Russian Military Bases Abroad

Russia set to build up its naval facilities in Syria

MOSCOW, July 20 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian Navy will expand and modernize its Soviet-era naval maintenance site near Tartus in Syria to support anti-piracy operations off the Somali coast, a high-ranking navy source said on Monday.

About 50 naval personnel and three berthing floats are currently deployed at the Tartus site, which can accommodate up to a dozen warships.

"Two tug boats from the Black Sea Fleet will deliver a new berthing float to Tartus," the source said.

"Following modernization, the Russian naval maintenance site in Tartus will become fully-operational," he added.

The Navy maintenance site near Tartus is the only Russian foothold in the Mediterranean. Russian navy commanders have long been calling for the expansion and modernization of the Tartus base.

"The base in Tartus will provide all necessary support for the Russian warships which will be engaged in protecting commercial shipping around the Horn of Africa," the official said.

According to the Russian Navy, the naval base in Syria significantly boosts Russia's operational capability in the region because the warships based there are capable of reaching the Red Sea through the Suez Canal and the Atlantic through the Strait of Gibraltar in a matter of days.

Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, said in January that the General Staff had backed the Navy command's proposal to develop naval infrastructure outside Russia.

Russia has reportedly been involved in talks to establish naval facilities in Yemen, Syria and Libya, among other countries in the Mediterranean.

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090720/155566231.html

During the Soviet time, there was a big naval facility in Tartus, Syria and that provided of course the Soviet Union, to be able to be present in the Mediterranean sea, thus controlling the navy of US and its allies.
Nowadays, we MUST have a navy base in the Mediterranean sea, because of the geopolitical changes in the world. Nato is expanding, the pirates in Somalia are out of control and the US has plans of encircling Russia, by building military bases everywhere. As i also heard from Ria Novosti, Russia has only three berthing boats and 50 personnel there. That is only the beginning. I don't know how long the modernization will take, but it is necessary. It would be also a very good move, if the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier would be stationed there. Don't forget that Israel has often attacked nuclear sites in Syria and has openly said that they want to attack and destroy nuclear sites in Iran. So Russia must be present there in order to avoid a crisis or even a possible war between all the muslim countries.

I also forgot to say, that France has opened a permanent military base in the United Emirates, because they want to combat the pirates in Somalia more efficient. That is of course a lie, as France is a Nato member and of course, the base could be used from the american forces. So it is of utmost importance, that Russia be able to impose force, controll movements of the enemy and deploy its military everywhere in the world. So due to the fact that the region around Syria is a hot spot(could cause a regional war or even a crisis between superpowers)this naval facility, must be a priority.

I read somewhere the Russians wanted to open a base on one of Yemen's islands to combat piracy. No need for a MED base if you get that.

Turk1 wrote:I read somewhere the Russians wanted to open a base on one of Yemen's islands to combat piracy. No need for a MED base if you get that.

Russian Navy denies Socotra military base news
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mohamed Bin Sallam


SOCOTRA, Feb. 6 — An official spokesman for the Russian Navy described rumors that the Russian and US Navy will establish military bases in Yemen as "baseless and incorrect."

Colonel Igor Degeluo, assistant of the Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief, said in a statement to the Russian News Agency, RIA Novosti, that the Russian Navy has no intention to establish Russian maritime military bases outside the country.

Local media reported that a source in the Russian Navy leadership had said that there is a political decision to provide bases for the Russian Navy in Yemen, Syria and Libya.

International news agencies reported that Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh suggested to the Russian Kremlin speaker, Sergei Mironov, last October that the country establish a Russian Navy base in Yemen, information that the Russian Navy denied last January 16.

The Russian News Agency had reported last January that the Russian Navy intended to secure its continuous presence in three foreign countries- Yemen, Syria and Libya.

An unofficial source in the Russian Navy did however say that there is a political decision to provide Russian Navy bases in these countries, within the next few years. The Russian Navy will establish its base on the island of Socotra in Yemen, in the port of Tartus in Syria and in the port of Tripoli in Libya.

General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, vice-commander-in-chief of the Russian Military Forces, told journalists that Russia is conducting discussions with foreign countries to find a base to secure its navy’s regular presence in remote seas to protect the supreme interests of Russia.

Russia views military bases in Tartus and Tripoli as necessary to enable its navy to follow developments in the Middle East.

Experts expressed their doubts about the ability of the Russian Navy to achieve what it aims during the next few years. They said that establishing a military base requires large funds whereas Russia is currently in the grips of a financial crisis, just like the rest of the world.

It has been reported that what Russia aims to do is to find suitable sea ports in which its military ships can dock. The purpose is to provide these sites with the necessary infrastructure to ensure ships can refuel and restock on supplies and ammunition, which is different from establishing a complete military base.

Four Russian military ships are currently based near Yemeni shores to protect the trade ships from piracy.

A Russian helicopter launched an air strike last month from one of the Russian military ships against a Yemeni fishing boat by mistake. A fisherman was killed and another two injured. Sources said that Russian officials apologized to the Yemeni authorities and showed readiness to pay compensations. They further said that the Russian officials confirmed that they would give strict orders to their soldiers not to fire before having identified the boats in the Gulf of Aden and Yemeni waters.

Local observers told the Yemen Times that the Yemeni authorities facilitated the Russian navy to dock in a Yemeni sea port. They said that through such a move, Yemen would maintain the balance by preventing potential US or Western dominance of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden under the pretext of combating piracy.


http://www.yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1232&p=local&a=3

Yemen may not get a base, but Libya may get a Russian base.

As US is spreading in terms of Bases, it is only bringing them further down by 1) costing too much thus less money going to this whole recession. and 2) they had put their hands in too many cookie jars, now the jar lids are closing on their hands (In other words, US has pissed off most of the world).

In this multi-polar world, the whole empire thing is old and outdated. Russia can be both influential and a super power within its own borders. But it could recieve even more money by moving outside of its borders. Why do you think they are going to Syria, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, etc? It is because they too want control, and they can have it. There are only two countries currently that has the most influence in the world, and that is Russia and the US.

sepheronx wrote:Yemen may not get a base, but Libya may get a Russian base.

As US is spreading in terms of Bases, it is only bringing them further down by 1) costing too much thus less money going to this whole recession. and 2) they had put their hands in too many cookie jars, now the jar lids are closing on their hands (In other words, US has pissed off most of the world).

In this multi-polar world, the whole empire thing is old and outdated. Russia can be both influential and a super power within its own borders. But it could recieve even more money by moving outside of its borders. Why do you think they are going to Syria, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, etc? It is because they too want control, and they can have it. There are only two countries currently that has the most influence in the world, and that is Russia and the US.

I am proud that we are filling our obligation as a major power by battling piracy so far from our shores. Instead of letting pirates go like NATO, we arrest them.

A base outside of the Black Sea is a must. Not just to resupply pirate hunters, but also to avoid being trapped in the Black Sea if Turkey tries to cut us off. I think a base in Syria would do alot to prevent Israeli agression against Syria and help keep a balance in that region. Libya would be a strategic location right near the traffic lanes. I like the Yemen idea as we could bring the West to their knees that close to their petrol supply. I think we should plant a base in any one of these countries if they will give us the land at no charge. If we have to pay a lease I am against it. Like anyone, we have to weigh cost versus benefit.

I know there was talk about placing naval bases for Russia and logistical locations in specific areas in the world.  For instance, one in Syria (wich if I am correct, they are currently updating), one in Vietnam, and possibly in a couple of other countries (most likely Venezuela/Cuba and possibly Lybia).

Any word of it?

Cause I know Russia is possibly opening up a aircraft logistics in Bolivia.  That is how Russia could obtain a lot of influence as well as funds from additional countries.  Provide logistic capabilities of not just yourself but for allies and customers.

I heard awhile back work was being done to prepare Tartus Syria. We will probably end up attacking Ukraine so we would only need one outside base.

MOSCOW, November 2. (ИТАР-ТАСС). (ITAR-TASS). Russia will have a point-based Navy in the Syrian port of Tartus, said on Oct. 31, First Deputy Chief of Staff of Russia's Navy Vice-Admiral Oleg Burtsev.

"Now the question about the system of our Navy bases overseas worked out, we are interested in this, and are working to align with our requirements of naval bases in Tartus," - "the admiral said in a live radio station Ekho Moskvy.

http://news.a42.ru/news/item/165288/

Syria allows Russia use of port in missile deal

LONDON — Syria has reportedly agreed to purchase an advanced missile from Russia.


Diplomatic sources said Russia would begin deliveries of the Yakhont missile as part of expanded naval cooperation with Syria.
They said Syria has agreed to allow the Russian Navy use of the port of Tartous as well as the expansion of logistic services to Moscow's military.

The sources said the Yakhont would be deployed on Syria's small navy as part of expanded cooperation with the Kremlin.

"The deal is that Russia will supply and train the Syrians to use this new missile," a diplomat said.

The Kremlin was also said to have been working on a plant to expand the Tartous port to enable the docking of large Russian Navy ships. The sources said Tartous would become a regional maintenance center for the Russian Navy.

Yakhont, with a 200-kilogram conventional warhead, was described as a sea-to-sea missile with land-attack capabilities. The ramjet-powered missile was said to have a range of 300 kilometers and could threaten Israeli shipping throughout the eastern Mediterranean. Yakhont could also be fired from aircraft.

The sources said Israel has discussed the Yakhont deal with the Kremlin. They said Israel expressed concerns that Syria would transfer Yakhont to the Iranian-based Hizbullah in neighboring Lebanon.

"The Israelis now see every Syrian military deal as one that could help Hizbullah as well," the diplomat said. "This is because Iran pays for most of the military contracts signed by Damascus."

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/me_syria0864_11_05.asp

Did not see this coming. But still excellent news. I would like to see Syria well armed.

Vladimir79 wrote:I heard awhile back work was being done to prepare Tartus Syria. We will probably end up attacking Ukraine so we would only need one outside base.

But it would be good to at least have naval ships where they are able to react in any possible situation outside of its own borders. Vietnam, Lybia and Cuba/Venezuela would be good.

President Dmitry Medvedev said today that Russia was looking to open new naval bases abroad to increase the global reach of a military that shrank abruptly when the Soviet Union collapsed.

Soviet forces drew on more than a dozen naval bases in Europe, South America, Africa and south-east Asia in the 1970s and 1980s, but the post-Soviet economic crisis, fuel shortages and a rundown of the military confined forces largely to home bases.

Vladimir Putin began rebuilding military power after he assumed the Russian presidency in 2000. And last year, the state news agency Itar-Tass cited military sources saying Russia had decided to establish naval bases in Libya and Yemen and expand facilities at Tartus in Syria.

Asked during a televised meeting with senior military officers whether Russia was planning to set up any new foreign bases, Medvedev said: "I would make no secret of the fact that we have certain ideas on this theme. But I would not name them aloud, for obvious reasons."

It would be useful to have several bases... Cam Rahn Bay in Vietnam was a good base in Vietnam, Algeria would be useful in the Med, I would actually add Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran to the list of useful places for a base, but right now they probably could not afford or fully utilise more than a couple of new bases as it is still very much a period of regrowth and recovery for the Russian Navy.

On paper Myanmar might be a useful place if only to open them to international relations, but who knows what direction the newly voted in democratic government might take... I would expect they would look at trying to return to established bases first like Vietnam and Cuba, and if they don't work out or after further expansion they can look at other options as well.

I would like to see a Russian base in a Persian gulf port in Iran with Russia paying for rail links from the north to the south of the country that would benefit Iran and help the Russian navy operate from a port with a land link for supplies that does not involve traversing the Turkish straights or the Suez canal. It would greatly increase times on station off the African coast for anti piracy missions as a rearm and refuel to the Persian Gulf rather than up through the suez and to the Black sea is a fairly long journey.

Russia is actually spoilt for options. Russia can open a Naval base in Vietnam . This will send a very clear message to China that the South China sea is not "China's Lake" . Recently China had opposed to Russian oil exploration in the South China sea and had send warships near Phillipines to threaten them to pull out of the Scarborough shoals. The US quietly urged the Philippines not to give any provocation to the Chinese. Russia can also therefore open a naval base in the Phillipines or India thereby putting the Russian bull in the China shop. More importantly , Russia should hold regular naval exercises with the countries in South and South East Asia who are regularly bullied either by China or Australia.

If Russia wants to give a fitting reply to the upcoming ABM system in Europe it should activate a naval base in Cuba.This will cause the US to think twice as to whether it should go ahead with the ABM system in Europe.

Venezuela and Cuba for what reason? To attack US? Cuba i think could be used as a monitor site rather than an actual military base

A Russian Naval base in Cuba can act as a trade off . Cuba is just 90 miles of the US South Coast . Remember the Cuban missile crisis , Kennedy agreed to take down the batteries of missiles which US had in Turkey if Khruschev would remove the Russian missiles and disassemble the missile bases in Cuba. Therefore, if the US stops deploying the ABM system in Europe , Russia can also withdraw from a possible naval base in Cuba.

Back in 2008 , Putin had stated that Russia has no intention of setting up naval bases in Cuba & Venezuela . However, since Russia has been taken for a ride by NATO since then , Russia might well take a re-look at it's options.

The US is currently planning to checkmate India by planning to place the 7th fleet at a Naval Base in Bangladesh .

US 7th fleet in Bangladesh

Russia cannot keep thinking with a cold war mentality.

Foreign ports and naval expansion is not about countering the US or the west.

It is about reducing operational costs and improving ties with allies.

WIthout any foreign ports the Russians have the Pacific Fleet, the Black Sea fleet, the Baltic Fleet, and the Northern Fleet. Operations in the pacific or atlantic or even the persian gulf require long voyages to get to and from and also require sailing through various choke points.

Having a base in Cuba is not about getting within x number of kms from the US. Having a base in Cuba means a friendly place to stop and refuel and get supplies without getting ripped off. You could even have barracks where you could keep extra crews so sailing a sub there, you can restock and replace the crew and a sub that previously could only operate on patrol for 40 days can operate in southern waters as long as you want.

It means if you want to send some ships to Venezuela for a visit they could stay much longer and visit other countries in the region without worrying about having to return to a Russian port which would take weeks there and weeks back.

Equally my suggestion of a port in Southern Iran means that a Russian ship operating off Africa can sail for a couple of days to get to Iran and restock with food and water and fuel, whereas right now they have to sail through the Suez canal... which costs money, to Syria. This means with a port in Iran the Russian ships can spend much more time on station and much less time sailing to and from port and their operational areas, yet not go hungry or run out of fuel. Replacement crews could even be ferried across the Caspian Sea and then sent by rail the length of Iran to be in port in time to replace the existing crews if they are tired and the crews being replaced could have a holiday in sunny southern Iran or they could ride a train back to the Caspian Sea and home for a holiday.

Clearly good for Russia, and for Iran they will get money for rent, but also these Russians will likely spend money locally, perhaps with contracts to supply food and water and fuel so they don't have to transport it all the way from Russia.

I think many in the west believe that Russia is just being awkward picking its friends from the Wests little black book of countries they don't like, but the reality is that the west spent 60+ years economically and politically isolating Russia and lots of other countries. Gaddafi was not a huge friend of Russia... Libya bought stuff from Russia but rather more from western countries too. Russia objected to the West murdering Gaddafi, but did not do a huge amount to save him. Mainly because Russian trade with Syria was not that huge, so it wasn't worth the negative effect of relations with the countries attacking Libya... which was worth rather more than the 4-5 billion in weapons the Libyans were going to buy. In Syria it is different... not because Assad is a great friend to Russia, but because Russia has a port in Syria it also has a vested interest in Syria not sliding into civil war and becoming a sht hole like Libya.

If Assad falls and the Russian port in Tartus is closed then Russia will need to look elsewhere for a port to extend their naval reach. Iran offers a good opportunity because material can be shipped across the Caspian sea without crossing anyone elses national territory, so it can not be blocked by any third party. Iran would get rather better Russian support if they were given port facilities, or perhaps Iran could pick a port that is run down but is deep enough and the Russians could invest in upgrading it for their uses.

Russia should not be picking port facilities to annoy the US, or to counter ABM systems because there is a chance that the next US administration might decide the ABM systems are a waste of money and cancel them, so if you are putting Iskanders here or there or returning to ports as a counter then it will appear hollow when you don't reciprocate.

Something Russia knows well... Soviet forces withdrew from Eastern Europe, but British and French and US forces did not withdraw from their western bases... in fact they advanced into former Soviet republics as soon as they could to set up radars and listening posts.

There are two regions where it makes sense for Russia to set up a naval base, in order of priority:

- Mediterranean, in support of Russian Black Sea fleet naval operations and deployments near North Africa, Israel/Lebanon/Syria, Gulf of Aden, Horn of Africa, Persian Gulf.

Greece, Cyprus, Syria, Algeria; all of them have their merits as the location for the establishment of such a base; perhaps a smaller logistics/support base, naval aviation airbase or coastal anti-ship missile unit can be established too.

- South-East Asia, in support of Russian Pacific fleet naval patrols and deployments in an increasingly US-China contested and dominated South China Sea, enabling a Russian presence in the Indian Ocean, allowing more frequent naval exercises and co-operation with India, Indonesia and Vietnam, and finally allowing another route to the Persian Gulf, Horn of Africa and Gulf of Aden if the Suez for some reason becomes blocked to Russian access.

Vietnam, Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan all have their own advantages as the location for such a base, and I'm quite sure all of them would be quite warm to such a proposal.

Now, everything else, including all that 'checkmating US', 'checkmating China' stuff - is pure, undistilled bullshit.

Having a base in the Med would be useful, and having one in south east asia would be useful too but if Russia wants bases that extend reach and reduce operational costs and increase times on station then each fleet needs a base near its operational area... for the Northern Fleet unless you want it to be an arctic ocean force then bases further afield makes more sense and bases in Cuba or Venezuela mean voyages from Russia don't need so much food and supplies because when they reach Cuba they can refuel and the crew can have a break before heading to south and central America or Africa. For the Pacific fleet a base in Vietnam means trips to allies in India or countries like Malaysia and Indonesia that are buying Flankers is an easy visit, and trips to south america are much shorter without having to pass through the panama canal.
Bases in the med are useful for the top of africa visits and the belly of europe visits but a base in southern Iran or the Persian gulf or even Pakistan or India would allow long term operations on anti piracy missions off the coast of africa that don't require support ships traveling from Tartus through the Suez all the time.

Having bases closer to operational areas means more time on station doing the job and much less time in transit without starvation rations or any other drastic measures.

Obviously basing agreements need to be carefully worked out and the country has to be stable and Russia needs good relations with those in power and those who are legitimate opposition groups (as opposed to the illegitimate rebels in Syria who kill people to get the west involved... just as the KLA did in Kosovo).

Australia’s decision to host a permanent US military presence in the northern city of Darwin is bound to spark a fierce arms race in the Asia-Pacific region in the very near future.Australia is sometimes called the Lucky Country. It is an apt nickname for a country that is far from the world’s trouble spots, has vast mineral resources.However, the name was coined ironically in the 1960s by author David Horne who wrote, “Australia is a lucky country, run by second-rate people who share its luck."

The US has had a military alliance with Australia since World War II, but the latest is a significant new projection of forces in the region. Despite a tottering economy, America has signalled it will station up to 2500 troops, in addition to bombers, fighters, tankers and spy planes, followed by navy ships and submarines to be based in Perth.The US base in Darwin is primarily designed to ward of China and the base in Perth is directed towards India. Two counties that has been repeatedly labelled by CIA chief Panetta as America's nemesis in the coming years.

Yesterday in Singapore Panetta has indicated that 60% of US naval fleet will be stationed in Asia/Pacific and the remaining 40% in Europe and Middle East. Given the seriousness of this decision Russia will not remain quiet . Russia enjoys considerable goodwill in South and South East Asia . A region that is increasingly being bullied by China and to a lesser extent by the US -Australia axis.

America’s surge in the western Pacific will clash head-on with China's interests, resulting in an escalation of tensions in the Asia-Pacific region. It risks sparking an arms race, with China, Japan, Russia and Indonesia upgrading their military power to narrow the gap between them and the US.Australians like to think of themselves as rational and practical people who have thrived in their rugged, unforgiving environment, but their strategic thinking is shockingly impractical, venturing into the realm of fantasy. The current flavour of the season is the so-called Beowulf Option. In “Learning to Walk Amongst Giants: The New Defence White Paper”, Australian Government advisor Ross Babbage has set out that Australia needs the military strength to “rip an arm off any major Asian power ( read China and India) that sought to attack Australia".

A major Chinese naval expansion will force the Russians and Japanese to expand their navies. Russia has the world’s largest number of idle nuclear-armed submarines and they could be re-commissioned to counter China or the US. That would clearly undo any gains achieved by nuclear disarmament talks.

This is a great opportunity for Russia to cement ties with countries in the Indian Ocean, SOuth/SOuth East Asian region by setting up naval / air bases in countries ranging from Phillipines to Seychelles.A strong Russian military presence will instill a strong feeling of security and will encourage more of these countries to do business with Russia and vice versa.

At the moment Australias mineral wealth is mostly coal that is being sold to China as quickly as they can get it out of the ground... the Aussies are quite keen to make money because the Chinese are investing in alternative energy sources and it is only a matter of time before they start leading the world in clean technologies like Solar and wind power generation. The Chinese government is not swayed by powerful oil companies like the US government is.

It should also be pointed out that it is Australia itself that calls Australia the lucky country.

A major Chinese naval expansion will force the Russians and Japanese to expand their navies. Russia has the world’s largest number of idle nuclear-armed submarines and they could be re-commissioned to counter China or the US. That would clearly undo any gains achieved by nuclear disarmament talks.

Russia has already committed to expanding the Pacific Fleet in in 2014 the first Mistral carrier will be deployed there closely followed by a second vessel. Add a Kirov class vessel and two Slava class vessels and it will be a reasonable fleet ready for 2-3 carriers in the mid to late 2020s.

The 2,000 US soldiers being deployed to Australia are likely to come from bases in Japan where US service personel are unpopular... a situation made worse for their seeming inability to tell the age of Japanese girls... and the clear translation problem that they seem to think no means yes.

I don't think a base in the Phillipines is likely as they are as close to the US as Japan is, but certainly talks with Vietnam and India and perhaps Iran and Yemen... perhaps even South Africa or Indonesia or Malaysia

At the moment Australias mineral wealth is mostly coal that is being sold to China as quickly as they can get it out of the ground... the Aussies are quite keen to make money because the Chinese are investing in alternative energy sources and it is only a matter of time before they start leading the world in clean technologies like Solar and wind power generation. The Chinese government is not swayed by powerful oil companies like the US government is.

Australia is also exporting iron ore and uranium to China .When you are dealing with Chinese corporations, you are dealing with entities that are closely connected to the strategic interests of the Chinese government

The 2,000 US soldiers being deployed to Australia are likely to come from bases in Japan where US service personel are unpopular... a situation made worse for their seeming inability to tell the age of Japanese girls... and the clear translation problem that they seem to think no means yes.

So another Australian industry is about to implode - the latex industry

I don't think a base in the Phillipines is likely as they are as close to the US as Japan is, but certainly talks with Vietnam and India and perhaps Iran and Yemen... perhaps even South Africa or Indonesia or Malaysia

But the US was unable to help Phillipines in the recent Scarborough shoals dispute in the South China sea and asked Phillipines not to agitate China . Phillipines is also seeking to purchase non US fighter aircrafts.

http://defense-update.com/20120520_philippines-looking-to-buy-non-usa-combat-aircraft.html

A few years ago it was impossible to think that Russia can sell weapons to staunch US allies like South Korea and UAE . SLowly , but steadily Russia made progress in these markets. It was also impossible to think that the US will open a naval base in Bangladesh , but the US is developing one. Russia initially needs to carry out a few naval exercise with Phillipines and can then start to examine the feasibility of setting up a naval base there.

GarryB wrote:Having a base in the Med would be useful, and having one in south east asia would be useful too but if Russia wants bases that extend reach and reduce operational costs and increase times on station then each fleet needs a base near its operational area... for the Northern Fleet unless you want it to be an arctic ocean force then bases further afield makes more sense and bases in Cuba or Venezuela mean voyages from Russia don't need so much food and supplies because when they reach Cuba they can refuel and the crew can have a break before heading to south and central America or Africa. For the Pacific fleet a base in Vietnam means trips to allies in India or countries like Malaysia and Indonesia that are buying Flankers is an easy visit, and trips to south america are much shorter without having to pass through the panama canal.
Bases in the med are useful for the top of africa visits and the belly of europe visits but a base in southern Iran or the Persian gulf or even Pakistan or India would allow long term operations on anti piracy missions off the coast of africa that don't require support ships traveling from Tartus through the Suez all the time.

Having bases closer to operational areas means more time on station doing the job and much less time in transit without starvation rations or any other drastic measures.

Obviously basing agreements need to be carefully worked out and the country has to be stable and Russia needs good relations with those in power and those who are legitimate opposition groups (as opposed to the illegitimate rebels in Syria who kill people to get the west involved... just as the KLA did in Kosovo).

I agree with many of your points; smaller logistics bases would probably make more sense than some large naval bases in the traditional sense. But why would the Russian navy need to make regular trips to South America? To generate PR material for Hugo Chavez?

No thanks, the Russian navy just doesn't have the numbers it used to - it makes sense to limit its areas of operation:

- Arctic for establishing a safe playground for Russia's nuclear subs, ensuring clear skies for its strategic bombers and access to Arctic resources
- Baltic for ensuring a guaranteed transit and supply route to Kaliningrad from the mainland, in case of a crisis with NATO and/or the EU
- Black Sea, just because Russia can establish full military dominance there - it probably should; couldn't hurt as it borders several regions where Russia may have a conflict in the future.
- Pacific Ocean, balancing Chinese, Japanese and American naval forces there, ensuring strategic deterrence with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, maintaining a Russian presence in the region.

And the Medditeranean, South China Sea and Indian Ocean for reasons already mentioned.

Altogether - that nicely encompasses the continent of Asia and part of Europe - Russia will have its naval firepower protecting it from all sides and beyond.

As you can see, Russia has enough priorities as it is. Heading out into Africa, South America, Australasia & the Southern Pacific Ocean, etc... would be nice for some occassional expeditions and task forces - but we won't have the numbers or resources to make it a regular thing anyway, so why bother with a base.