This map is apparently post-2014 but still omits Russian deployments in the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. So it is then a map of those deployments Russia owns up to or ones that are legit in the eyes of international law, not total deployments.
Generally, though, we can well say that Russian foreign deployments and bases are more often than not matters of Soviet legacy. Are there actually any significant Russian military missions in nations that were not parts of the USSR, or at least Soviet allies, satellites and collaborators in the Soviet era? At least looking at this map I don't think so.
Read the dates. As for the Ukrainian incursions and the Crimean seizure those are not so much "bases or deployments" as active territorial acquisitions which are defacto (note the word) Russian controlled territory.
The Cuber (not a misspelling) presence is a Soviet Cuban treaty thing Russia inherited. Venezuela (not shown but significant), bears watching because of strange things going on inside that country.^1
^1 Putin previously has his air force fly "show the flag flights" with his few operational bombers as signals of his displeasure to something that Washington has said or done. These are demonstrators, not actual THREATS. Just like the deployment of a couple of Blackjacks and a support flight echelon was a recent deployment to Venezuela show his support to Madura (that power-mad individual) in Caracas was not a "The Russians are coming!" moment. The Russians have not made any really overt move to establish a more formal pronounced presence, but they have to be in country in some strength and at least advise how to use the too complex and advanced for the Venezuelans air defense equipment that the Venezuelan Caudillo has "purchased" from the Russians. Not enough Russians there to declare a base force presence, yet? You decide.
Syria for the moment and Libya until Putin was chased out are examples to note. Russia shows up where there is no pushback. This is not the actions of a world conqueror but of a man (Putin) who plays a weak hand aggressively and dangerously to stay in the "Great Game". There is some danger here. Not understanding the situation or knowing the history is the risk and limit miscalculation is the strategic error Putin runs. Monroe Doctrine and US southern flank is VERY DANGEROUS. What was the US Response to the Putin move?
Dust off those Pershing II and Poseidon plans. OOPs. Putin has to think about that one, because now he has put his nation's neck under a new knife. And his "ally" China is very unhappy with him, too. You see, this now involves them.
Land based "coast defense" rocket artillery is much cheaper than ballistic missile submarines and unlike China the US CAN hit ships at sea with them because the US invented the tech about four decades ago. The "Great Game" has unforeseen consequences.
Last edited: