US intelligence has concluded that Russia has maintained its military bases in Syria.

8 807 19
US intelligence has concluded that Russia has maintained its military bases in Syria.

Moscow has retained access to its key military bases in Syria, according to US intelligence, The Wall Street Journal reports.

According to the Americans, Russia fully restocked the Khmeimim airbase this spring. While the Russian military previously removed "excess" equipment and everything else from Syria, they are now bringing it back. This is the first time this has happened since the fall of the Assad regime in 2024.



According to the publication, the cargo ship Sparta departed St. Petersburg in March and arrived in Tartus in May, delivering everything necessary for the continued operation of the Khmeimim airbase. To prevent any potential incidents, the ship was escorted for most of the journey by Russian warships, which took turns at certain points.

Washington believes that Moscow has managed to maintain its military bases in Syria despite significant disagreements with the terrorist group regime that came to power in the country.

Moscow has retained access to key strategic facilities used to support operations in Africa and other regions.

The Russian Foreign Ministry previously reported that negotiations regarding Russian military bases were ongoing, but no specifics had been reached. The latest development is that the new Syrian authorities are demanding Assad's release.
19 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    3 June 2026 06: 16
    So we've reached an agreement with our "former" enemies. We need the bases, but who can tell us what the payment will be?
    1. -3
      3 June 2026 08: 07
      You can't negotiate with enemies, especially strategic ones. I think this is a respite. In the meantime, as usual, we'll feed and help "the Syrian people, driven to poverty by Assad's bloody regime."
  2. +5
    3 June 2026 06: 47
    American journalists from the WSJ, thanks to an unnamed American intelligence agency, can pull a sensation out of their fingers that everyone in the Eastern Mediterranean already knows about. bully
    1. +3
      3 June 2026 06: 54
      This is what the three main seaports look like in maritime traffic. Under Assad, they were empty. And among this crowd, at the roads and berths, there are ships under the Russian flag. Our ships go mainly to Novorossiysk - the Syrian Express is back in action.
      1. +2
        3 June 2026 07: 18
        Quote: tralflot1832
        This is what the three main seaports look like in maritime traffic. Under Assad, they were empty. And among this crowd, at the roads and berths, there are ships under the Russian flag. Our ships go mainly to Novorossiysk - the Syrian Express is back in action.

        The supply of bases has increased, the air component of the group has also been increased, and the bar for requirements for the crews located at the Khmeimim base has been raised.
    2. +1
      3 June 2026 11: 29
      hi!
      Quote: tralflot1832
      American journalists from the WSJ, thanks to an unnamed American intelligence agency, can pull a sensation out of their fingers that everyone in the Eastern Mediterranean already knows about.

      I forgot - what did we have there about an Indian named Eagle Eye and a wall in a barn?... laughing
  3. +6
    3 June 2026 08: 02
    And where are the panic-mongers who screamed in the words from the film: “Boss, everything is lost, the client is leaving...”?
    Diplomacy loves silence, not shouting at the whole neighborhood.
    1. 0
      3 June 2026 09: 27
      Diplomacy loves silence, not shouting at the top of one's lungs.

      I would like to hear a clear answer from the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Federation (which did not come from the moon, but was entrusted with power by Russian citizens) about the goals set for the Russian Armed Forces group in Syria.
      For example, during the Soviet era, the Tartus military base was the location of the Black Sea Fleet's Mediterranean squadron, whose mission was to close the Suez Canal in the event of a conflict with NATO.
      1. -1
        3 June 2026 09: 53
        Oh, and the keys to the apartment where the money is. wink
        1. +2
          3 June 2026 10: 16
          Oh, and the keys to the apartment where the money is.

          Well, with this position, the authorities consider you to be suckers.
          For some reason, during Soviet times, the government didn't consider it shameful to share such information with its citizens, especially since it wasn't classified. Ultimately, people should understand where their taxes are going, or do you think the Russian military contingent in Syria is financed exclusively by private individuals?
          1. 0
            3 June 2026 19: 40
            Quote: Atheist
            For some reason, during the Soviet era, the authorities did not consider it shameful to convey such information to their citizens, especially since it was not classified.

            Doesn't wear it? Really?
      2. 0
        3 June 2026 19: 36
        Quote: Atheist
        For example, during the Soviet era, the Tartus military base was the location of the Black Sea Fleet's Mediterranean squadron, whose mission was to close the Suez Canal in the event of a conflict with NATO.
        So how long would this squadron survive in the event of a conflict with NATO? Has anyone ever heard about this?
    2. +1
      3 June 2026 10: 10
      Quote: Sergey39
      And where are the panic-mongers who screamed in the words from the film: “Boss, everything is lost, the client is leaving...”?
      Diplomacy loves silence, not shouting at the whole neighborhood.

      So what's changed? These bases remain hostages. Or do you seriously believe that those thugs who so eagerly and happily slaughtered our friendly Alawites have gone somewhere or have now become, instead of Alawites, friends of the Russian Federation? Since when was the decision to keep the bases surrounded by Wahhabis a victory or a good decision? Not only is Russia now forced to supply and support its own natural enemies—extremists and supporters of a global caliphate—whom we previously were supposed to destroy at their outer approaches, yes. The value of these bases, if the situation around them escalates, will not only be questionable, but clearly negative. Because not only will they be unable to function, but they will hardly be able to defend themselves. And I don't think the cannibals and savages surrounding the bases will treat our military with respect, instead of doing what they're used to. In case anyone missed it, in Syria, these "wonderful guys" even cut off children's heads. The Kremlin has long been politically bankrupt, so it seizes on any opportunity, regardless of the long-term consequences, no matter how harmful and dangerous they are. They'd rather plug the hole here and now, but there's no time or opportunity to think about the long-term. Hence the constant victories, the alternative ones. They've left the supply of the Afrika Korps to the mercy and mutual, passionate "love" of a regime of cannibals and thugs. And if they suddenly fall out of love, or decide the tribute for the bases isn't enough, so what? It's not the first time; they wanted what was best, as always...
      1. +1
        3 June 2026 15: 11
        Quote: Leshy1975
        Quote: Sergey39
        And where are the panic-mongers who screamed in the words from the film: “Boss, everything is lost, the client is leaving...”?
        Diplomacy loves silence, not shouting at the whole neighborhood.

        So what's changed? These bases remain hostages. Or do you seriously believe that those thugs who so eagerly and happily slaughtered our friendly Alawites have gone somewhere or have now become, instead of Alawites, friends of the Russian Federation? Since when was the decision to keep the bases surrounded by Wahhabis a victory or a good decision? Not only is Russia now forced to supply and support its own natural enemies—extremists and supporters of a global caliphate—whom we previously were supposed to destroy at their outer approaches, yes. The value of these bases, if the situation around them escalates, will not only be questionable, but clearly negative. Because not only will they be unable to function, but they will hardly be able to defend themselves. And I don't think the cannibals and savages surrounding the bases will treat our military with respect, instead of doing what they're used to. In case anyone missed it, in Syria, these "wonderful guys" even cut off children's heads. The Kremlin has long been politically bankrupt, so it seizes on any opportunity, regardless of the long-term consequences, no matter how harmful and dangerous they are. They'd rather plug the hole here and now, but there's no time or opportunity to think about the long-term. Hence the constant victories, the alternative ones. They've left the supply of the Afrika Korps to the mercy and mutual, passionate "love" of a regime of cannibals and thugs. And if they suddenly fall out of love, or decide the tribute for the bases isn't enough, so what? It's not the first time; they wanted what was best, as always...

        You yourself write that this base is needed to supply our Afrika Korps. Surely you don't think that the work of this Ministry of Defense unit is purely costly for Russia? Apparently, the existing and potential benefits more than outweigh the costs and risks associated with maintaining bases in Syria. And judging by the howling of the French and British about maintaining our control over these bases, the benefits of working in Africa are very significant.
      2. 0
        3 June 2026 19: 39
        Quote: Leshy1975
        the surrounding bases are cannibals and savages
        Are they very different from those supported by the USSR?
    3. +1
      3 June 2026 15: 43
      But that doesn't change the fact that we couldn't protect our protégé. This is quite a significant political blow. We also lost economically; as far as I know, we had oil interests, as well as land in Damascus. Plus, we don't know how much we have to pay off our former enemies. I agree with you that there's no need to shout that everything is lost, but our positions in the Middle East have been significantly weakened.
  4. +1
    3 June 2026 11: 18
    The article points to a clear betrayal: a single vessel was escorted by several ships, passing it from area to area in a relay. How are they going to protect a large merchant fleet?
    1. -2
      3 June 2026 12: 31
      Quote: uber
      How are they going to protect a large merchant fleet?

      ...you are either from Ukraine and are acting here as a provocateur or you are tooooo young, which is why you don’t know that after the collapse of the USSR we don’t have the so-called
      numerous merchant fleet
      Moreover, the vessel carrying the cargo could have been part of the auxiliary fleet of the Russian Navy...
  5. +3
    3 June 2026 12: 26
    It's all strange: we're reinforcing the 102nd Airborne Battalion, which is surrounded by hostile countries without the possibility of rapid evacuation, and now we're reinforcing the Airborne Battalion, which is in the "cockroach corner"...