I agree with the article that the most likely place for new port facilities is Tobruk or somewhere else in Eastern Libya.
But I would not dismiss Russia staying in Syria either. Cuba does not want the US base in Guantanamo and yet there it is.
Claims that Russia "needs" a base in the Mediterranean are kind of overblown. They can ressuply in Algeria and Egypt and they have good relations with Eritrea, Sudan, and other countries in East Africa.
Wouldn't it make more sense to not have anything at all in the Med now that world tension is heading towards a free fall?
Probably. But Russia also needs to keep the sea lanes open for oil & gas exports to India.
The Russian fleet is already small and outdated, it should be 100% focused on protecting Russia/artic Russia itself, with the sub fleet having more freedom including ability to work in north Asia.
It is less small and outdated than some. It is probably the 3rd best fleet after the Chinese and US fleets.
The main issue with the Russian Navy is the historical need to keep separate fleets, a long distance from each other, with little capability for quick reinforcement.
Russian ships in the Med to threaten NATO is as credible as NATO ships in the SCS to threaten China. As the situation between EU and Russia goes further from posturing and closer to real war, it makes no sense to base ships in vulnerable positions.
Russia does not need ships in the Med to threaten NATO. Not when they can fire a Kinzhal missile from a MiG-31K over the Black Sea and hit any target in the Mediterranean with it. The thing is they need to keep the sea lanes open to their own ship traffic and prevent a US or NATO embargo and blockade of their own commerce.
It's time Russia recognize that it's not a global power but simply a regional one like France, UK, India, etc and needs to live accordingly as such. They can't have sprawling bases around the world like the high times of the Soviet.
Except they are already doing this?
Assad's fall is a major L for Russia and all because they didn't have precision guided munitions or enough of them to give some to their forces in Syria.
Bollocks. The FSA gave amnesty to the SAA Armed Forces. That is all you need to know. The collapse of the Assad government was obvious given they didn't even stand up and fight properly. No outside force on Earth would solve anything if the local forces forefeit.
I wonder how much the FSA sponsors (Qatar, Turkey, US, etc) paid to buy the SAA off.
First Armenia and then Syria. Russia's ability to defend their interest is evident because of how weak their air force is.
The US keeps funneling money to convert useless distractions such as Armenia and Syria and in turn make Russia more focused on its own local interests. In turn, the US by doing this will also risk the ire of Turkey long term. By sponsoring Armenia and the Kurds, the US will gain an enemy out of the largest NATO ally they have. One which also controls the Dardanelles.
Syria was a political settlement. Russia seriously bombed the rebels for all of a day, until they confirmed that the government did not intend to fight. From that point on, they bombed bridges etc to buy time for Syria to sort out the specifics of the power transfer.
The government army did not even send engineers to set charges, but let the Russians demolish from the air instead. When I saw that, I realized the countries around Syria and Syria itself had given up, because that's simply unprecedented conduct for a military at war. Which Syria's government army was not, because there was not one battle fought between SAA and SNA. Rather, the SAA ceded all it's manpower and equipment to the SNA.
Exactly.
