Russia seeks navy presence in Mediterranean

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia should have a permanent naval presence in the Mediterranean, the head of its navy said on Friday, mirroring the military ambitions of the Soviet Union.

"The Mediterranean Sea is very important strategically for the Black Sea fleet," Admiral 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. Sixth 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, military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer told Reuters. He said that 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 policymakers 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 defence 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.

Analysts say the Russian navy is only just recovering from the under-funding of the 1990s when many sailors left the accident-prone fleet.

"We still maintain a naval station in Syria but that has been mostly standing empty because, after the break-up of the Soviet Union, the naval task force was withdrawn," Felgenhauer said.

Felgenhauer said 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 sizeable force there all the time," he said.

If Russia does build up a base in Syria, it could anger Israel, which has criticised Moscow for supplying weapons to Damascus.

Russia's Kommersant newspaper said in 2006 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.

Ever hear of the Bospurus?

Why would NATO permit Russia to field a Med fleet this time
around? During the Cold War, the USSR had to seek poermission to
sail a navy vessel thru the Bospurus to the Med.

The Black Sea Fleet was confined to the Black Sea.
Its that pesky thing known as geographic advantage!

Russia is feeling the heat as the US encircles her, moving
heavy combat forces from Germany to Poland and other former
Soviet states in EEurope as well as establishing what looks
like a European-style permament military presence in the MEast
and Cent Asia, also in many former Soviet states. This must
be REAL painful for Russian nationalists to endure.

The US empire expands...

Please detail how the US has dreams of empire?

Seems to me we’ve had security deals with nations around the globe for the 230 years our military has been in existence, that protection umbrella grew considerably after WWII, hence the nature and size of our strategic footprint around the globe. However, that’s hardly empire.

All too often the term “empire” is used loosely in regard to America, whereas it has been justly used in conjunction with autocratic countries like the old Soviet Union...rightly.

When the “old” Soviet Union moved into a country it was there to take over and stay, that is empire building...East Germany, Poland, and all the old buffer states that are now independent.

The US works with Poland as an Ally in regard to mutual defense from rogoue nations, again that’s hardly a sign of empire.

Putin is posturing he, like the old Soviet Gaurd, believes national pride to be based solely on the extent of one’s military but not the freedom, peace, and prosperity that it

NATO was a treaty organization amongst allies whereas the WARSAW pact was a mandate of Soviet Client States during the Cold War.

Be very careful when using the term empire...the liberals often use this mythical comparison to the US, wrongly so.

You can’t rely solely on the Roman or British model of Empire.
The Americna Empire uses a vast array of tools wi/ the toolbox.
Soft power accomplishes much esp in what appears to be tbe
dawning of the era of “money talks” on a wordwise basis. US
model capitalism is spanning the globe. Everybody is chasing
their form of the almighty dollar. Clearly not a military-mediated
spreading and/or enforcement of US doctrine or influence. On
another level.

The Brits also relied on economic integration to build parts of
their empire as well as integration of local persons into their
military structure. India immediately comes to mind.

Yes, Poland is an ally and US forces will be hosted by mutal
agreement. However, think about whose military forces are
hosted by whom.

The cost of occupation per the Roman, Brit and Russian
models simply be too high to sustain at least on the level
used by the aforementioned players. The US actually does
“occupy” Japan, Gemrnay and Italy consequent to the
outcome of WWII. Would we leaved if asked? Perhaps...
from all but Okinawa.

Will you deny that the US is the sole global hegemon able to
influence any country on one or more planes, ie, military,
policy, economics, technology, culture or ideology? One
need not occupy to build or maintain empire. A variety of
tools exist. In fact, invasion/occupation may only be required
on occasion. And a modern version of the Norsemens strategy
of rape/pillage/burn is Surround and Pound, leaving nothing
usuable behind. Occupationmists need not apply.

Check the current placement of US military bases around the
globe excluding US marine embassy guard detachments. It
exceeds that of the British in their heyday wrt/ placement of
military personnel overseas. It is not occupation the way you
see it. Nor is it empire based on your model. The model must
change w/ the times, which it has.

The defense agreements you speak of exist. They also have
the US at the core. When one player largely calls the shots,
well, that to me sounds like contreolling interests and empire.
I will help you to the extent that my interests are affected.
I will fight the war in your backyard rather than in mine.
Was not Vietnam recently exploring ways to interest the US
in greater military coopeATION? We will be back in the Nam
by the end of the next decade. Likely in resposne to increased
potential for Chinese military adventurism.

No dreams. Its reality. Its here. It truly is an example
of thinking outside the box. Empire does not solely rely upon the
Roman model of invasion/occupation/subjugation.

Neocons also use the term ‘empire’.

Google “US empire” and see how many conservative geopolitical
thnk tankers come up. It is not just for libber-als.

I am not relying on either model. I am basically sticking to what the term “empire” means and feelings such a word engenders. After all before Rome was an empire it was a republic...but the “empire days” are, more often than not, looked on negatively.

If conservatives are using it “empire”...then it’s still being wrongly used.

“Pax Americana” or “American Empire”...are alarmist terms used to paint a negative light on how the US uses its influence or exerts foreign policy. The term is largely used to confuse those not savy enough with foreign policy to challenge such an assertion.

I dont disagree that the US uses all it’s tools in the “tool box”, but is it truely for “desires of empire” or simply for something...*gasp* more nobel like global security...sure an American National Interest...but still...not solely our interest.

We place our bases where the threats are to world security...yes many bases border Russia or have been established in former client states but that’s simply a matter of geography not US dreams of empire.

So...my quesiton to you is...is America really an empire? Or maybe if one twists the facts enough and changes a “model” like you suggest America could be painted as an empire without being truly being one to illicit a negative response, which is the desire of American antagonists around the globe.

America is a very powerful nation both economicaly and militarily, which uses that influence to shape global politics etc...no doubt...but an empire, no.

Could we become one...sure...but then our government would have failed and we’d be a tyranny and no longer a republic.

“Empire” may convey negative feelings; however, the only issue to
me appears to be the use of the term “empire” and its true meaning.
The meaning of the word is as you describe; however, the influence on
other nations/states is unmistakable.

Hmmm. I have always considered myself a Paxist even before I
even knew there was term for it.

Desire for empire? I think all persons in one place of power or another
thirst for an ‘empire’. Do not business leaders want their bizz to be
an empire? OK. I will use the term empire as “empire” to denote that
the term is nost likely inappropriately applied in this case based on daffynition.

However, the American “empire” is clearly a well-tooled hegemon
(entity capable of exerting influence on other states/countries)
capable of directing one of the forms of influence mentioned previously
against virtually any nation on the planet. In the evnt of cancer,
if chemo does not wrok, then one must try surgery. If one tool is
not appropriate, very often another is.

Yes, it is global security wi/ the best interests of the US. And it
is a do it to them before they do it to us mentality. Would you rather
the USSR was able to expand much beyond EEurope? Or China into
Cent Asia and MEast today and perhaps continuous SEAsia or Japan
tomorrow?

Your interests may align w/ mine on any given policy. However,
I may still pursue that policy even if your interests are left out
because it is in my best interests to do so. Politics make strange
bedfellows.

Absolutely! America is an “empire”. We place our bases where
the greatest threats to US lie. These bases are on the frontline of
what Jim Pinkerton called the Arc of Power in a 2005 op-ed.
He was referring to US shifts of heavy ground forces in Germany
toward the Russian frontier in the 2008 overseas base re-alignment
as well as the establishment of the current bases in the former
Soviet C Asian repubs. The greatest threats to world peace (read:
US interests) currently appear to reside w/ China nd Russia. Europe
has been secured w/ the collapse of the USSR. Heavy forces once on
the frontline are now well in the rear. The MEast provides a way to kill
three birds w/ onestone: 1) radical islam, 2) China and 3) Russia. We
are not sitting on top of US oil supplies in the MEast—we are sitting on
top of CHINESE oil supplies.

We have (or are doing) tightly encircled Russia and are attempting to do the same w/ China. It is just a matter of time before we are back in a big way
in SEAsia. Why? Because we are wonderful people? NO. Because we believe
that this type of securitization is in our best interests. I expect it
is somewhat diff when you are staring your opponent down across
the middle of Germany than when that stare down is coming across
your own border.

Also the US is a very powerful nation ideologically. When you plant
the seeds of certain ideas in the brain, it is difficult to resist.

I pose this question to you: Can you think of a potential competing nation
(ie, China, Russia, etc) that offers a viable competing ideological
alternative to US governance principles (theory or practice) or
economic structure? Wahbiism just doesn’t seem to get it done.
It gets even harder when you exclude from consideration ideologies
that are derived from US ideologies and are based on degrees or extents.
I think that the underlying belief system is essential to “empire”.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.