Russian naval vessels attacked Ukrainian naval vessels on Sunday in the Sea of Azov, firing on and seizing three vessels and ramming a tug. Up to six Ukrainian sailors are reported wounded or injured and 23 Ukrainian sailors are being held by Russia.
The incident is notable because it is the first time Russia has used overt military force against Ukraine, rather than disguised Russian troops, local Russian-directed proxies and Russian mercenaries, cyberwarfare and disinformation. The conflict continues to take the lives of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians through daily low-level combat along a line of skirmish in eastern Ukraine.
The incident also ratchets up Russia’s ongoing attempts to deny Ukraine access to the economically vital Sea of Azov. Already in August, US State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert stated, “Russia’s actions to impede maritime transit are further examples of its ongoing campaign to undermine and destabilize Ukraine, as well as its disregard for international norms…We call on Russia to cease its harassment of international shipping in the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait.”
The closure of the Kerch Strait would have a substantial economic effect on Ukraine because it would block access to the Black Sea of two of Ukraine’s most important ports, Berdyans’k and Mariupol’ (the latter sits on the frontline with Russian-occupied Donbas and early in 2015 was shelled from Russian-controlled territory), which handle most of Ukraine’s grain and steel exports.
The Sea of Azov is also vital to the security of both Ukraine and Russia. For Ukraine, it provides a natural defensive barrier against Russian invasion on its southeastern border. For Russia, it is the outlet to the Black Sea for the Don River, and the Don-Volga Canal connects the Russian navy to the Caspian Sea. Russian Defense Analyst, Pavel Felgenhauer, has written (courtesy via @KevinRothrock) that Russia’s motivation for this weekend’s incident was alarm at Ukraine’s building a naval station at Berdyans’k because it can potentially not only cut Russian access to the Black Sea but also drive a wedge into the length of Russia’s Black Sea defenses.
Numerous countries were quick to condemn Russia’s attack, including the UK and Canada, as well as Poland and Lithuania who strongly oppose Russian interference in Ukraine and eastern Europe. UK’s Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, on Twitter stated, “The UK utterly condemns Russia’s use of force against Ukrainian vessels entering the Sea of Azov. Once again, we see Russian CONTEMPT for international norms and Ukrainian sovereignty. Russia must release detained Ukrainian sailors and guarantee free passage through Kerch Straits.”
The award though for telling-it-like-it-is goes to Estonia's President Kersti Kaljulaid, who stated, "We have to call things by the right names — this is war in Europe. The Ukrainian people have been at war since 2014, and Crimea remains under occupation." Acceptance of Russia's actions, she said, "...de facto means the recognition of the occupation of Crimea...The values-based international community cannot afford this. War in Europe cannot and will not ever again be accepted as business as usual."
Ukraine responded to the Russian attack by calling for a meeting of the UN Security Council (followed by a call by Russia)--which convened on Monday. Speaking at that meeting, US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, stated, “Impeding Ukraine’s lawful transit through the Kerch Strait is a violation under international law. It is an arrogant act that the international community must condemn and will never accept.”
Ukraine’s parliament also approved on Monday martial law in the districts bordering Russia and Russian-controlled regions. The move was controversial, with some opponents of the unpopular President Poroschenko criticizing it as a political ploy to gain an advantage in next March’s presidential election or a fundamental erosion of democracy. However, it would have been impossible for President Poroschenko to do nothing and his options were limited. And democracy seemed alive and well in parliament where key features were circumscribed to ensure passage. In addition, although termed martial law, the emergency measures appear limited, including an elevated state of military and police preparedness not actual mobilization, review of necessary additional measures, a diplomatic campaign to gather support for Ukraine, authorization for curtailment of some civil liberties, when and if necessary, and a limited duration of 30 days. President Poroschenko emphasized that the measures were not a declaration of war.
Widely circulated video of the incident, apparently taken from the bridge of the Russian military vessel that rammed the Ukrainian tug, appears to show Russia aggressively stalking the Ukrainian vessels. Other video shows the seized Ukrainian vessels docked in Russia with shell damage. The Ukrainian vessels attempted to pass through a narrow channel known as the Kerch Strait when they were intercepted by Russia. Russia accuses the Ukrainian vessels of having entered Russian territorial waters. However, the area in question is off the coast of Crimea, which Russia seized from Ukraine and is not internationally recognized as Russian. In any case, GPS positioning seems to show that the incident began with Ukrainian ships actually outside the contested area in waters jointly administered by Ukraine and Russia under a 2003 agreement.
Almost immediately, the internet was flooded by pro-Russian conjecture and conspiracy theories, including that Ukraine provoked the incident in concert with the US or that it was a stunt by President Poroshenko to bolster his sagging popularity.
Another flood of online commentary speculated on a possible reason for Russia’s aggression at this time, including that the incident was a message to the US prior to the G20 meeting later this week when Russian President Putin and US President Trump are expected to meet; a Russian faint to open an alternate transport route to Crimea (possibly because of structural problems with the newly Russian-built Kerch bridge); an expression of unhappiness with autocephaly of the Ukrainian church from Moscow’s Patriarchy announced last month; or, a response to recent polls showing a sharp drop in Putin’s popularity.
The simplest explanation seems to be a rising tide of tension between the two countries as Russia squeezes Ukraine out of the Sea of Azov to expand its area of control and partially blockades Ukraine’s economy. That alone would endanger Ukraine’s political and social stability.
Nevertheless, the first use of overt Russian military force against Ukraine occurs when Russia was assumed to be hoping to lighten existing Western sanctions. It also opens the door to future overt Russian engagement, including possibly open support for the two Russia dependent enclaves in eastern Ukraine. This suggests the calculus of Russia’s thinking is not understood well enough. Russia continues to surprise. The incident raises alarm about how far Russia is really willing to go. Certainly, farther than expected, but how far?
No comments:
Post a Comment