01-09-2025, 12:00 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/nato-needs-fo...57395.html
Italy is very concerned, and for good reason. For many years Italy has had the responsibility of "covering" the Russian operated port of Tartus. This requires continuous surface ship and submarine deployments in the eastern Mediterranean. During the Cold War, the US 6th fleet was very strong. It "handled" the Russian's increasing desire for a permanent naval presence in the Mediterranean. Now the 6th fleet is a joke. Italy has been carrying out the mission for years with a Navy that is quite a bit smaller than the 6th fleet was. They still are carrying out that mission. The occasional "visit" by US Carrieir Battle Groups does little to remove the strain. If Russia obtains a port in Libya Italy will have another, much closer (and therefore more dangerous) threat to deal with. You bet they are "concerned".
The Russian presence at Tartus was "very significant" from about 2015 on, making Italy's problems worse. A Slava class cruiser was rotated to that port religiously. Its purpose was to provide air defense for both the port of Tartus and for the air base at Khmeimim. There was a rotation between Moskva, Varyag, and Marshal Ustinov, each spending a year or so "on station". After about 2019 the "rotation" became less important because the Russians had established adequate land-based air defense and the situation in Syria was more stable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cr...yag_(1983) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Moskva https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cr...al_Ustinov
The utility of Tartus to Russia has become much less since the start of the Ukraine war. Before Türkiye started enforcing the Montreaux convention Russia could easily move both warships and material to/from the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. There was literally a rotation of Frigates between Mediterranean duty and Black Sea duty, sometimes on a monthly basis. There was also an every-three-days delivery of support material via Russian National Ships. Now, Russia cannot do any of this. This puts Tartus on the far end of a very long supply line from the Northern Fleet or from St. Petersburg. It is almost more of a liability than an asset. Russia has removed the last of its Kilo submarines from the Mediterranean Sea. These SSKs require a very capable home port to operate efficiently. They have good range, but require lots of material/fuel/repair support to utilize it. On the end of the long supply line, they don't have that. They can no longer reach a dry dock for necessary maintenance availabilities without a very long voyage north. Re-opening the Black Sea to naval vessel traffic would "cure" all this, but IMO Russia pulling most of its naval assets from the area is a recognition of the current serious logistical shortfalls. Of course, the loss of many naval assets in the Ukraine war is problematic as well.
Italy is very concerned, and for good reason. For many years Italy has had the responsibility of "covering" the Russian operated port of Tartus. This requires continuous surface ship and submarine deployments in the eastern Mediterranean. During the Cold War, the US 6th fleet was very strong. It "handled" the Russian's increasing desire for a permanent naval presence in the Mediterranean. Now the 6th fleet is a joke. Italy has been carrying out the mission for years with a Navy that is quite a bit smaller than the 6th fleet was. They still are carrying out that mission. The occasional "visit" by US Carrieir Battle Groups does little to remove the strain. If Russia obtains a port in Libya Italy will have another, much closer (and therefore more dangerous) threat to deal with. You bet they are "concerned".
The Russian presence at Tartus was "very significant" from about 2015 on, making Italy's problems worse. A Slava class cruiser was rotated to that port religiously. Its purpose was to provide air defense for both the port of Tartus and for the air base at Khmeimim. There was a rotation between Moskva, Varyag, and Marshal Ustinov, each spending a year or so "on station". After about 2019 the "rotation" became less important because the Russians had established adequate land-based air defense and the situation in Syria was more stable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cr...yag_(1983) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Moskva https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cr...al_Ustinov
The utility of Tartus to Russia has become much less since the start of the Ukraine war. Before Türkiye started enforcing the Montreaux convention Russia could easily move both warships and material to/from the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. There was literally a rotation of Frigates between Mediterranean duty and Black Sea duty, sometimes on a monthly basis. There was also an every-three-days delivery of support material via Russian National Ships. Now, Russia cannot do any of this. This puts Tartus on the far end of a very long supply line from the Northern Fleet or from St. Petersburg. It is almost more of a liability than an asset. Russia has removed the last of its Kilo submarines from the Mediterranean Sea. These SSKs require a very capable home port to operate efficiently. They have good range, but require lots of material/fuel/repair support to utilize it. On the end of the long supply line, they don't have that. They can no longer reach a dry dock for necessary maintenance availabilities without a very long voyage north. Re-opening the Black Sea to naval vessel traffic would "cure" all this, but IMO Russia pulling most of its naval assets from the area is a recognition of the current serious logistical shortfalls. Of course, the loss of many naval assets in the Ukraine war is problematic as well.