It is being reported that the last Russian submarine has left the Mediterranean due to the loss of the Tartus naval base in Syria. This is a good thing, in case anyone is confused. You may recall that we recently discussed the idea of the US seizing Syria or, in some other fashion, denying the base to Russia. This is pretty compelling evidence as to the desirability such actions.
Bye, bye!
AFAIK Russia hasn’t ‘lost’ its Tartus base, and both the so-called ‘interim Syrian government’ and the Turks, who seem to be calling the shots, are, for obvious reasons, keen for the Russians to stay. But maybe I’ve missed something.
ReplyDeleteProbably the Russians have moved their boats as a precautionary measure, as there are apparently any number of Ukrainian drone operators in the country and a moored sub is an attractive and vulnerable target for them and for the former Isis terrorists who are, with our support, for the moment at least, in control of much of Syria.
But in any event, pushing a couple of Russian submarines out of the Mediterranean and back into the Black Sea or the Baltic is a very small and inconsequential achievement when set against the immense geopolitical harm that we have inflicted upon ourselves through our idiotic strategy - if it can be so characterized - vis-a-vis Russia generally and the conflict in Ukraine particularly.
How the whole Syria thing pans out is impossible to say at this point, but the most probable scenario is a resumption of the ethic and religious based civil war, with hundreds of thousands of innocent people being killed, and millions of refugees fleeing first to Turkiye and then onwards to Europe.
How this could be remotely to our benefit entirely escapes me, but given our track record in Iraq and Afghanistan why should anyone expect anything different?
"AFAIK Russia hasn’t ‘lost’ its Tartus base"
DeleteThey've pulled out and left the base. Whether you choose to call that 'lost' is immaterial and relevant only to a lawyer.
"there are apparently any number of Ukrainian drone operators in the country and a moored sub is an attractive and vulnerable target"
Unless those drone operators suddenly appeared the day after the collapse of Syria, they would have been there before that and yet the Russians maintained subs and ships there. So, yes, it would appear that the Russians have lost the base with the collapse of Syria.
"pushing a couple of Russian submarines out of the Mediterranean and back into the Black Sea or the Baltic is a very small and inconsequential achievement"
On the contrary. Those subs, ships, and aircraft were an ever present threat that is no longer there. You'll recall reports that the presence of Russia subs caused changes to Western military actions during the missile attacks awhile back. Those forces also offered presence and influence in the region. Countries could see Russian military might which aided the Russians in their attempts to expand their influence in the region. Being ejected from the region is very significant.
"How this could be remotely to our benefit entirely escapes me"
The previous post and comments laid out exactly how this could be of benefit. The benefits are not debatable. Whether the benefits are worth the cost is debatable.
Initially I thought that some wishful thinking had got ahead of the facts but it does indeed appear that Russia has elected to move its assets out of its military bases in Syria, though I doubt this means the end of a Russian military presence in the Mediterranean.
DeleteUnder the circumstances this seems to be a prudent and sensible move, as Syria seems to be sliding into chaos once again, and there’s no one to reach an agreement with on bases or anything else.
I was also surprised to learn that you are not alone in suggesting a military occupation of Syria, although I think the idea is a terrible one.
We are hugely overstretched as things already are, and could maybe learn from the Russians about when to quit and throw in a bad hand, instead of doubling down at every opportunity, even when the game’s clearly lost.
As Lincoln told Seward, let’s fight one war at a time.
" I doubt this means the end of a Russian military presence in the Mediterranean."
DeleteIt means the end of any sustained presence since the Russians no longer have a Mediterranean naval base anywhere. Any Russian ship or sub must make the voyage from the Black Sea through the straits controlled by Turkey (nominally a NATO partner although ...) and into the Med. That's not going to allow for more than an occasional, short presence.
"We are hugely overstretched as things already are"
Really? Where are we stretched? We're not actively engaged anywhere. We have troops, ships, and aircraft sitting back in the US rusting and rotting away.
Of course, if we simply pulled out of Europe we'd instantly have a hundred thousand free troops, hundreds of aircraft, etc. available.
"Initially I thought that some wishful thinking had got ahead of the facts"
DeleteI research my posts and stick to facts. If I engage in speculation, I'll make it clear that's what I'm doing.
At the moment, the Tartus naval base is abandoned and anyone could walk in and lay claim to it. Eventually, someone will. Why shouldn't it be us?
"I was also surprised to learn that you are not alone in suggesting a military occupation of Syria"
DeletePerhaps that's an indication that you should at least give it some more thought beyond your initial knee-jerk reaction? There are legitimate reasons why it might not be a good idea but any opinion, pro or con, should be formed only after an objective analysis. Have you done that?
I kept out of the whole “let’s just take over Syria” thing because I think the idea is preposterous. However, I agree denying this port to Russia has merit. It’s long been a logistical hub for Russian/Soviet vessels so, if nothing else, losing it makes it harder for them to operate in the Eastern Med. nothing bad about that.
ReplyDeleteId encourage Israel to put some boots there, since they’re into that sort of thing in Syria already. If they aren’t interested, I’d ask them to render it unusable (understanding they’ve already made strikes there). Or, depending on who is in charge of the area these days, I might make them some sort of offer they can't refuse (money, security guarantee) to allow US or Israeli control of the facility.
"However, I agree denying this port to Russia has merit."
DeleteWell ... that was the main purpose behind the Syria proposal so ... I guess that means you DON'T think it's preposterous. Perhaps it's just the approach you don't like or the inherent difficulty?
"Id encourage Israel to put some boots there"
Why Israel? Why not us? If you think it's a good idea - and not preposterous - for Israel then why isn't it a good idea for us? You're being a bit inconsistent with your logic.
"I’d ask them to render it unusable"
Why ask them to do it? Why not do it ourselves? We can do it easier with options ranging from long range cruise missiles to up close Rangers or SEALs. Why have we fallen into the habit of expecting others to do things for us? This is a societal affliction that is crippling us. Let's get off our ass ends and do things for ourselves. We didn't ask the British to conquer America; we did it ourselves. Again, inconsistent logic.
In summary, far from finding the Syria venture preposterous, you seem to actually recognize the benefits, more or less agree with the methods, and support the execution of the action ... just not by us. Our masculine societal identity has atrophied. We need to ressurect it.
It’s a cost/benefit thing to me.
ReplyDeleteInvading Syria and taking/holding territory could be very costly. The Iraq War was costly and we didn’t even plan to permanently occupy the territory.
Obviously there would be military benefits aside from the Russian subs no longer being in the Mediterranean, but they would have to be significant benefits to overcome the cost in blood, dollars, and political capital.
"could be very costly."
DeleteOr ... it could be very beneficial.
If we would stop buying Fords and revert to Nimitzes, we'd save around $8 BILLION on every carrier! We can do a lot with that if we use it wisely.
"would have to be significant benefits"
Why don't you try enumerating those benefits? To get you started, we'd reduce Russian influence, encourage more military sales instead of countries in the region buying Russian equipment, reduce Chinese influence, be in a better position to put Turkey on notice, shore up Israel, be in an excellent position to strike at Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran as needed, be better positioned to stop illicit arms trafficking, etc. Putting a price tag on those is difficult but the benefits are enormous.
Would it be worth it, overall? I think so but it's not an easy answer. The larger point is that if you're going to take a position (against, in your case), make sure you've objectively analyzed the BENEFITS as well as the disadvantages BEFORE you form an opinion.
Not sure if you've been following the news, but Alawites (the sect the Assads were from) are predictably being targeted by the new regime in Syria (https://www.yahoo.com/news/fear-grips-alawites-syrias-homs-203835556.html ; https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2025/01/08/alawites-formed-syrias-elite-now-they-are-terrified). The traditionally Alawite area is coastal Syria, where the Russian base was located.
DeleteThe US could come in and take just that area and set up a friendly government and sign a basing agreement with it. From their side, they get a secure area for their people who are facing potential retribution. The US gets bases in the Eastern Mediterranean allowing it to close Incirlik (which the Turks use to leverage the US).
-Huskers1995
"The US gets bases in the Eastern Mediterranean allowing it to close Incirlik"
DeleteGreat point!
Fun fact on the Kilo class submarine pictured:
ReplyDeleteIndia's INS Sindhurakshak, a Kilo-class submarine, met a tragic end in 2013 when a fire and explosion during weapon loading killed 18 crew members in Mumbai. Despite being lauded for stealth, the submarine's history was plagued by incidents, including a battery fire in 2010 and a near-sinking during transit.
What You Need to Know: India's INS Sindhurakshak, a Kilo-class submarine, met a tragic end in 2013 when a fire and explosion during weapon loading killed 18 crew members in Mumbai. Despite being lauded for stealth, the submarine's history was plagued by incidents, including a battery fire in 2010 and a near-sinking during transit.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russian-built-black-hole-kilo-class-submarine-exploded-and-was-scuttled-208857
Hopefully our own submarine forces will not suffer the same fate.. no wait from below:
SEATTLE — A metallurgist in Washington state was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison and a $50,000 fine Monday after she spent decades faking the results of strength tests on steel that was being used to make U.S. Navy submarines.
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2022/02/14/metallurgist-gets-25-years-for-faking-steel-test-results-for-navy-subs/
Maybe we need more corruption proof engineers...
Speaking of submarines what is your opinion on the AUKUS as below:
DeleteThe trilateral agreement known as AUKUS, a security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States in part to provide Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, is full speed ahead.
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2025/1/6/aukus-may-sink-or-strengthen-us-submarine-industrial-base
I know it has not really produce anything yet but I think it may help the United States submarine industry depending on what happens and if we are smart about it like it can lower costs by economy of scale and so on.
This is an absolutely idiotic idea. Australia has no native nuclear industry or capability. You don't just suddenly conjure that out of thin air. Taking delivery of a nuclear sub is the easy part. Maintaining it requires an entire specialized nuclear workforce, highly secure facilities (ever tried to get onto a nuclear sub base?), specialized facilities and equipment, an entire nuclear/radiological monitoring organization, a complete nuclear waste disposal industry, an entire set of laws and regulations, and on and on.
DeleteWhat's the benefit? For Australia, there is little to none. For the US, having a few possibly friendly nuclear subs in the area might, on occasion, be useful (if our geopolitical objectives align which is nowhere near a guarantee) but it would be far easier for us to just base a few subs there for operations.
"may help the United States submarine industry depending on what happens and if we are smart about it like it can lower costs by economy of scale and so on."
This is heavy on wishful thinking and light on reality. The US sub industry is max'ed out. We have no excess build - OR MAINTENANCE - capacity. This won't help our industry in the slightest. It will just further overload it.
There are no economies of scale in naval shipbuilding and certainly not from a few extra subs over a couple decades time period. We've examined supposed economies of scale in naval shipbuilding and with one possible exception (the Burkes - it's ambiguous), there are none. This is not my opinion, this is the data.
You yourself have mentioned the great benefit to America from having Russian subs removed from the Med. AUKUS gets America 8 allied SSNs permanently based in the Pacific without US taxpayers having to foot the bill. While geopolitical interests may not always align, it’s unlikely Australia would like to live in a world in which its American ally is defeated and China dominates the Pacific. As such, these SSNs will be helpful either in a shooting war or in deterring one.
DeleteAustralia, though at great expense, receives a powerful naval capability which it previously lacked. I can’t be certain what was the selling point, but perhaps it’s the ability for Australia to threaten a Chinese carrier group 500 miles off its coast (which could easily be 1,000+ miles from the sub base). As you say, geopolitical interests may not align, so this gives Australia an independent capability if US support was not forthcoming.
"without US taxpayers having to foot the bill."
DeleteOh there's a bill, alright, and a huge one! The US is footing a large bill for nuclear education and training. In addition, the US will, undoubtedly, be donating or subsidizing large chunks of nuclear infrastructure. For example, I'm assuming that the entire nuclear decommissioning process and long term disposal/storage of spent reactors and fuel will occur in the US. I'm sure the US will make some arrangement for some type of payment (will they?) to offset costs but we'll be footing a large part of the total cost.
There's also the opportunity cost. The US submarine construction capacity is max'ed out. Any and every sub we build the Australia is one less for the US and, since the US wouldn't have operational control over the Australian subs, any benefit to the US is sporadic and marginal.
" these SSNs will be helpful either in a shooting war or in deterring one."
DeleteI would like to believe that but given Australia's demonstrated difficulties (failures) in manning, maintaining, and operating their existing subs, I'm not optimistic that those subs can be successfully manned, maintained, and operated. The US is having a hard time (failing) maintaining its subs and we already have an entire support infrastructure and practically unlimited resources. It seems optimistic in the extreme (more like wishful thinking!) to think Australia will be successful.