80 chapter three
indicated an inevitable decline in the strategic viability of Western car-
rier fleets (Cigar 1992 ). The debate surrounding carrier procurement was
indicative of the general ambivalence of the Soviet Union toward naval
power. Aircraft carriers, and naval power more generally, were at the
same time a hated mark of imperialism and a coveted symbol of power
and prestige. Debates within the Soviet leadership, especially during the
Khrushchev years, highlight the tension between the status- enhancing
quality of a large navy, its high price tag, and its questionable strategic
value (especially for a land power such as the Soviet Union). Khrushchev
explicitly viewed most naval force as a prestige symbol with very little
direct military utility. He conducted a long debate with his naval officers
throughout his tenure regarding the advisability of investing in Russian
naval force. His memoirs include many references to such debates.
As another concession, I suggested that perhaps we should have a few high
class modern cruisers for purposes of calling on foreign ports. The ships were
good solely as showpieces, and very expensive showpieces at that.... Our naval
commanders thought they looked beautiful and liked to show them around to
foreigners. (Talbott 1974 , quoted in Booth 1977 , 62 )
As for carriers, in his memoirs Khrushchev acknowledged that those
were simply out of the Soviet Union’s reach.
I’ll admit I felt a nagging desire to have some in our own navy, but we could
not afford to build them. They were simply beyond our means. Besides, with a
strong submarine force, we felt able to sink the American carriers if it came to
war. (Quoted in Horowitz 2010 , 90 )