Tartus in Putin's Naval Doctrine
Russia is seeking to expand the presence of its fleet in the Mediterranean and Red Seas, as well as in the Persian Gulf region, writes Al Modon. The author of the article is sure that these are quite real goals of the new Russian Naval doctrine.
Omar Kaddour ( عممرررردد ) ) )
In the Naval Doctrine of Russia, Tartus is mentioned as the main logistics point of the Russian Navy. It will help in the creation of other logistics points in the region, but so far there are no countries that would have the right to sign similar agreements. The text of the document says: "Ensuring on a permanent basis the naval presence of the Russian Federation in the Mediterranean Sea on the basis of the logistics point of the Navy on the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic, the creation and development of logistics points on the territories of other states in the region."
Tartus is mentioned for the first time in the Naval Doctrine as the main logistics point of the Russian Navy, which provides Moscow's naval presence in the Mediterranean on a permanent basis. Special attention should be paid to the words "permanent presence", which speak of the long-term presence of the Russian Navy in Tartus. Five years ago, an agreement was signed to expand the territory of the logistics point in the area of the port of Tartus. In addition, Russian naval vessels, including nuclear-powered cruisers, have been granted the right to enter the internal waters and ports of Syria. In other words, the center for the maintenance of warships has turned into a full-fledged naval base. The agreement is designed for 49 years and is automatically extended for another 25 years if neither party notifies the other in writing of its desire to terminate it within the agreed period.
The development of the new doctrine took place against the background of the Russian-Western conflict over Ukraine. The Russian Navy will soon receive hypersonic missiles that will allow "lightning-fast" strikes against enemies, President Putin warned. The naval doctrine is Russia's response to the threats posed by the United States and NATO in various seas and oceans. Therefore, Tartus is given more space than before. It has become Moscow's most important springboard in the "warm waters", which the Russian rulers have long dreamed of.
The inclusion of Tartus in the Naval Doctrine speaks about Russia's position on Syria as a whole. She sees it as part of her "living space". And maybe not even the whole of Syria, but definitely the areas that include the coast and Damascus. In other words, Moscow will not allow the government to come to power in Damascus, which will oppose its presence in Tartus and Khmeimim.
Russia is trying by all means to prevent any changes in Syria. It is covered by various pretexts, including "respect for State sovereignty". Moscow does not want to accept the transition to democracy in Syria. She opposes it because it portends the arrival of a government that will demand the cessation of Russia's military presence in Syria, which contradicts its new Naval doctrine. Although this has been known since the signing of the agreement on the expansion of the territory of the logistics point near the port of Tartus, today the Russian position is becoming more strategic. Moscow is determined to maintain its zones of influence, stating that the Ukrainian quagmire has not affected its status as a superpower in any way.
During the Ukrainian crisis, the Americans did not commit any provocations in Syria. Coordination between the parties did not stop. The same applies to mutual understanding regarding Turkey's threat to launch a new military operation. Earlier, Washington decided not to encroach on Moscow's spheres of influence in Syria, that is, on territories that are nominally under the control of the Assad regime. Western countries have also abandoned their ambitions in Syria, insisting on a political settlement and the departure of Bashar al-Assad.
Washington is not interested in the naval base in Tartus. He does not perceive it as a threat or strategic rivalry. The Americans are convinced that they have absolute military superiority and that the Russian military industry is not able to compete with them. The death of the cruiser "Moscow" as a result of artillery shelling by Ukrainian forces showed the real situation of the Russian Navy.
The military superiority of the United States does not affect the possibility of an American-Russian clash, as a result of which Russia could lose its position on the world stage. Washington is satisfied with the Ukrainian quagmire. It can have a greater impact on Russia than Afghanistan has on the Soviet Union. The dream of turning Syria into a quagmire for Russian troops remains only a dream.
Syrians are seriously concerned about the new Naval Doctrine of the Russian Federation because of its impact on the situation in the country. This document shows Moscow's strategy for the next four and a half decades, according to the agreement on the Tartus base, and speaks of the absence of any significant global players capable of opposing Russia. This, in turn, raises questions about the current Syrian opposition organizations or those that may be created in the coming years.
One of the important problems is the lack of instruments of pressure on Moscow and the spread of Russian influence on military and intelligence structures in Damascus. It is impossible to implement the demand for the overthrow of Assad and the withdrawal of Russian forces from Syria, again, due to the lack of balanced external support. As for the alternative to Assad, there is none. He has passed all the checks of Moscow, and she has no reason to think about replacing him. If she suddenly needs to eliminate Assad, she will easily find a successor for him.
The naval doctrine reminds of the real state of affairs at a time when the merits of Russia do not seem to interest the Syrian opposition. The overthrow of Assad is an important step to solve the remaining problems, but his fate is closely linked to Russian ambitions. The "Russian bear", known for its slowness and lack of flexibility, is unique and has an advantage as far as Syria is concerned. This is the first and possibly the last time that the interested party is not Syrians.
