our post at a respectful distance of maybe 5 miles. By mid afternoon, Leningrad raised steam again. Then, in what only could be considered a show for our benefit, she lit off her radars, exercised her missile launchers and launched most of her helicopters. She looked like a grey beehive with 20 helicopters buzzing around her.

Then, she lost one. It looked like an invisible hand just reached up from the water and plucked it out of the sky.

We offered to help. Our offer was ignored.

It was a bad for day for Communism.
 
#17
[quote="TheHelpfulStacker]
Without the oil that Russia (or rather Siberia) controls they would be a complete irreverence in the modern world. A toothless old drunk of a country that should really be concentrating on the many problems within its own borders rather than trying to 'big it up' on the world stage.[/quote]

Uhhh, last time I checked, Siberia is in Russia, and isnt Autonomous.


[quote="TheHelpfulStacker]
A paranoid, totalitarian, crime-ridden, delusional wannabe democracy in which very few actually profit from their countries massive natural resources and only if they are good girls and boys and bend down and take it from Emperor Putin.[/quote]

Kinda like the Uk?

Sorry, just playing devils advocte. Ill go back to my hole.
 
#18
in_the_cheapseats said:
KGB_resident said:
Augustus said:
Sergei - what precisely was the point of your post?
It's a good question. Frankly speaking I would like to see your comments. Is it for good or for bad?

After the end of the Cold war a delicate geopolitical balanse in Mediterranean had vanished. Previously the Soviet union was able to stop bombings of Libya namely sending warships to Tripoli haven. Now Russia is voided this capability. War with Yugoslavia would be unthinkable because anti-aircraft system of Soviet warships whould shoot down 'unidentified flying objects' over Yugoslavian territory. It would be hard for British submarine to fire missiles toward Belgrade - peacefull European city.

Of course our Israeli friends would be unhappy if Russia would send a lot of weapons to Syria in exchange for naval base but it is realpolitik.

Likely our American friends would take into account Russian naval presence in Mediterranian in their plans. Btw, maybe it would prevent a stupid and senseless adventure (one of many). So who knows how many lives of American (and British as well) servicemen would be saved.
Sergey, You normally talk sense. This is just crap. Are you basically saying that the free world will be saved from the ravaging West because Russia has the money to start paying for a Navy again?

All hail that savior and peace maker extraordinare, Mother Russia!

Personnally I prefer the world now without the atomic stand-off that was the Cold War. We don't need Russia deciding it needs to play thug again.
In_the_cheapseats, many here think that the main enemy of the Great Britian resides (at at least lived) in 10. Also there exists an opinion that the main threat to USA is located in the White House. So a force that would cool fantasies of some respected politicians should be in theory welcomed. however I understand that it 's too hard to step over deeply implemented stereotypes.

The world without the atomic stand-off?

http://www.state.gov/t/ac/rls/fs/2001/6669.htm

December 5, 2001, marks the successful completion of the third and final phase of reductions in strategic offensive arms required by the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START Treaty). The United States and Russia each now maintain fewer than the Treaty’s mandated limits of 1,600 deployed strategic delivery vehicles and 6,000 accountable warheads, a reduction of some 30 to 40 percent of aggregate levels since 1994, when the Treaty entered into force. In addition, all nuclear warheads and strategic offensive arms have been removed from Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine.

The START Treaty reductions, inspection regime, notifications and telemetry exchanges have produced stabilizing changes that have contributed to international security and strategic stability.
But now...

http://www.interfax.com/3/298995/news.aspx

The U.S. refusal to extend the term of the START-1 Treaty may aggravate relations with other states and even run the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear exchange, Russian experts told Interfax on Thursday.
"True, it would be easier for the United States to transform some
of their nuclear weapons into non-nuclear ones and implement a strategy
of global strikes without the START-1 Treaty," Director of the Russian
office of the World Security Institute Ivan Safranchuk told Interfax.
The fact that "the creation of strategic non-nuclear forces
intensifies the problem of reciprocal potential" is the main peril for
Russia, he said.
"For instance, the United States has an intercontinental ballistic
missile with a conventional warhead, but it may be replaced with a
nuclear warhead any time, and the missile may be once again targeted at
Russia. Naturally, Russia will have to take into consideration the non-
nuclear weapons," he said.
This kind of re-equipment will create strategic uncertainty, the
expert said. "Classic nuclear theory says that a state can mount either
offensive or defensive armaments. If both things are done, any external
observer will take it as a sign of an aggressive and offensive nuclear
policy aimed at nuclear superiority," he said.
 
#19
KGB_resident said:
in_the_cheapseats said:
KGB_resident said:
Augustus said:
Sergei - what precisely was the point of your post?
It's a good question. Frankly speaking I would like to see your comments. Is it for good or for bad?

After the end of the Cold war a delicate geopolitical balanse in Mediterranean had vanished. Previously the Soviet union was able to stop bombings of Libya namely sending warships to Tripoli haven. Now Russia is voided this capability. War with Yugoslavia would be unthinkable because anti-aircraft system of Soviet warships whould shoot down 'unidentified flying objects' over Yugoslavian territory. It would be hard for British submarine to fire missiles toward Belgrade - peacefull European city.

Of course our Israeli friends would be unhappy if Russia would send a lot of weapons to Syria in exchange for naval base but it is realpolitik.

Likely our American friends would take into account Russian naval presence in Mediterranian in their plans. Btw, maybe it would prevent a stupid and senseless adventure (one of many). So who knows how many lives of American (and British as well) servicemen would be saved.
Sergey, You normally talk sense. This is just crap. Are you basically saying that the free world will be saved from the ravaging West because Russia has the money to start paying for a Navy again?

All hail that savior and peace maker extraordinare, Mother Russia!

Personnally I prefer the world now without the atomic stand-off that was the Cold War. We don't need Russia deciding it needs to play thug again.
In_the_cheapseats, many here think that the main enemy of the Great Britian resides (at at least lived) in 10. Also there exists an opinion that the main threat to USA is located in the White House. So a force that would cool fantasies of some respected politicians should be in theory welcomed. however I understand that it 's too hard to step over deeply implemented stereotypes.

The world without the atomic stand-off?

http://www.state.gov/t/ac/rls/fs/2001/6669.htm

December 5, 2001, marks the successful completion of the third and final phase of reductions in strategic offensive arms required by the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START Treaty). The United States and Russia each now maintain fewer than the Treaty’s mandated limits of 1,600 deployed strategic delivery vehicles and 6,000 accountable warheads, a reduction of some 30 to 40 percent of aggregate levels since 1994, when the Treaty entered into force. In addition, all nuclear warheads and strategic offensive arms have been removed from Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine.

The START Treaty reductions, inspection regime, notifications and telemetry exchanges have produced stabilizing changes that have contributed to international security and strategic stability.
But now...

http://www.interfax.com/3/298995/news.aspx

The U.S. refusal to extend the term of the START-1 Treaty may aggravate relations with other states and even run the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear exchange, Russian experts told Interfax on Thursday.
"True, it would be easier for the United States to transform some
of their nuclear weapons into non-nuclear ones and implement a strategy
of global strikes without the START-1 Treaty," Director of the Russian
office of the World Security Institute Ivan Safranchuk told Interfax.
The fact that "the creation of strategic non-nuclear forces
intensifies the problem of reciprocal potential" is the main peril for
Russia, he said.
"For instance, the United States has an intercontinental ballistic
missile with a conventional warhead, but it may be replaced with a
nuclear warhead any time, and the missile may be once again targeted at
Russia. Naturally, Russia will have to take into consideration the non-
nuclear weapons," he said.
This kind of re-equipment will create strategic uncertainty, the
expert said. "Classic nuclear theory says that a state can mount either
offensive or defensive armaments. If both things are done, any external
observer will take it as a sign of an aggressive and offensive nuclear
policy aimed at nuclear superiority," he said
.

Sounds like a Russian Jesse Jackson... The pontificications of the proliferations of nuclearizations will weaken the foundations of the nations that .....

It's a bunch of talk with no substance. Basically trying to justify why they have an issue. Do they truly believe the US would launch on Russia without a serious, and very real threatening provocation from the country itself?
 
#20
TheHelpfulStacker said:
Without the oil that Russia (or rather Siberia) controls they would be a complete irreverence in the modern world.
There is a lot of oil in Saudi Arabia but it doesn't launch satelites, hasn't nuclear missiles, submarines, big industry.

I think you are not aware about Russian people, Russian culture, level of education. For you Russia is rather terra incognita, is it?
 

Latest Threads

Top