On the Russian Navy
Contra some on the MAGA right – and apparently our Secretary of Defense – the Russian navy is a joke.
Sometimes you aren’t planning to write a piece and then you just get hit with a bolt out of the blue. That, dear reader, is me today.
The controversy of the day revolves around remarks made by Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, at a press conference that took place after a meeting between top NATO defense leaders. In that presser, he tried to walk back some of the Trump administration’s disturbing rhetoric on Ukraine and the potential peace talks between Kyiv and Moscow, but the discussion that caught my eye was on the potential inability for the US to act in multiple theaters simultaneously. This was in the context of the Trump team’s push to shift resources and attention away from Europe and towards the Pacific, in anticipation of Chinese belligerence. The Secretary discussed how Europe would have to take more of a leading role in its own regional security – something I wholeheartedly agree with – but also made it seem like, as of now, the United States could not handle engagements with the Russians and Chinese at the same time, particularly in the maritime domain. This sparked a great deal of controversy, with many on the right lining up behind Hegseth’s claims on how the US Navy is unprepared to face our adversaries.
This is a live issue; American shipbuilding has been lackluster for decades and our defense industrial base needs to be ramped up and invested heavily in. Our navy has struggled in recruiting and engages in chronic spending boondoggles, procuring ships that cost far more than they are worth in terms of combat usefulness. And we have seen several major controversies within the navy, from the Fat Leonard bribery scandal to the seeming inability to keep our ships clean and rust-free (it sounds minor, but this matters a lot for seaworthiness and projecting the appearance of power). At the same time, China has eclipsed us as the world’s largest navy, although we have more of the nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and advanced submarines that provide an advantage. All in all, our maritime readiness is not where it needs to be, especially vis a vis China.
But Russia? Give me a break. Not only is it absurd to favorably compare the Russian navy to the US navy today, but it is an utter joke to do so historically. Let’s start at the beginning, shall we?
When I say the beginning, I mean before the nation of Russia even existed as a polity. Before the rise of Muscovy. Before even the conversion of the Rus’ to Christianity. Because that’s pretty much how far you need to look back to find a time when the people who would eventually come to call themselves Russian had any sort of impressive maritime record. The Kievan Rus’ civilization, first appearing in the histories in the 800s, was founded by the Scandinavian mariners popularly known as Vikings. They plied the rivers of far eastern Europe, trading and raiding their way from the Baltic to Byzantium and Baghdad. This semi-nomadic people eventually settled down in modern Kyiv, Ukraine, where they could control the riverine access to the riches of Constantinople and the Caliphate. Since finding its home in a region that has relatively limited access to the oceans, Russia has focused almost exclusively on land power at the expense of the sea. Over time, the seafaring culture of the Vikings was shed in favor of a land-focused one – something that has characterized the Russians since at least the year 1000.
Through the Mongol invasions, the eventual eviction of those Asiatic conquerors, the rise of Muscovy as the key power in the Slavic lands, and the eventual consolidation of the Russian state under the Romanov dynasty – over half a millennium – the Russians had no maritime presence to speak of. For a large, populous nation with significant coastlines on the Baltic and Black Seas, this was inherently limiting. By the time of Tsar Peter the Great, the Western-looking modernizer, this was a major liability in terms of European geopolitics. For Russia to be taken seriously, it would have to build a navy. Peter worked assiduously to bring his nation to the level of its European contemporaries in this domain – even moving his capital to the coastal city now known as St. Petersburg – but the task was Sisyphean. Russian culture was simply not a maritime one. By the end of his reign, Russia did indeed have a navy, but it was centuries behind its peers. When Peter’s pet project was finally able to sail the Baltic with pride, Europeans had been circumnavigating the world for over 150 years. And things only got worse.
Despite its immense advantages in manpower, territory, and resources, Russia struggled even to maintain control over its Black Sea littoral against its traditional enemy, the Turk. Even though Moscow repeatedly defeated the Ottoman Empire on land, it was never able to break through the straits which separate the Black Sea from the Mediterranean. Throughout the 19th century, the Russians were pushed back from their objectives by simple naval displays from rival powers, namely the British. In 1904, when in the process of sending its Baltic fleet to the Pacific to fight against the Japanese, the Russian navy almost lost a ‘battle’ to a bunch of random British civilian trawlers. In the Dogger Bank incident, the Russian fleet misidentified those fishing vessels as Japanese torpedo boats (yes, really) that were prepared to attack it in the North Sea. In the ensuing chaos, multiple fishing boats were sunk and various Russian ships damaged by friendly fire. It was an inauspicious start to a shambolic journey that would end with the Baltic fleet permanently submerged under the seas near Tsushima, Japan, having been handily routed by the Japanese navy in one of the most lopsided naval engagements in modern history.
World War I was not much better for the Russians, as they were unable even to maintain naval supremacy in the Black Sea against the ramshackle excuse for an Ottoman navy. A mere two modern German vessels that were transferred to Turkish control were able to dominate the Russians for over three years in a region where one would expect a strong Russian presence. Germany likewise kept the Imperial fleet bottled up in the Baltic and was able to successfully interdict a great deal of arms shipments sent via sea and intended to boost the Russian war effort. During the Second World War, the Soviet navy was essentially useless – largely due to the focus of the war effort on land. But the navy itself was never able to inflict a significant defeat on its German counterpart, despite the immense success of its land-based maneuvers. For most of the war, then, the Baltic was a German lake.
This landward focus was maintained throughout the Cold War, while aerospace technology further turned the naval forces into an afterthought. The USSR was able to field a sizeable navy, including many nuclear submarines, but its technology was never competitive with that of the West, in spite of what Tom Clancy would have you believe. Throughout the duration of that twilight struggle, America had the upper hand when it came to the maritime domain. We were the first to have nuclear-powered vessels, the first to develop a submarine nuclear deterrent, and had the greatest number of advanced warships, including the all-important aircraft carrier. Although it was unclear at the time, the US far outclassed the Soviet Union when it came to naval power for the entire period from 1945 to the ultimate collapse of Soviet communism in 1991. That has not changed in the time since.
The modern Russian navy is, when compared to the American navy, a complete mess. It has only one non-nuclear aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, which has been undergoing repairs and modernization since 2017 and is unable to sail. It does not launch aircraft in the most modern and advanced manner – the launch catapult – but actually is ramped at the far end of the runway. Yes, the only Russian aircraft carrier is a useless relic that would have been obsolete well before the end of the Cold War. In comparison, the United States has eleven modern aircraft carriers, all nuclear-powered. The difference in aircraft carriers is only one example of how much better equipped the US navy is than the Russian. As I mentioned, the American navy has its share of maintenance issues, crashes, and problems, but they pale in comparison to those of their Russian counterparts. The most infamous incident in this regard is the sinking of the nuclear submarine Kursk in 2000, with the deaths of all 118 crewmen. This was one of the most modern subs in the Russian fleet, yet it was destroyed by faulty manufacturing; Moscow refused all external assistance and doomed the men who survived the initial explosion to a lengthy torture at the bottom of the Barents Sea. Such a disaster should end all speculation that Russia’s navy could compete with that of the United States. But in case that isn’t enough for you, let’s look at how these two navies have fared in recent combat experience.
Right now, in the waters of the Red Sea off the coast of Yemen, the US Navy is fighting its longest and most intense battle since the end of the Second World War. No matter what one thinks of our strategy for facing down the Houthi threat to shipping – and I think it is terrible – the navy has performed stunningly well. It has shot down hundreds of modern drones, missiles, and other projectiles, with few losses to merchant shipping and no American casualties. The fact that our navy has been able to successfully prevent the vast majority of Houthi attacks from hitting their targets is a major mark in its favor. This is high-intensity naval combat, and the American navy is passing the test with flying colors.
Russia, on the other hand, is not doing so well in the maritime domain. In its unjust war against Ukraine, Russia should have a massive naval advantage. Both share the Black Sea littoral, but Moscow – due to its 2014 invasion – has total control over the strategically-critical Crimean Peninsula and should be able to deploy its naval strength without much challenge. The pre-war Ukrainian navy was comparatively weak, with almost no large vessels capable of standing up to their Russian peers. In spite of those seeming disadvantages, Ukraine has essentially defeated the Russian Black Sea fleet, sinking a third of its total strength including its flagship, the cruiser Moskva. Kyiv has been able to do this largely through anti-ship missiles – the same kind being shot down by American vessels in the Middle East – and seaborne drones. These are not unbeatable attacks, but the Russian navy has had no real defense against them. Instead of being a factor that could have ended the war rapidly, the Russian fleet has been almost entirely useless and is mostly bottled up in port to protect against Ukrainian attack. That a smaller power has been able to inflict so much damage on Russia’s naval strength in a sea that it should dominate is proof that the Russian navy is nowhere near a match for America.
All in all, the Secretary of Defense’s remarks are not inaccurate when it comes to the need to boost our maritime power. But if anyone thinks that we would struggle to defeat Russia at sea, they are historically illiterate and unfamiliar with the current state of the Russian navy. Hell, I think my daughter’s bath toys would have a good chance at taking out a few Russian capital ships. If anything, let’s lay the myth of Russian naval power to rest at the bottom of the seafloor – it’ll surely have plenty of company.