December 6, 2024

Institute for the Study of War:  Russian navy has not yet evacuated its base in Tartus, Syria

Institute for the Study of War

Russian forces have not yet evacuated the Russian naval base in Tartus, Syria as of December 6, but it remains unclear whether Russia will keep its vessels at the port as Syrian rebels continue to advance swiftly across regime-held territory. Former Norwegian Navy officer and independent OSINT analyst Thord Are Iversen assessed that the Russian Novorossiysk Kilo-class submarine, a Gorshkov-class frigate, the Admiral Grigorovich Grigorovich-class frigate, and possibly the Vyazma Kaliningradneft-class oiler have returned to the port in Tartus based on satellite imagery collected on December 6.[1] Satellite imagery collected on December 3 showed that Russia had removed all of its ships stationed at Tartus – the Admiral Grigorovich frigatethe Novorossisysk submarine, the Admiral Gorshkov and Admiral Golovko Gorskhov-class frigates, and likely the Vyazma oiler and the Yelnya Altay-class oiler – from the port sometime between December 1 and 3.[2] The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) claimed on December 3 that ten Russian naval vessels, including the Admiral Gorshkov and Admiral Golovko frigates and Novorossiysk submarine, participated in hypersonic and cruise missile launch exercises in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, and Russian Chief of the General Staff Army General Valery Gerasimov reportedly informed the US about Russian exercises in the Mediterranean during a call on November 27.[3] It is unclear if Russia removed the Admiral Grigorovich and the two oilers from Tartus as part of the exercise as well. Some of the vessels that Russian forces removed from Tartus between December 1 and 3 have not returned to port as of December 6.

Bloomberg reported on December 6 that a person close to the Kremlin stated that Russia does not have a plan to save Syrian President Bashar al Assad and that Russia is unlikely to create such a plan as long as pro-regime forces continue to abandon their positions.[4] The Russian Embassy in Syria notably announced on December 6 that Russian citizens living in Syria should leave the country on commercial flights due to the “difficult military and political situation” in Syria.[5] It remains unclear whether Russia plans to continue to maintain all of these vessels at Tartus or is planning to evacuate all or some of them elsewhere.

Russia appears to be redeploying at least some of its air defense assets that were defending Russia’s Khmeimim Air Base in Syria, but the reason for this redeployment remains unclear at this time. Geolocated footage published on December 6 shows Russian forces transporting S-300 or S-400 and Tor-M1 air defense systems near Baniyas along the M1 Lakatia-Tartus highway.[6] A Russian milblogger posted the same footage on December 6 and claimed that it showed Russian forces moving an S-400 system and a Tor-M2 system that Russian forces had deployed near Masyaf (about 50 kilometers southeast of Khmeimin Air Base) in 2017 to protect Khmeimin Air Base.[7] The milblogger claimed that Russian forces are either redeploying the air defense systems to Khmeimim Air Base or Tartus due to Syrian rebel groups’ recent seizure of Hama City (roughly 35 kilometers east of Masyaf). It is unclear if Russian forces are redeploying the air defense systems to new positions within western Syria in order to improve their survivability or if Russian forces are moving the air defense systems for evacuation from Syria through Tartus.

The Kremlin continues to advance its strategic effort to de facto annex Belarus and further expand the Russian military’s presence in Belarus through the Union State framework. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko signed a new Union State treaty on security guarantees at a meeting of the Supreme State Council of the Union State in Minsk, Belarus on December 6.[8] Lukashenko made a public appeal to Putin that Russia deploy Oreshnik ballistic missiles to Belarus under the condition that the Belarusian military-political leadership would determine the Oreshnik’s targets should the missile ever launch from Belarusian territory.[9] Putin responded to Lukashenko’s request by stating that Russia could deploy Oreshnik systems to Belarus by mid-2025 on the grounds of the new Union State agreement on security guarantees and as Russia scales up the production of Oreshnik ballistic missiles.[10] Putin noted that the new security treaty allows Russia and Belarus to use “all available forces and means” as part of Russia’s and Belarus’ mutual defense obligations.[11]

The treaty also requires Russia and Belarus to ensure the security of the Union State’s borders, and Putin emphasized that the new document includes the potential use of Russian tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Belarus in the event of aggression against Belarus.[12] The agreement follows the release of Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine on November 19, which formally placed Belarus under Russia’s nuclear umbrella and consistent with Russia’s existing treaty obligations with Belarus.[13] The deployment of Oreshnik ballistic missiles to Belarus would further increase Russia’s military footprint in Belarus and advance the Kremlin’s longstanding strategic effort to erode Belarusian sovereignty and de facto annex Belarus through the Union State framework.

Russia and Belarus also signed 10 other Union State documents, including a Union State security concept, a decree on uniform rules in the field of consumer rights protection, a decree on joint measures to combat smuggling, an agreement on the formation of a common electric energy market, a resolution on the cancellation of mobile device roaming, and a resolution celebratory event for 80th anniversary of victory in World War II, among other Union State matters.[14]

Lukashenko is likely trying to preserve Belarusian sovereignty against Moscow by advocating that Belarus control Russian weapons deployed in Belarus – an endeavor Lukashenko has historically failed at. Lukashenko publicly requested that Minsk have the right to decide on how to use Oreshnik missiles in Belarus likely in an attempt to preserve Belarus’ sovereignty within the Union State and buttress his negotiating position against further Union State integration.[15] Lukashenko has long attempted to compete against the Kremlin to determine whether Belarus can assert control over Russian military assets – such as advanced S-400 air defense systems – deployed to Belarus.[16] Belarusian Security Council State Secretary Alexander Volfovich similarly baselessly claimed that only Lukashenko can issue the order to use the Russian tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Belarus.[17] Lukashenko noted that the Russian military personnel will continue to operate the Oreshnik system in Belarus, which indicates that Moscow will retain control over any Oreshnik ballistic missiles deployed to Belarus.

The deployment of the Oreshnik missiles to Belarus does not significantly increase the immediate risks of intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) strikes against Ukraine or NATO states despite the Kremlin’s intensified nuclear saber-rattling. Putin once again tried to flaunt the Oreshnik missile and Russian missile capabilities during the Union State Supreme State Council meeting as part of the Kremlin’s reflexive control information operation. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov similarly attempted to frame the Oreshnik strike against Dnipro City on November 21 as Russia’s readiness to use any means to prevent the West from strategically defeating Russia in an interview with an American media personality on December 5.[18] ISW continues to assess that the Kremlin’s constant flaunting of the Oreshnik missile is unlikely to presage the development of particularly novel Russian deep-strike capabilities.[19] Russia’s deployment of Oreshnik missiles to Belarus does not significantly change the threat to Ukraine or NATO given that the Russian military has long had nuclear weapons in mainland Russia and the enclave of Kaliningrad capable of striking targets in Ukraine and NATO. Russian forces fire nuclear-capable Iskander ballistic missiles, Kinzhal hypersonic ballistic missiles, and nuclear-capable Kh-101 cruise missiles against Ukraine on a regular basis.[20]

The Kremlin is scapegoating former Kursk Oblast Governor Alexei Smirnov for Russia’s failure to adequately respond to Ukraine’s incursion into Kursk Oblast. Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree on December 5 stating that Smirnov resigned “at his own request” and appointed Russian State Duma Information Policy Committee Head Alexander Khinshtein as acting Kursk Oblast governor.[21] Putin held a publicized meeting with Khinshtein on December 5 in which Putin offered Khinshtein the post of acting governor and emphasized the importance of crisis management in Kursk Oblast.[22]

Khinshtein’s appointment comes after weeks of protests from Kursk Oblast residents for additional government assistance for housing and amid Russian forces’ continued failure to repel the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk Oblast that began in early August 2024.[23] Putin appointed Smirnov as acting head in May 2024 before Kursk Oblast residents formally elected Smirnov as head in September 2024. Russian state news wire TASS noted that Smirnov only served as head of Kursk Oblast for 205 days, of which he only spent 80 days as elected governor.[24] The Kremlin likely refrained from replacing Smirnov during the September 2024 election to downplay the societal impacts of the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk Oblast.[25]

Other senior Russian officials – including Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, Russian State Duma Chairperson Vyacheslav Volodin, and Russian Transport Minister and Smirnov’s predecessor Roman Starovoit – emphasized that Putin appointed Khinshtein because Smirnov was not adequately communicating with or supporting Kursk Oblast residents regarding housing issues and praised Khinshtein as capable of solving these issues.[26] Putin likely replaced Smirnov with Khinshtein now to appear dedicated to solving social issues in Kursk Oblast and quell local protests while distracting from Russia’s failure to repel the Ukrainian incursion.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov used his interview with an American media personality to reiterate Kremlin talking points that are intended to shape American foreign policy and achieve a US-Russia reset detrimental to US interests and on the Kremlin’s terms. Lavrov stated during the interview published on December 5 that the Kremlin wants “normal” relations with the United States and reiterated longstanding Kremlin rhetorical lines attempting to blame the United States and NATO for undermining relations with Russia. Lavrov’s statements largely aligned with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s November 7 talking points that also advocated for a US-Russia reset on Russia’s terms.[27] Lavrov also indicated that the Kremlin still has no intentions to negotiate on any terms other than its own and falsely claimed that Russia wants to end the war in Ukraine on the basis of the United Nations (UN) Charter – despite Russia’s continuing to violate the UN Charter by waging its illegal war of conquest against Ukraine in violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, territorial integrity, and Russia‘s previous treaties with Ukraine. Lavrov rejected any notion of Russian forces withdrawing from occupied Ukraine and falsely claimed that Russia is not attempting to “exterminate” the Ukrainian people. Lavrov’s statements are part of the Kremlin’s continued effort to shape American foreign policy so the United States engages with Russia on terms favorable to the Kremlin without offering any concessions favorable to the United States or conceding any of the Kremlin’s maximalist objectives either in Ukraine or globally.[28]

Key Takeaways:

  • Russian forces have not yet evacuated the Russian naval base in Tartus, Syria as of December 6, but it remains unclear whether Russia will keep its vessels at the port as Syrian rebels continue to advance swiftly across regime-held territory.
  • Russia appears to be redeploying at least some of its air defense assets that were defending Russia’s Khmeimim Air Base in Syria, but the reason for this redeployment remains unclear at this time.
  • The Kremlin continues to advance its strategic effort to de facto annex Belarus and further expand the Russian military’s presence in Belarus through the Union State framework.
  • Lukashenko is likely trying to preserve Belarusian sovereignty against Moscow by advocating that Belarus control Russian weapons deployed in Belarus – an endeavor Lukashenko has historically failed at.
  • The deployment of the Oreshnik missiles to Belarus does not significantly increase the immediate risks of intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) strikes against Ukraine or NATO states despite the Kremlin’s intensified nuclear saber-rattling.
  • The Kremlin is scapegoating former Kursk Oblast Governor Alexei Smirnov for Russia’s failure to adequately respond to Ukraine’s incursion into Kursk Oblast.
  • Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov used his interview with an American media personality to reiterate Kremlin talking points that are intended to shape American foreign policy and achieve a US-Russia reset detrimental to US interests and on the Kremlin’s terms.
  • Western sanctions are reportedly degrading the overall quality of Russian drones, indicating that targeted sanctions are having some negative effects on the Russian defense industrial base (DIB).
  • Russian forces recently advanced near Toretsk, Pokrovsk, Kurakhove, and Vuhledar.
  • The Russian military continues to lose parts of its officer corps, a resource that is difficult to replenish, as part of Russia’s ever-increasing casualties.
Share the Post:

Wilson Center

Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!

At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.

The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.

Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.

It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.