Russian propaganda vividly comments, as another “epoch-making document”, the new “Maritime Dotrine of the Russian Federation”, adopted by the Kremlin on July 31, on the “Day of the Fleet”. This document is really interesting for analysis, but for understanding not so much the future acts of the aggressor state as its painful ideas about its own future.

To do this, it is important to compare the new “maritime doctrine” with the previous one, approved by the aggressor in 2015, already under the conditions of the occupation of the Crimea and the front line close to the Sea of Azov. By the way, the new document “modestly keeps silent” about such “successes of the maritime policy” of Russia in 2022 as its expulsion from the Danube Commission and from the Paris Memorandum on Mutual Understanding of Port Control.

Instead, in “Dotrine-2022”, the aggressor succinctly acknowledges the “problems” with foreign sanctions, with the loss of the Russian monopoly on Arctic shipping, and with “attempts to revise the status of the Black Sea straits.” However, the aggressor points to the “preservation of the status of a great maritime state” as his main task in the “Doctrine-2022”, which was not mentioned at all in the “Doctrine-2015”; obviously, at that time, this issue was not “so acute” for the Kremlin yet.

Therefore, in the new “doctrine”, the aggressor placed complaints about the “lack of a sufficient number of base points” in third countries and that in “important zones of ensuring strategic interests”, to which the aggressor attributed the Azov and Black Seas, the Black Sea Straits, the Mediterranean Sea, as allegedly there are “territorial claims against Russia by a number of states concerning its insular and coastal territories”. Under such alleged “claims”, the aggressor obviously criminally means the occupied Crimea as an integral part of Ukraine.

It is noteworthy that in relation to the Black Sea region, the “Doctrine-2015” mentioned the need for international legal regulation of the regime and procedure for using the Kerch Strait, as well as the formation in the Crimea of the so-called “marine economic centers of national and interregional significance on the basis of large agglomerations”, under which act obviously meant the Russia-occupied Sevastopol.

It is characteristic that the “Doctrine-2022” no longer contains these theses, referring primarily to the “comprehensive strengthening of the geopolitical positions” of the aggressor in the Black Sea and the “development of the shipbuilding complex in the Crimea”.

The noticeable deviation of the “Doctrine-2022” into “imperial grandeur” and militarization is reflected, in particular, in the desire of the aggressor, fixed in the “new doctrine”, including to “strengthen the grouping” of the Black Sea Fleet in the Crimea (the previous “doctrine” indicated only “improvement of the composition and structures” of that fleet).

From the tragicomic theses of both aggressor’s “maritime doctrines”, one should point out his insistent desire to “include the ports of Crimea in international cruise routes”. But if in the “Doctrine-2015” these fake wishes had the format of “development of cruise shipping from the ports of Crimea … to the countries of the Black Sea basin”, then the “Doctrine-2022” already writes about “tourist cruise shipping from the ports of the Mediterranean Sea to the ports of Crimea”.

In general, the complete isolation of the “Doctrine-2022” from the realities of the global maritime business, participation in which is now obviously closed for Russia, is noteworthy. Instead, its authors are ready to discuss anything, from fantastic “naval bases” to “cruises from the Crimea” against the backdrop of the total militarization of Russian-controlled maritime spaces.

But while the Kremlin’s dreams of “maritime doctrines” are being discussed by local propaganda, the occupying “administrations” of the Crimea and Sevastopol have now openly and publicly admitted that these occupied territories of Ukraine are “front-line regions”, that is, exclusively “front-line logistics centers”. No “doctrines” of the aggressor will change this situation until the period of de-occupation of the peninsula by Ukraine.