Reason why Russia doesn't have many aircraft carrier

In today’s session, we will discuss the reason why Russia doesn’t have many aircraft carrier like other superpower nations? Historically known as a land of superpower, the Soviet Union struggled with the idea of a large naval aviation arm for most of its history, eventually settling on a series of hybrid aircraft carriers. Big plans for additional ships failed with the Soviet collapse, but Russia received one large aircraft carrier at the end of the Cold War that remains in service today. Despite the fact that many of the problems affected the Soviet Union's, naval aviation projects still exist today, the Russian navy has one of the most active aircraft carriers in the world, the Kuznetsov.
All content on Military TV is presented for educational purposes.
Subscribe Now :
/ @military-tv
/ militarytv.channel
defense-tv.com/

[@principsus]

The Kuznetsov aircraft carrier is so active and powerful, that it's even doesn't need to be deployed to the sea!

[@truthray2885]

It goes fastest backwards, hooked up to a tow line.

[@GreenAndPPCLI]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@GreenAndPPCLI]

The Problem with this carrier: it is not atomic driven. It needs fuel and russia sells all fuel it has to finance this stupid "military special operation"

[@vincedangerio546]

A true POS on a massive scale. Bordering on useless for them with reliability of an aging Lada.

[@aussiefan354]

Hahaha brilliant mate

[@SigaSigaJohn]

The actual tile should have been WHY RUSSIA HAS NO AIRCRAFT CARRIERS

[@mrgeorgeb0062]

They do have a carrier it’s just not very good and is completely fucked

[@vorosjanos77]

The strategy is changing. Just as the cavalry or the arrows and spears are outdated. Against hypersonic missile systems, motherships provide only a large target surface. Anyway, the planes are only used to bring the missiles closer and launch them from 100km and turn around ... The Russians' military spending budget is very tight. They can't develop in all directions, The su57 still hasn't received the planned engine, the armata tank project has been canceled, no mothership has been planned. However, all possible money was invested in rocket development. If we can believe the parameters they have given, very successfully! Avatgard, Kinzal, Tsirkon ... the patriot or the thaad don't know what to do with them, the mother ship is just a big target, a reactor hit and the excellent fighters on board, only radioactive scrap metal under the sea ... Missile launch bases are difficult to destroy by air, the Russian system S400, S500, S550 can destroy aircraft, stealth planes, cruise missiles, even mach 10+ missiles. Let's say it's a theory for now, they haven't tried in practice. A few years ago, the S400 (an older version of the S400, not the one used today) was only partially delivered to Syria and captured 60% of the tomahawk missiles.

[@justinlance4174]

@@vorosjanos77 USA has thaad that's hypersonic missile defense. Its warhead goes mach 8. Sm6 naval defense missile goes mach 15. And dark eagle hypersonic missiles entered service mach 20. With agm 183a on its way.

[@justinlance4174]

@@vorosjanos77 and s400 only intercepted 1 tomahawk. Out of 57 launched on syria. And Israeli f35s have evaded s400 in Syria multiple times.

[@spitfire8790]

@@vorosjanos77 Carriers are not Outdated, wanna know why? Because Russia hasn't scrapped it's Carriers.

[@nigelbagguley7606]

Another problem for the Russian navy is that when the Soviet Union collapsed ,they lost their main ship yard at Nikolayev outside Odessa.

[@Bustermachine]

I'm starting to think they want to conquer Ukraine because it's where the old USSR kept all of its cool shit.

[@commie5211]

@@Bustermachine yep, but they don't have to go to Ukraine, their "best friend" already digged everything out during the 90s.

[@ErnestJay88]

Historically, Russia wasn't a naval power from the start, even during Russian Empire, which is one of the most powerful nation on the planet, yet they lose Russo - Japanese war naval battle

[@speedylordinc.3748]

Japan on the other hand is a strong naval force!

[@vinct7023]

It was not a naval power and proved it is not even a ground power either, not so much an air power nation if we look how hard they have to get full superiority over Ukraine. Also a carrier could be destroyed without much issue using a saturation of anti-ship missiles + submarine torpedoes/missiles. It would be a waste of resources knowing Russia military budget is just a bit higher than France budget. Russia is not anymore a superpower, far to be. Nato military budget is at least 14 times higher than Russia ones, with highly trained divisions, not all of them for sure but way more than the total number of really trained Russia divisions. Beside their 6000 nuclear heads, they have nothing to write home about... and they can't even use them unless Russia is physically invaded, something no countries even try to do anyway. Let's them collapse under their oligarch's dynasty :D

[@mikev2066]

@@vinct7023 You need to be really very dumb in order to think that Russia is not a power just because they don't have "full superiority over Ukraine". Russia is not using its power even at a half rate in this conflict, they do not bomb social infrastructure, they do not kill citizens naming them "collateral damage".

[@Desire123ification]

Not a necessity, yet two could be required: One for the Atlantic Ocean and another for the Pacific.

[@georgeantabi6025]

@Ruslan Masinjila because why not?

[@flixri726]

So, to really project power over the whole year you would need 2 additional for both theaters. Also, why should russia need them there?

[@killbot86]

Russia tried to purchase two Mistral Class helicopter carriers from France but that was cancelled in 2014 when Russia invaded eastern Ukraine....

[@Villain1874]

Reason why Russia doesn't have many aircraft carrier - Because they drop cranes on them 😉

[@cousinjack2841]

30 knots eh? I didn't realise tugs could go that fast :)

[@maksimluzin1121]

The Minister of Defense of Russia S.Shoygu: "Russia don't need aircraft carriers, Russia need weapon systems to sink them up!"... Onyx, Caliber, Kinzhal, Zircon... 😎

[@only6517]

Iron dome can stop them

[@X.Y.Z.07]

@@only6517 Iron Dome against hypersonic missile?

[@Narukosaki]

Who's going to maintain the weapon system? When the current technicians retire?

[@X.Y.Z.07]

@@Narukosaki Putin

[@jonahyvesorteza404]

They can try the fact that they wont means they cant.

[@paulm5831]

"one of the most active aircrft carriers in the world" ..... and later is stated that from 2016 is out of service. who writes your text?

[@rafterrafter5320]

How can the Kuznetsov be, one of the most active aircraft carriers in the world,when it takes several Tugboats in order for the Dinosaur to Propel itself?

[@Otter-Destruction]

lmao let alone being in dry dock for like 1/3 of its lifetime

[@bh8671]

Or you know. They don’t want to control the world like America does. And only keep it operating for the sake of it.

[@kenwiltshire7834]

And the engines came from Ukraine. At that time they made all the Soviet Unions engines

[@holdfast453]

@@kenwiltshire7834 There wasn’t Ukraine nor Russia. Planned economy with centrally allocated industries. Thus Antonov Aircraft were moved from Moscow to Ukraine, so now they are banging about every “An” being Ukrainian. Same applies to Crimea.

[@holdfast453]

Well, the Chinese bought its sister ship Varyag from Ukraine, and even managed to copy-paste a larger version recently. If you want to see Kuznetsov in decent upkeep, go to China. Russia doesn’t need any carriers, their enormous landmass gives them all the launch pad locations they need, the rest is submarines and missiles.

[@rocksteel44]

...GREAT VIDEO !!!!!!!!!!!! :)

[@Whosback1]

The one flattop they have is almost useless. I think they depend on there subs and missle sits for protection.

[@makegaminggreatagain3907]

Of topic a bit, the new voice over is great, please keep it, also carriers* "many" implies more than one where carrier is singular. Great video though, very intuitive and concise.

[@grantt1589]

You forgot the "s" on the end because "many" Implies multiple new carriers even though the currently only have 1

[@softballm1991]

The Russia has few aircraft carriers! Few? One is not few! And if the one has been in dry dock for 4 years and they cannot tell you when it will be repaired, I argue they have 0 aircraft carriers.

[@perfect.player]

@Ruslan Masinjila american aircrafts too, but US has 11 cvn's

[@andreyg.2388]

@@perfect.player Russia needs more tanks than carriers, US - vice versa. Russia already located in the Center of the World - Eurasia. But for US to not have carriers would be critical.

[@mrgeorgeb0062]

@@perfect.player what? That made no sense…

[@perfect.player]

@@mrgeorgeb0062 he deleted his comment (

[@perfect.player]

@@mrgeorgeb0062 he said that russia has ballistic missiles

[@bpyangyang2153]

I believe Russia's doctrine of war in producing weapons is but for defensive purposes mostly while a carrier is its opposite. Moreover their other defensive weapons are more suitable considering their teritorries expanding from Kaliningrad to Bering strait far off not to mention on north and south. So one single aircraft carrier is 'too many' for today's Rossiya. It is my personal opinion.

[@KondorDCS]

A carrier nowadays is nothing more then terror weapon, a tool for oppression, thx to what the US has been using them for in the last few decades.

[@JimCOsd55]

@@KondorDCS … I think Varangian Guard was closer to the truth … the Soviets couldn’t afford their carriers and neither can Russia! Soviet Navy 1990: 467,000 personnel (1984) 1,053 ships (1990) 1,172 aircraft (1990) 5 aircraft carriers (1990) 2 helicopter carriers (1990)

[@vensb8862]

"Russia's doctrine of war in producing weapons is but for defensive purposes while the carrier is the opposite". General Kuznetsov aircraft carrier is Russian. Defensive you say then why invade Crimea in Ukraine, Georgia, Afghanistan, Kuriles Islands Russia is one of the biggest arms exporters in the world. Stop listening to RT news.

[@bpyangyang2153]

@@KondorDCS You are right! Thx.

[@HATCH5T]

@@JimCOsd55 Yes thats why 1 is only made XD and that too just because it is on sea the rest were scrapped and Kuril islands is Russia ,wht Don't you talk about hawaii and Weapons expirter does not mean it is offensive thats called business. Stop listening to CNN and MSN lol

[@Interventor-xn5bs]

Just a hipersonic missile from land or ship and any carrier will sink fastly.

[@mjuneoginn]

Aside from the fact that they’re unable to create and mobilize a formidable Carrier Strike Group on the Sea Surface… Why rely on surface ships that is the main target of most Naval Strike Groups- when you can go armed to the teeth with Stealth and Weapons capable of destroying land masses and atmospheric/astrospheric targets: while submerged?! THUS Russia- through the Russian Navy; is a MASTER of Underwater Warfare through their Submarine Fleet; with the Akulas, Yasens, Typhoons, and Borei Tactical Attack/Ballistic Missile Strike Subs ready to send most surface fleets to the abyss, and level down the earth and skies with their ballistic missiles

[@Nathanct43]

They can form and mobilise a formidable Carrier Strike Group. It's usually the Battlecruiser Pyotr Velikiy, a Slava, some Destroyers and a Replenishment Oiler

[@ancaplanaoriginal5303]

They aren't masters of shit, they have zero experience in submarine warfare aside from that warcrime in WWII. The US and Britain have way more experience than russia just by their massive submarine campaign in the pacific. The russian navy is a fucking joke.

[@meerkatsuricata9729]

What happens to the narrator voice of Military TV?

[@raymondpaller6475]

Egads!!!!!! How can this be?????? I remember Time magazine stories containing phrases like "The Russian bear has learned how to swim" and "Why Ivan is taking calculus while Johnny can barely read."

[@vutruong7761]

That why they more focus on ice breaker and submarines, they don't need a warm all year around sea port to operate those.

[@kenwiltshire7834]

Wooow! Did you completely miss the point. As Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu was quoted as saying, “We don’t need aircraft carriers, we need weapons to sink them.” Aircraft Carriers have nothing to do with the defense of your country. They are for FORCE PROJECTION. In other words, to take your military into someone else’s backyard. As you vaguely eluded to, Russia does not have a history of that. Not because they cant but because they CHOOSE not to. They will definitely fight on their borders. When the Europeans were colonizing Africa, South America and Asia, Russia was not involved. That is not their thing. They are a defensive minded people. Which is why they sold two of the three carriers, One to China and another to India. They believe in home field advantage and most of their weaponry reflects that defensive mind set.

[@michaelmcnally2331]

I think you will find whilst Europe was colonising Africa, South America and south east Asia that Russia was busy marching eastward across the north of Asia to find it’s natural borders. Russia did not originally border the pacific but conquered and settled the territory.

[@Chunkylover.]

Russia already have the weapons to sink an aircraft. The tsirkon

[@mrgeorgeb0062]

@@Chunkylover. wow it can kill a single aircraft boo higgity hoo

[@Chunkylover.]

@@mrgeorgeb0062 what did you expect? One missile for 2 carriers? Be realistic. Us is so far behind anyway

[@mrgeorgeb0062]

@@Chunkylover. in what? They’re ahead in almost all fields but SAMs

[@hanabangirawan3291]

do you forget , how about aircraft carrier name VARAN ? please , can you write here .....hope so

[@Bustermachine]

I definitely think there will now be significant delays . . .

[@hi_hakikii]

Russia: We don't need aircraft, let the west make as many as we can, and we'll build a counter..

[@breachstudios9511]

Could Project 23000E be a possible success if the production is outsourced to china

[@JoergSi]

Without watching the video, because Russia has only 10 military harbors, and most of the are in the artic sea? The only harbor which is accessible without passing any foreign controlled access point (Straight of Gibraltar,...) would be Pawlowski, north of Wladiwostok?

[@johnfields9669]

Pretty sure it's tug boats are more active then it is

[@EpicThe112]

their original purpose was to defend submarines from Maritime aircraft US P-3 P-8 France Breguet Atlantique and also carry anti-ship missiles for defensive purposes.

[@theSpicyHam]

perhaps, air the (ultimate) aircraft carriers; groups

[@MrShorts_Edits]

Present. 🤠

[@robertochieng1069]

"I'm broke baby, I'm broke." Dave Chapelle

[@shanepatrick4534]

Price and the complexity of fielding a carrier is why.

[@MelliodasGaming]

well i made 5 Russian aircraft carriers in Conflict of Nations World War 3 i should be like in the place of Putin

[@dietherzov8390]

WE WILL SUPPORT YOU

[@MelliodasGaming]

@@dietherzov8390 i even conquered the world and the USSR is reborn !

[@itsricobitch9442]

@@MelliodasGaming I played as Afghanistan and nuked everyone’s capital multiple times after my army was smoked

[@AlexanderArk]

CON ain't even that accurate and I can literally create Russian aircraft carriers as belarus..

[@Diegosaurus_1974]

What is that voice??

[@borisezomo8751]

They are also 30mins from Berlin, While also been 30mins from Tokyo, And really do not need a floating airport. Also the Kuznetsov is classed as an aircraft carrying battlecruiser. not a Carrier, It is capable of stand alone defence packing SAMs, Cruise missiles, Torpedoes etc

[@user-ph4wi4sy2p]

you mean this ship which broke down and set a fire itself multiple times and got tug boats from poland to help to return it to shore , uhhh i dont think any Cruise missiles or torpedoes are needed because i mean the SHIP DOESNT EVEN WORK as designed lol

[@samthesuspect]

That ship is just waiting to be decommissioned. Its been a total wreck of a investment for the Russian military, and will only further push the Russia military to focus on its ground army and missile capabilities.

[@truthray2885]

Presently it's a drydocked marshmallow roaster.

[@Jothishayamantharaadawiya]

👍👍👍👍👍

[@bondetblackhole5406]

like it because with Indonesian translate Thanks :)

[@gerrykomalaysia2]

It can house general winter, comrade

[@rudiblohm4050]

is it a Disco Ship?😂

[@Paul91415]

Kuznetsov is classified as an Aircraft carrying Missile Cruiser. So the planes and helos are just a nice Add-On xD Planes and Helos are the fleet defence, while the Kuznetsov launches AShM out of the flight deck

[@katherineberger6329]

Kuznetsov is classified as an "Aircraft-carrying missile cruiser" because carriers are considered capital ships and it's not legal for a capital ship to transit the Bosphorous. It's a legal dodge. I have never heard in my life of a cruiser that displaces 70,000 tons and has a flattop carrier deck.

[@Paul91415]

@@katherineberger6329 That's the loophole they are using. The only carrier that can sail into the Black sea

[@justinlance4174]

USA has sm6 missile destroyers. Sm6 is a mach 15 hypersonic missile.

[@shamanbhattacharyya9285]

@@justinlance4174 I thought the US failed at developing a hypersonic weapon

[@justinlance4174]

@@shamanbhattacharyya9285 nope we have Dark Eagle Hypersonic missiles mach 20 in service. The sm6 mach 15 naval hypersonic. And THAAD mach8 hypersonic missile defense.

[@MWUSA]

Rush is all done they’ll never get another one

[@scomoore1951]

How many ships in a Russian carrier battle group?

[@maddin2896]

Wieso hat ne Blondine nur eine Glühbirne im Haus genau so ne sinnlose Überschrift 😂

[@entropy_of_principles]

It call “dumped aircraft carrier” or better “ scrapped aircraft carrier”

[@ranger_fnm]

Germany needs an aircraft carrier

[@case8987]

Why would they need that when they have diversity lololol

[@augusto8821]

First we will buy dozens of F35 to put a little nuclear bomb on the Kremlin if Stalin, ähm Putin, attacks a Nato country, and many anti tank and aircraft weapons. As we see in Ukraine, Morale and equipment of the Russian army is disastrous. They are only able to bomb civilians

[@user-yf9pk4yj2p]

@@augusto8821 we “buy” you can’t win a war by buying weapons from other countries. I guess your countries never won a war.

[@augusto8821]

@@user-yf9pk4yj2p thats Not true, many countries won their wars with foreign weapons. Nevertheless, for germany it's no problem to build any kind of weapons

[@humamtaher9039]

If Germany would build an aircraft carrier, they would spend 10 billion euros only to cancel the project before the construction even began.

[@sololandscaping]

Hmm 1 air craft carrier vs a cheaper to build nuke .. he's building the nukes so he don't need any other equipment .. take me and ill take you ..

[@Kylo_Ren_2033]

Like other superpower nations? Are you sure it is plural?

[@Otter-Destruction]

I'm surprised Russia hasn't constructed aircraft carrying submarines.

[@mohit4387]

Bruh what ?

[@Otter-Destruction]

@@mohit4387 Pretty self explanatory.

[@user-zo4ce3nk9s]

Ну подобное было в Британии. В 30 тые годы 20 века. В СССР был проект вертолета "КА-56" для торпедного аппарата. Сейчас в США идут тесты запусков дронов с подводных лодок типа Огайо

[@John-hu9qg]

No, they construct excellent aircraft carrier killing submarines.

[@yanbemopatton]

The Japanese actually built two submarine aircraft carrier in ww2

[@Jamie-xw6ku]

No u don't need a carrier if u gon fight from the house we already over here

[@CLanzetta1970-]

Most active? 😂😂😂😂 What being towed or most active with black smoke?

[@davidchristensen6908]

47 seconds into the video the narrator says this is one of the most active carriers. What? This turd needs to have a tug with it every time it leaves the dock. Why would I listen one second more.

[@thomassommer7643]

Dieser Flugzeugträger ist eine fahrende Baustelle, wird dauern von einem Schlepper gezogen. Das ist eine große Lachnummer, wenn es mal selber fährt, dann sieht man die Rauchwolke kilometerweit.

[@stc2828]

Russia might just buy 001 back xD

[@oronno9640]

They have submarine fleets. So they dont need aircraft carrier to stop a enemy fleet.

[@ancaplanaoriginal5303]

the US submarine fleet is bigger and they still field 21 carriers

[@1951woodygeo]

They only have 1 Carrier and that keeps breaking down .

[@somerandomguy1475]

They did he say china so loud

[@MinhTran-fc7jl]

did not steal all the tech soon enough to copy cat.

[@xxmobstrxx8535]

This isn’t even a 100% aircraft carrier it Carrie’s and fires missiles which other traditional carriers don’t.

[@katherineberger6329]

It isn't an aircraft carrier at all, because it can't go anywhere.

[@xxmobstrxx8535]

@@katherineberger6329 even when it was fully functional it’s purpose wasn’t to solely carry out air missions

[@maxt7525]

So it’s like western ships, like the Americans who have lost aircraft during operations, burn down a ship in port and break down like the British destroyers lol 😭

[@Ukfairgrounds]

Fake news America and Britain have the most advanced and capable ships in the world

[@amarjeetpanesar4220]

Haven’t answered it’s own question of why historically not have carriers!!! India and China both purchased aircraft carrier from Russia!

[@exurgemars]

Wrong

[@exurgemars]

India purchased a fresh carrier-cruiser from Russia, while China bought an unfinished hull from Ukraine with a lot of smokes and mirrors involved after USSR split-up.

[@phil-zz5hk]

best tech ones at the moment are the british ones . but the us will have 10 in about 15 years .

[@vinloy23]

Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks in front of modern missile technology. A total waste of resources.

[@zorankalina4399]

No money..no resorsers....no cariers. Simple as that. No enough of people and economy too. "Only" atomics....🤔

[@Narukosaki]

The real reason why Russia doesn't have aircraft carriers is because it cannot build them anymore. It has a large border that it has to have a massive army to defend, its skilled labor force is retiring, its demography is terminal, will there be a Russia in fifty years?

[@Bustermachine]

Probably. Nations are hard things to kill. Will it be a great power? Probably not.

[@dat8r1]

Money ! Money ! Because aircraft carrier is so expensive ! To built and to send it oversea

[@Antesyd]

So many? They have non.

[@watahwilly5133]

Well thats simple because. THEY KNOW HOW TO MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS AND BORDER NOT LIKE SOME CERTAIN COUNTRY...

[@minecraftboy4208]

😂😂😂 not even one

[@Fah1994ytcan]

In 2023 with russia’s missile tech, the airfratt cariers are waste of money!

[@John-hu9qg]

Because they don't view them as a survivable platform in the hypersonic age. Spending the same money on new Borei class SSBN and Yasen class submarines provide better state security.

[@katherineberger6329]

Nah. They don't have the money to maintain a CV and its air wing, and are trying to make it sound like that's a strategic choice rather than a necessity of being utterly starved of money.

[@John-hu9qg]

@@katherineberger6329 it's clear by their submarine building programme that they have the finance to build and maintain 3 or 4 carriers, but why bother when they know themselves that the vessels wouldn't survive the opening day of a conflict, no more than aircraft carriers from any other nation with the advancements in missile technology, especially standoff hypersonic variants, fired in numbers from multiple land sea and air platforms.

[@katherineberger6329]

@@John-hu9qg The costs of an aircraft carrier aren't just the ship itself but its air wing and the ongoing operation and maintenance thereof. An aircraft carrier without an air wing is a very expensive barge.

[@John-hu9qg]

@@katherineberger6329 an expensive coral reef unfortunately, becoming obsolete like prize battleships were in WW2. Hood, Bismark, yamato etc.

[@katherineberger6329]

@@John-hu9qg It’s been claimed, mostly by people on Russia’s payroll. I will believe it when I see it.

[@keep68]

Defense spending on YACHTS for the Oligarchs!

[@Cal49ers]

They couldn't afford it. Real talk.🤓

[@Chunkylover.]

They don't need carriers actually

[@denistaray368]

It's is russia choice Lol

[@captainfokker3951]

Russia is completing its second aircraft carrier.Russia doesn't focus on aircraft since they have capability to sink any aircraft in wichever place it maybe around the world. Russia fighter jets has longer fuel endurance than any fighter's in the world.

[@fredweller1086]

Not flying from a ski-jump carrier. Sino-Russian naval aviation are both limited in payload and range. And does Russia have "magic missiles"? Sink any carrier, anywhere in the world! That's almost unbelievable.

[@AliMohamed-wd4wp]

Exectly 💯 even houthi can be destroying aircraft career 😆

[@rudiblohm4050]

yeah and the Shop Cat Not Swimming 😂

[@shootingsportstransparency7461]

Russians normaly get seasick when close to water.

[@klarion]

Why no mention of general naval strategy?? Well, besides that one liner-where Russia does not intend to project it's naval power. Why? Well, I don't think Russia is interested in projecting power to far flung overseas domains. It's main goal is that of denial of operational freedom and power projection along its borders, specifically to western powers, which historically tend to invade Russia for one reason or another. It's got enough land for all its needs and much more; and its main concern is containment of Western (NATO) encroachment with their nuclear missiles at Russia's borders, which we are witnessing today.

[@Wolfie_96]

Do you honestly expect NATO to invade Russia unprovoked? It'd make zero sense. If Russia just chilled tf out for once they wouldn't have NATO sticking missiles on its borders.

[@mihajlovucinic011]

@@Wolfie_96 What a dumb logic. Russia never showed intent to attack anyone in Nato. If NATO chilled for once and try not to poke Russia with their missiles we wouldn't have this situation rn. Imagine Russian missiles in Canada and Mexico, would usa be chill about it as you say Russia should?

[@klarion]

@@Wolfie_96 I didn't expect NATO to bomb the crap out of Belgrade and spend 15 years bombing the crap out of Afghanistan... and yet. The point isn't what they will or will not do now, but just imagine 5 or 6 Russian and Chinese military bases in Mexico and Canada. How long, do you think, it will take the US to invade both countries and/or bomb the crap out of them?? Or do you honestly expect them to build such bases for fun?? It's a good mind game to play.

[@klarion]

And besides, if you look at it in a SANE perspective Russia was pretty chill. Chechnya was part of RF and they are still part of RF. Georgia, just like Ukraine announced they would join NATO and let the US arm and train their military, so RF made sure they would never join NATO (Georgia borders Russia). Same with Ukraine. When it comes to Syria, well, the US allied with Al Qaida to topple Russia's ally and Russia kicked the crap out of a bunch of Al Qaeda and got a naval base in return... all by "invitation" of their ally. Sounds pretty chill to me.

[@ethanwild3301]

The only one they kind of use is from the US 😂

[@824pavel]

Russia simply does not need aircraft carriers. Russia has icebreakers while the US does not have even one icebreaker.

[@mrgeorgeb0062]

Doesn’t help if it gets hit from the sky by missiles

[@christopherschmeltz3333]

The last I heard, the U.S. Coast Guard is cannibalizing parts from their third icebreaker to keep her sister ship running and President Trump authorized building six new ones. The 46 year old heavy twins could both be scrapped by now, but the medium icebreaker has only been in service since 2000 and should still be operational. I suppose icebreakers are the newest secret weapon with the icecaps receding... 🤪

[@wladimirweidner5968]

Was bedeutet nicht viele? Nur einen!!!

[@suyalee5737]

russia has to improved his ship industry.

[@ltk3846]

weil die eu schneller übern landweg zu erreichen ist?

[@milutinke]

It's not hat they do not have an ability and expertise to create complex warships and systems, it's more due to not having deep water ports and shipyards big enough to produce such a ship. All of their aircraft carriers were made in Ukraine, they do not have access to those shipyards anymore. And yeah, it's expensive af. For that money they could build like 4-5 submarines which are way more useful than an aircraft carrier. And on top of that, currently they do not have a need for such type of ships, maybe in futuy they will, when Arctic melts down

[@mohhassanabdurajak3274]

They have no money to build it.

[@Turbulencje]

here comes the suub

[@ottavva]

RUSSIA is itself one big aircraft-carrier

[@et9953]

They shud send kuznetsov carrier to China in order to fix it

[@sebastienguillem4878]

I think the main reason is russia doesn t have enought budget for several carrier!!!

[@4jqxc]

One word : money

[@wasp6594]

Russia is not and never has been a blue water military force. Their only access is either from the Baltic, which is iced up for months of the year, or through the Black Sea where they can be blocked in the Mediterranean. Both the US and the UK have been blue water, global navies for many decades. In the case of the UK, for hundreds of years. Thankfully, we are now rebuilding our navy following decades of draconian defence cuts. Although currently small, it is still powerful with up to date technology but needs to be larger.

[@robertoaseremo4163]

If the Soviet Union never collapse in 1991Soviet Navy will biuld 11 of more of these type Aircraft Carrier Kuznetsov Class and they will challenge the US Aircraft Carrier Strike group anyware in the high seas

[@extremelyjuicy6034]

they have no money, period

[@march3769]

Another example of fine Russian quality?

[@Beantastrophe]

They become campfires for the drunks

[@jmcfintona999]

Doesn't need them

[@hushpuppykl]

There’s only 1 obvious reason. Russia is not looking to project its military power. Period. That is why Russian carriers have a ski jump. It does not need the planes to have max range.

[@mrjumbly2338]

Did you leave out it was made in Ukraine?

[@sumathichinnadurai9203]

Op

[@SJstackinbodys]

They cant afford it The end

[@andrewaschinski3774]

Diesel scrap on the seas!

[@hardyanpajero69]

👍😎🍺🍩🚢,,