“In the 1950s and 1960s, aircraft carriers were seen by Soviet military elites as imperialist tools of aggression, and any initiative by the USSR to build one of their own was shot down by the powers that be. “
I don’t think that was the reason. They aren’t stupid, and they weren’t following a non-aggressive course based on such a principle. They simply didn’t have the vital need to control sea lanes that we did. They are not and never have been a seafaring nation as a result of geography. Our problem was protecting far flung interests and trade, and lines of communication with Europe. We have two giant coastlines. That all screams for a powerful navy.
The Russians had an entirely different problem. Either a roll through Europe attack, or a defense of their massive homeland. Their lines of communication between the front and the homeland were on land. The red Army didn’t get their food, fuel, ammo, and tanks sent by sea.
So they developed what they needed, a tremendous SAM capability, mobile missiles, a very large and heavy mechanized army. Most of all, they developed all the nukes they could. If anyone tries a Barbarossa repeat, their home will be vaporized.
As a result, the Red Navy had two main goals, ICBMs from boomer subs close to our coasts, and attack subs to try to repeat the German success in hurting our lines to Europe and to watch our moves.
That’s why they didn’t build carriers and why we were never that big on SAMS. That’s why we had an enormous navy and world beating fighters, while they built a million tanks and artillery tubes.
Different needs gives different answers.
Everything DesertRhino said. The Kuznetsov is a carrier killer. Our carrier’s are high value and vulnerable. Destroying them greatly limits our ability to project force.
BTTT, thanks