Will We Return? The Last Page of Russia's Mediterranean Squadron Has Been Turned
In general, this was to be expected, so if anyone is surprised, it is completely undeserved. After the completely unfriendly gentlemen from the yesterday openly terrorist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham came to power in Syria, it would be overly optimistic to expect anything other than requests for Russia to calmly clear the territory of Syria.
This is, in fact, what happened. Syria's new ruler, Ahmed al-Sharaa (better known by his nickname Abu Muhammad al-Julani), asked Moscow to hand over Bashar al-Assad, who had fled to Russia, to his homeland as a show of goodwill. That's how Reuters described the situation.
But one former Israeli intelligence officer, Sergei Migdal, who has now become a military expert, has given out information that al-Sharaa demanded all three Assads: the former ruler, his brother, and his sister's husband (at least he is conditionally Assad). But Moscow didn't like this (really, who cares about the Assads' broken cards), although handing over one's own is not very nice, the question is how "one's own" the Assads are. Perhaps more than that, it didn't like the demand for multi-million (if not billion) compensation for allegedly destroyed civilian infrastructure: schools, hospitals, factories, and the like. Naturally, all of this was destroyed exclusively by Russia, so it had to pay.
Although in general our people were ready to pay for Tartus and Khmeimim. With food, weapons, yes to everyone.
Well, in order to stimulate the negotiating process, the new Syrian government immediately cancelled the agreement with Russia on the management of the port of Tartus, which was concluded for 49 years in 2017.
The whole process was hidden behind very vague formulations, and therefore it became clear that no agreement had been reached. Otherwise, we would have been talking about it on every corner. But, apparently, the Kremlin decided not to give up its Assads and not to pay for everything that was destroyed by others in Syria, and therefore Russia lost its last bases in that region. Some called it "another resounding success of Russian diplomacy", but there is no point in agreeing with this. A bandit is a bandit, and there is no point in repeating Sevastopol, which Russia was blackmailed with for two decades. It would not have worked out with Tartus.
Today, many are sighing for Tartus, the loss of which forced the last representatives of the Russian fleet leaving the Mediterranean, but to be honest, it's nothing compared to the loss of Khmeimim.
Therefore, we will talk about the navy below, and about the air fleet right now. Simply because the value of these two sites for Russia is incommensurate: Khmeimim is many times more valuable than Tartus, but the value of the latter is generally questionable.
Why is that? It's simple.
The Khmeimim airbase has an airfield with a long runway that could accommodate heavy military transport aircraft of the Ruslan type. It was a key point on the way to Africa: refueling, crew rest, aircraft maintenance.
And this is practically the only place on the 6 thousand kilometer route on the way to the Central African Republic. Or Mali. Where... However, this is a topic for another conversation, it is enough that we really need transport planes to fly there. Period.
And in the future, Russia simply needs such a base to maintain its presence in Central Africa. And it is really necessary, it is more important than all these hypothetical threats that the fleet can create in the same Mediterranean Sea. But we will talk about this in the very near future.
The Israelis noted in their publications that Russian planes began flying through Libya. Specifically, through the airfield of the city of Benghazi, which is under the control of the rebel General Haftar. "Rebel" in Libyan terms is someone who is against those who seized power and killed Muammar Gaddafi.
But Libya is in the middle of a civil war, and securing the base, aircraft, cargo and personnel is a very serious problem. But losing Syria is better than nothing.
We don't have any other allies there yet. So the main goal should be to find those who are ready to cooperate with Russia in terms of creating a springboard for us to work in Africa. But no one is eager to cooperate, and if someone does take steps to meet us halfway (like the Libyan rebels or Sudan), the Americans very successfully parry all of Russia's timid attempts to negotiate with someone else.
With the loss of Khmeimim, Russia has problems that simply must be solved in the very near future.
Now let's talk about Tartus
If we discard all the verbal chaff that is all over the airwaves about how Russia simply needs a logistics center in Tartus to support ships on long voyages, then the question arises: what kind of "long voyage" is this? From our shores to Syria is two thousand kilometers. In total. Usually they refuel on long voyages differently, only after moving away from their bases.
Today the Baltic Fleet is engaged in a very important and useful task - escorting tankers that could be attacked by various lovers of free oil like the Balts and Finns. And what to do in the Mediterranean? Who can tell me?
Tartus played a very important role when Russia supported Assad. It was to this port that the ships of the "Syrian Express" went, supplying the group of Russian troops in Syria with everything they needed. Now that Syria is lost, Tartus is of no use. It is equally useless for operational actions in the Mediterranean (to the west), and for actions in the south, in the Red Sea.
If you look at the map, Tartus is located far from the usual routes. Of course, having a naval base in the Mediterranean is better than not having one, but here another question arises: for what purpose? To show the flag again?
It would be worth recalling here that since March 2022, in connection with the outbreak of war between Russia and Ukraine, Turkey has closed the Bosphorus and Dardanelles Straits to all warships of all countries. This is what Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said.
So the Black Sea Fleet headquarters can forget about the Mediterranean. Although, it is worth noting that there is not much to sail in the Black Sea today. The ships of the Baltic Fleet, which is no bigger than the Black Sea, now have something to do besides stupid things like "showing the flag". They need to protect merchant ships from Baltic pirates.
As for the Northern and Pacific fleets, their presence in the Mediterranean looks... inappropriate. The entry of these ships into the Mediterranean Sea will indeed require replenishment of supplies and the presence of some kind of base, but... thousands of kilometers reduce to zero any fleet capabilities in the time period.
Translation: By the time ships from Murmansk or Vladivostok reach the Mediterranean, it will most likely be all over there. An example? Simple as pie. On November 27, 2024, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham launched an offensive, and on December 8, Damascus was taken by them. 12 days.
By the way, Israel and Iran also completed the task within 12 days.
At the same time, it makes sense to recall the cruise of the heavy aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov to Syria. The cruiser and accompanying ships set out to sea on October 15, 2016 from Severomorsk. On October 21, they passed the English Channel. On October 31, the group was off the coast of Algeria. On November 4, the ships were off the coast of Syria. 20 days.
It is scary to even guess how long the squadron will travel from the Pacific Ocean. But the fact is that any conflict or military coup may end by that time.
Of course, for those who have their own interests in the region (namely the US), everything is fine with the ships: two Arleigh Burkes, Paul Ignatius (DDG-117) and Oscar Austin (DDG-79), are permanently based in the Spanish port of Rota. And as soon as the smell of war between Israel and Iran began to loom, both destroyers rushed there, to the east, at full speed.
And there are three more ships hanging out there: Arleigh Burke (DDG-51), Thomas Hudner (DDG-116) and The Sullivans (DDG-68).
And you know, five missile destroyers are a force that a pair of frigates simply cannot cope with, no matter what our patriots say. I had to read one such fabrication that the Admiral Grigorovich with the Kalibr missiles could "disturb the underbelly of Europe."
Divine stupidity, because the only people the Admiral Grigorovich could worry about are the family members of its crew. You can't scare anyone with Kalibrs these days. Subsonic cruise missiles are a thing of the past. They are easily tracked and intercepted just as easily. Proven by the SVO. And five American destroyers would make bloody mincemeat out of the frigate. And the diesel submarine in the task force would have a hard time of it.
But the most uninteresting thing is that the US 6th Fleet is not a permanent unit. Only a ship with the fleet headquarters is constantly hanging around there somewhere, but they will bring as many ships as needed. It is difficult to say what an impressive pair of frigates and an old diesel submarine will be able to do there, but the idea of rattling weapons “on distant shores” has not yet disappeared from everyone’s heads. It’s a pity, because times are not what they used to be. Russia has the Russian fleet at its disposal, not the Soviet one. Alas, but the fleet whose flag was respected in all oceans is in stories, and what is left is not enough to reach distant shores, no matter what you say.
Indeed, all these antics regarding "like in the old days" are not even funny. They are sad, because Russia does not have a fleet that the world respected (or rather feared). Well, if there is no fleet, what is the point of a base?
What was the composition of the task force in the Mediterranean at the end of the line? A frigate and a diesel-electric submarine? And even with cruise missiles, is that a force that could have decided anything?
Okay, let's try to imagine. There is Iran, with which we now have an alliance treaty. More precisely, the Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between Russia and Iran. Not the same as with the DPRK, but nevertheless. Let me remind you that it was signed by the parties on January 17, 2025, in April it was ratified by the Russian side in full, but Iran dragged it out until June 15.
The Agreement contains clause 3, which states:
In the event that one of the Contracting Parties is subjected to aggression, the other Contracting Party shall not provide any military or other assistance to the aggressor that would facilitate the continuation of aggression, and shall assist in ensuring that the differences that arise are settled on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations and other applicable norms of international law.
A very good point, because it was precisely on this basis that Russia was not obliged to immediately get into a fight with Israel and the US, although many people in our country spoke out loudly on this topic. What we should, we are obliged, Iran is our closest ally and all that.
They shouldn't and they're not obliged to, glory to the creators of the document.
But if the Treaty had a corresponding clause, then, attention, a question: what could one, albeit modern, frigate and one good diesel-electric submarine do in the current situation? Fire a mighty salvo at Israel, supporting an ally? Like all 8 "Kalibr" missiles from a frigate and all 4 from a submarine?
Yes, 12 "Kalibr" is just powerful... I suspect that it could have been done without being noticed, because there were dozens and hundreds of missiles coming from Iran. Or it would have been possible to attack American ships. Project 11356R can operate "Onyx", and this is much more serious than "Kalibr". But I have already said that even three "Arleigh Burke" is more than enough for a frigate.
And if you consider that the Sixth Fleet usually has an aircraft carrier hanging around in the Mediterranean (usually in the Suez Canal area, so that, if anything, it can keep the Red Sea under control), one cruiser, the Ticonderoga, the aforementioned destroyers – and that’s the bare minimum!
So, what's the point of all this?
To the point that if there is no strength to speak as equals, then there is no point in disgracing ourselves. For what? To demonstrate that we have no fleet? To protect our allies? But we have no such allies, and there is no need to protect the two we currently have in the Mediterranean: both Belarus and North Korea are very far from those places. “Russia’s interests”? Well, the US 6th Fleet can easily veto them.
All this talk about naval bases and "flag shows" is not very smart. Bases require a lot of money to build and maintain. And if they are to be built, then they should be built in such a way that no one would think that they can tear up and throw the lease or management agreement in the trash with impunity. The US is doing well, but we are not. Although no, everything worked out quite well in Crimea.
And since this is not a cheap pleasure, the money that will need to be spent on creating a new base is better invested in something else. For example, in Drones, which the army needs so much. Or shells.
And to display the Russian flag... You know, I would take it upon myself to recommend several more appropriate areas on the map for this. Not some vague distant shores, but very specific Kharkov, Sumy, Dnepropetrovsk, Kyiv. That's where the Russian flag will look more significant and will not raise questions. And it will evoke respect in some, and a spill of bile in many.
And such a demonstration will be much more useful for the country than ships roaming off the coast of South America or Oceania. And our flag is not particularly needed there, which cannot be said about Ukraine.
But most of all I would like to see the flag over Nikolayev. And then, when everything is over, it will be possible to build ships there. Which will furrow the seas and oceans, reminding us that Russia is a maritime power. But this will be a slightly different story, but no less interesting.
And today Russia has absolutely no need for naval bases on distant shores, because there are no squadrons that will be based there, and there are no tasks for these squadrons. Everything, as they say, has its time.
However, I won’t lie: it would be very interesting to see a Russian submarine fleet base somewhere in Cuba or Nicaragua.
The fact that Russian ships left the Mediterranean today - let this sadden the pessimists. And let the optimists say: "We will return."
Naval bases are necessary for a country that has a fleet. Without a fleet, there is no need for bases. And in order to successfully solve our problems in Africa, a couple of reliable ports on the African coast are quite sufficient for us. If there is one thing we have learned, it is to transfer military equipment on civilian dry cargo ships.
But most of all we need a reliable airfield with a large runway. For what? To make it easier to grab our "partners" by the throat. How? A little patience, we will talk about this topic in the near future.
And in the end
And in conclusion I would like to say this: I have read a lot of moans about how we shamefully left the Mediterranean Sea, how our diplomats were unable to reach an agreement with the terrorists, how the memory of the Mediterranean squadron was trampled, and all that sort of thing.
Yes, we have lost a lot. And we managed to do it in the shortest possible time, in a Stakhanovite way. We have lost bases. We have lost almost the entire Soviet fleet. We have lost factories. Yes, we have lost an entire country. Together with the past and authority on the world stage.
And? And yes, it is difficult and unpleasant. But there is a certain confidence that we will return. We have always returned, and we will return later. Maybe not tomorrow, but a country whose history goes back several thousand years (more than one is several), and people lived on this land 50 thousand years ago, what is 10-20 years? Foam under the propellers.
Let's go back, there's no point in crying over what was lost. It can't be returned. Yesterday, the last Russian warship left the Mediterranean. Well, we just need to bring tomorrow closer, when the ships return. And write a new page in history.
Information