0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
3,048 $

Russia Pulls Out Admiral Kuznetsov Battlegroup From Syrian Waters, Reduces Military Presence In Country

Support SouthFront

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: southfront@list.ru or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

The Russian Navy is returning Admiral Kuznetsov heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser and its battlegroup from the Mediterranean to its home base in Russia’s Severomorsk.

Admiral Kuznetsov, accompanied by Pyotr Veliky battle cruiser, Severomorsk and Vice-Admiral Kulakov anti-submarine destroyers, Admiral Grigorovich frigate and support vessels, has been involved in a counterterrorism operation in Syria since November 8.

Warplanes Admiral Kuznetsov’s deck carried out 420 sorties, destroying 1,252 terrorist targets in Syria.

Admiral Kuznetsov is returning to its home base as Russia begins reducing its military presence in the country.

Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a partial pullout of military forces from Syria after negotiating a ceasefire deal with Iran and Turkey.

Support SouthFront


Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Upgrade and fix that failed ship.


failed? please explain….did this ship fail to complete it’s mission or are you just another butt hurt American out trolling Russians because they don’t pour $$$trillions into obsolete carriers groups whose only survivable mission is bombing third world nations?


The claim of pilot error is not believed to be the true cause of losing two planes. Many suspect it is the landing system of the carrier. In any case, whichever is true, those were two expensive planes to lose.

Johnson Malarkey

So was the life of a U.S. Marine pilot that died off the coast of Japan, after he ejected from an FA-18C plane. At least these two were only machines, not the lives lost. :-/


The US Navy lose aircraft due to carrier mishaps regularly and no one makes a big deal out of it…..when it happens to the Russians it’s held up by the MSM as proof of their incompetence and inability to master technology more complex than a steam engine.

This is the first one that came up in a google search. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/military/sdut-navy-jets-crash-sea-2014sep12-story.html Carrier operations are dangerous and you lose aircraft regardless of who is operating them.


How many times have you seen US naval aircraft operating from land bases. Anyway, no need to argue, USA have conducted so many big wars using their carriers … you chose the wrong hill to die on if you try to argue that “everyone loses airplanes”.

This was the first real Kuznetsov deployment and it failed. It is like comparing a baby’s first steps with an olympic runner. USA was conducting huge coordinated carrier operations since WW2 dude, don’t be ridiculous and compare them !


Within a short time they had problems with the arresting cables and lost two planes. Most planes were operating from an airbase in Syria.

If you think this is how a carrier operation is supposed to operate, I have news for you. Then again, you think carrier groups are obsolete, so maybe I cannot help you much.


I think how aircraft carriers in the US military and aircraft carrying cruisers in the Russian military have different missions and the USA and Russia have different foreign policy objectives therefore different military doctrines.

I think the US navy has had vastly greater experience in the expeditionary use of naval air power and I am not surprised in the least that the Russian navy made mistakes the first time in history they sent an aircraft carrier on an expeditionary mission. All in all I would call their mission a success and they are going home with valuable lessons on using carrier based air power.

Aircraft carriers are either obsolete or not depending on the mission. Defensively, close to home they are very powerful in the role of extending air defences. In an expeditionary force role against peers they are very vulnerable. I’ve heard arguments that carrier groups can defend against subs, ballistic missiles and sea skimming missiles but the question is how can they defend against a coordinated attack using all three in volleys coming at you in waves combined with decoys and EW…..this is what you would be facing against Russia, China or even India.

You don’t need to sink a carrier to render it impotent…..all you have to do is either interrupt flight operations or force the carrier out of effective range. If a carrier is used defensively it is falling back into a a better defensive position when forced to retreat but when used offensively it just becomes unless and an expensive asset to lose.


do not eat the propaganda


The americans have acknowledged the threat of missile volleys and that’s why they are using Aegis systems, which are automated and don’t require human intervention. I am sure they have run many simulations.

Noone knows what will happen since it has never happened in reality and cannot be tested in real conditions. But if you think a US carrier force will be unprepared to deal with such threats then you are mistaken, their systems and doctrine cover the possibility of such attacks and they have been trained for this eventuality.

The Kuznetsov failed to operate as a proper aircraft carrier, it will go back and enter a loooong period of upgrading/reconstruction, I hope it comes out as a proper ship for its role eventually.


“The Kuznetsov failed to operate as a proper aircraft carrier,” Proper aircraft carrier?

First off the Kuznetsov is an aircraft carrying guided missile cruiser not an “aircraft carrier”. Take a look at it…..does it look like a US aircraft carrier?

Do US aircraft carriers for example have as their main armament anti-shipping missiles, anti-submarine warfare missiles as well as anti aircraft missiles? Perhaps that should be a clue that this ship isn’t meant to ba a “proper aircraft carrier” but is of a class that doesn’t exist in the US navy.

Next look at where the Kuznetsov is stationed. Way up in northern Russia, above the arctic circle. Are any US “proper aircraft carriers” stationed in Alaska for example? No.

Why would the Russians station an aircraft carrier, a ship whose mission is to project force, up above the arctic circle where there are no nations to attack and thousands of miles away from any sort of action? Perhaps to defend the Russian nuclear submarine flee, stationed in Murmansk and known to hide in the Arctic ocean from ASW?

Think about it….. a mix of anti-shipping missiles, anti-submarine warfare missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, anti-submarine warfare helicopters and just enough aircraft to keep the wolves away. Does that sound like a “proper aircraft carrier” or a ship with a defensive mission that the Russians conveniently used in Syria?


Regardless, the Kuznetsov carries a naval task force which was unable to conduct operations from its deck. Now it will be away for a long time and overhauled completely, which is the right thing to do.

Right now, it is not worth its costs.


“carries a naval task force”??? Interesting term “naval task force” They had a task, it was naval and it did include force but the term “naval task force” is an American and Nato term.

I’ll give you another term that if you’ve been listening is a commonly used term in the Russian military these days “asymmetrical warfare” which means using force in unexpected and unorthodox ways.

Given Russia size and budget compared to NATO which has something like a 15:1 advantage over Russia it would be folly for them to try and match NATO toe to toe. To even try to build a navy modelled on NATO’s or the US navies force structure is a never going to work for them.

If you still think it would be a good idea for Russia to build a navy based on what the USA does and try to compete toe to toe with them then you have a poor grasp of strategy and no vision.

The Kuznetsov achieved 420 sorties and god know how many training launches with 2 mishaps……that’s a 99.52% success rate…..on their very first “carrier mission” in history. I wouldn’t characterize that as a failure. The USA has been doing this for 75 years and still regularly lose aircraft during carrier operations.


Failed how?.


Failed to operate as an aircraft carrier since it immediately lost two aircraft as soon as the operations started and then its fleet was operating from a ground base.

Maybe it should be redesignated as aircraft ferry.


420 targets destroyed ain’t too bad.

Tudor Miron

420 sorties. More than 1200 targets.


How did your carriers do in Syria? .


I am not an american. My country does not have carriers :-)

And I am not spreading US propaganda, just stating my honest opinion. I’m pro-Russia but some things need to be said.

J. Walker

You’d be forgiven for thinking the carrier sailed all the way to Syrian coastal waters for the sole purpose of losing two fighter jets! The MSM never said a word of the 1.2K targets eliminated by the task-force.


There was a rumor that large parts of East Aleppo where just devastated by granite missiles from the task force. But for some reason it never made the news! :)

PJ London

Two interesting things. You can never foresee what Russia – Putin are going to do. It just hits the news as a fait accompli. All the world’s major Aircraft Carriers (carrier groups) are in port or heading for port. Hmmmm. China hardly has one and it is not in operation. Jul 27, 2016 – India’s solitary aircraft carrier, INS Vikramaditya, will be ready for action only after eight months due its ongoing maintenance refit. (not in operation) That leaves France, Italy and Spain. Spain is broke and can’t afford diesel. Italy (you’re joking) and France the world’s fastest surrender monkeys. I think that this is (will be when Kutznetsov reaches port) the first time since the first carrier was built (1918) that there are no units at sea.


interesting. it seems that those toys are expensive

PJ London

Which is the point of them. We can’t have the peasants eating caviar and owning homes, they lose the incentive to slave for 60 hours a week. But the little sh1ts are so damn productive. We don’t need more cathedrals or palaces, no room for pyramids and there are already too many stadiums. Their mothers get upset when we send them to get shot by other peasants, and they stand around on corners calling us MF’ers. Employ them making useless bombs, unworkable planes (anyone want an F-35 going really expensive but completely unworkable) and big fat ships that breakdown or leak. Every bomb dropped on a Yemeni or his goat is two years of employment in the US and $100,000 profit for the shareholders. Oh, it is a lovely war. (and there are lots of goats in Yemen.)

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.” — Dwight D. Eisenhower

Tom Tom

aircraft carriers are sitting ducks now.


You can never foresee what Russia – Putin are going to do

everything is perfectly predictable. putin is an open book.


Hope they leave some of those jets in Syria . I know Putin knows what he’s up to , but leaving without some sort of necessity seems premature .


for now they have spilled enough civilian blood. mission accompished

Tom Tom

Obomber invited them in by:

1. Destroying Libya 2. Providing money and weapons to jihadi’s in Libya and elsewhere, esp. sunni’s in Iraq, and of course training in Qatar, to go fight in Syria.

ISIS was a part of the deal between CIA and the Sunni tribes in Iraq. It was a pre-set agenda that got them to stop blowing up American soldiers with IED’s in Iraq but more importantly (to the U.S. elites) to provide a new buffer between the Israeli’s/Saudi’s and Iran, just as Saddam served CIA. The Sunni’s drove a hard bargain and wanted more than just western Iraq, they wanted the oil bearing parts of Syria with their oil resources (underground still) making Syria #19 in the world. That gave CIA their buffer AND (they thought) would help them get rid of Assad, who is not a part of the dollar world. They sell their oil in other currencies besides dollars, sharing that policy with Sadam in Iraq, Ghadaffi in Libya, and the Iranians.


You notice that Al Nusra and Al Quida are not finished spilling civilian blood . Let’s see , poisoning the Damascus water supply , and then cutting the electricity on a city of 5.5 million people . Then ISIS cuts the main river water intake for Aleppo . These are not what I consider noble warriors , actually not warriors at all . Any animal has more nobility .



The limited Russian drawdown is to show support for Syria “ceasefire” plan. The land based air can handle the situation. Some rebel areas may become less aggressive, and less air strikes needed. Have you noticed even Al Nusra is not in the news with attacks lately? Something may have happened behind the scenes, or is weather crappy for them?

SAA can use this pause to weaken ISUS, for sure they are not covered by any ceasefire agreement. They grow weaker every day without new recruits, and need to defend Raqqa.


Job well done by Russia and good experience for the Navy operating the Kuznetsov, they need to work on arrestor cable issues for sure but the vessel worked up very well, no engine issues at all………learn from the experience!.


The Granit cruise missiles did a good job too……..any new carriers should have similar armaments too.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x