Russia vs. America: What Would a Naval Clash over Syria Look Like?
It feels like 1973 again in the Mediterranean Sea. That’s when the Soviet Navy administered a rude shock to Western navies in the Eastern Mediterranean, deploying a squadron that outnumbered the Italy-based U.S. Sixth Fleet during that year’s Arab-Israeli war. America sided with Israel, the Soviet Union with the Arab powers. For a time it appeared the Yom Kippur War might ensnare the superpower navies. In other words, war between small Middle East allies might embroil the U.S. Navy and Soviet Navy in combat.
Sound familiar? What appeared unthinkable not that many years ago—a Russian-American naval war—now looms as a distinct possibility. The Trump administration has vowed to punish the Syrian regime headed by “Animal Assad” for using chemical weapons against the regime’s enemies. For its part, Vladimir Putin’s government has vowed to protect its protégé from American assault. War could ensue if Washington and Moscow persevere with their stated aims.
Baseball sage Yogi Berra warns that “it’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” And so it is. Rather than contradict the great Yogi’s wisdom, let’s hazard some pre-takeaways from a Mediterranean clash of arms.
Recommended: The Story of the F-52 Fighter.
One, never discount Russian resolve to construct a great navy. The 1973 Arab-Israeli war was far from the first rude shock the Soviet Navy administered to NATO mariners. In 1970—under a decade after Fleet Admiral Sergei Gorshkov and his political masters resolved to make the Soviet Union a serious oceangoing force—the Soviet Navy staged naval maneuvers dubbed “Okean 70.” The Northern, Baltic, Black Sea, and Pacific fleets fanned out at the same time, not to mention a squadron in the Indian Ocean. Over 200 ships and submarines took part in all. And this was a youthful force. Most of the units underway for Okean 70 were under 20 years of age.
George Baer, a former chairman of my department, sums up the American response in his understated way: “This exercise impressed the U.S. Navy.”
And how. That same year Soviet warships surged into the Mediterranean Sea to stage a show of force during a crisis in Jordan. Sixth Fleet commander Isaac Kidd exclaimed that the middle sea looked like “an international boat show” as Soviet and American ships crowded its eastern reaches. There’s a lesson here. It’s commonplace for dominant seafaring states—the United States, or Great Britain in its heyday, or the Dutch Navy before that—to disparage new contenders for maritime mastery. It hasn’t been many years since China-watchers wrangled over whether continental China could put a great fleet to sea. (It has, therefore it can.)
Furthermore, American seafarers had a good laugh at the Soviet Navy’s expense after the Cold War, jeering at the ill-handled, ill-maintained Soviet vessels they had encountered on the high seas. The 1990s—when the Russian Navy rusted at its moorings, unable to pay its sailors—did little to disabuse Americans of their triumphalism at the Cold War’s outcome. But recalling the Soviet Navy’s ascent under Admiral Gorshkov’s stewardship should give us pause. Denigrating one’s antagonists seldom makes a sound starting point for strategy.
But two, never overestimate Russian endeavors on the high seas. American sailors of Cold War vintage remember that—far from deprecating the Soviet foe—we tended to make him ten feet tall in our estimates of the naval balance. Today’s Russia is not an economic superpower that can afford a fleet like the one that took to the seas in 1970 and 1973. Its navy appears to excel in certain domains, notably undersea warfare, but economic malaise keeps Moscow from building excellent armaments in bulk. Quantity no longer holds the same quality it did during the Cold War. Nor is it clear whether the Russian Navy has overcome the troubles with seamanship, tactics, or material upkeep that afflicted the Soviet Navy of old.
Transposed to the oceans, the old saw—“Russia is never as strong as she looks; Russia is never as weak as she looks”—pertains.