Americans may no longer consider Russia an enemy, but the United States Navy remains reluctant to pull back from the Arctic waters that have long been a home to the former Soviet Fleet.
Last week, in a reminder of how closely the Navy still patrols the Russian coastline, an American nuclear-powered submarine and a Russian one collided in the Barents Sea little more than a dozen miles from the Russian naval bases on the Kola Peninsula. And next month, in maneuvers planned more than a year before the collapse of the Soviet Union, scores of NATO ships will exercise in the Norwegian Sea.The operations are echoes of a time when the Soviet navy roamed the world, and the Americans planned how to bottle it up in the event of war. But the former Soviet Northern Fleet, technically controlled at present by the new Commonwealth of Independent States, now rarely leaves the frigid waters near home.
"The key issue for the CIS navy this winter has been simply to survive and to sustain the ability to operate in the face of political, economic and social chaos," Rear Adm. Edward D. Sheafer, director of naval intelligence, told lawmakers two weeks ago. He mentioned, for example, that the Northern Fleet says it retired 25 submarines and 18 surface ships last year, selling many of them for scrap.
Why, then, should the U.S. Navy bother to operate so assertively in the Northern Fleet's waters?
One reason, naval analysts and intelligence officials said last week, is to better understand just how crippled the former Soviet navy has become.
Another is that Russia still controls the second most powerful navy in the world, one that is modernizing even as it shrinks, and the only one outside NATO with an effective nuclear missile stockpile.
And a third reason is that naval affairs in the former Soviet Union are caught up in political turbulence, as Ukraine seeks control over some of the Black Sea Fleet, and Lithuania is demanding the withdrawal of Russia's Baltic Fleet from Kaliningrad.
The political factors can cut both ways, perhaps arguing for discretion, according to some analysts. If the United States appears too aggressive, it could further anger disgruntled military leaders in the former Soviet Union.
Clearly, the mere presence of an undetected American submarine in waters so close to Russia stung the ex-Soviet military leadership.
On Thursday, Yevgeny Shaposhnikov, commander in chief of the former Soviet forces, complained in the Russian Parliament: "This area was spelled out by us as our training ground, and the American side knows about this, that this is a training ground. Foreign ships have no business there."
The Navy has said that its submarine, a torpedo-armed vessel of the Los Angeles class, was in international waters more than 12 miles from Russian shores.
Asked by a congressional committee on Thursday why it was necessary to operate so close to the Russian shore, Adm. David E. Jeremiah, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said: "We are always interested in what is going on with the other side."
In the accident on Feb. 11, U.S. officials said, the Navy sub was tracking a Sierra-class submarine of the former Soviet navy as it left Russian waters. Evidently not knowing where the American warship was, the Russian vessel surfaced directly underneath it, striking it and slightly damaging both vessels.
Neither side would say whether the subs were carrying nuclear weapons at the time, though indications were that the American ship, at least, was not.