Ukraine has launched its largest drone attack to date on Russian assets in the Black Sea and Crimea.
This is consistent with an escalation in attacks on Crimea and the surrounding region in recent weeks, highlighting the strategic importance of that region for Kyiv.
At the start of the war, the Russian navy quickly secured control of the northwestern Black Sea. But its control was to be shortlived. In April 2022, Ukraine struck a blow against the Russian Black Sea Fleet when it sank the flagship cruiser Moskva.
This was followed, in July the same year, by the retaking of Snake Island, which Russia had occupied in the early days of the war.
Written by Basil Germond, Lancaster University. This article is the opinion of the authors and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
Both events undermined Russian prestige and morale, but – more crucially – they denied Russia its control of the Black Sea. But Ukraine’s depleted navy is not capable of controlling the Black Sea either, and, so far, Russia has still been able to deny safe traffic to and from Ukraine’s ports.
Russian surface ships are vulnerable to Ukrainian land-based anti-ship missiles and maritime drones, but submarines have remained relatively safe from Ukraine’s attacks. In addition to carrying out cruise missile strikes against targets in Ukraine, they can act as what is known by naval strategists as a “fleet-in-being” – whose mere existence poses a permanent threat to civilian traffic.
Since July 2023, Ukraine has again successfully targeted Russia’s assets in the Black Sea and Crimea, including warships, bases, air defence systems and the Kerch bridge which connects Crimea to mainland Russia.
More recently, the September 13 attack on Sevastopol shipyard has severely damaged a kilo-class submarine and limited Russia’s ability to repair ships. This follows Kyiv’s recent recapture of strategically located oil installations known as the Boyko Towers.
The fast pace of these recent successes at sea, which contrast with the slow progress on land, creates strategic opportunities in the Black Sea and – in the longer term – on land.
Breaking the blockade: a game of chicken?
Since its decision in July not to renew the Black Sea grain deal, Russia has played a dangerous game by threatening civilian maritime traffic to and from Ukraine, especially grain ships.
To actually sink a civilian ship transporting grain would undermine its relations with much of the Brics bloc and other developing countries, many of which are maintaining a neutral stance in the conflict. That said, Russia has shown unscrupulous behaviour before, hence the need for the west to be prudent and credible in a political contest akin to a “game of chicken”.
Even without attacking civilian ships, Russia is preventing the free flow of grain, because it is not possible to charter a ship without it being insured. With the current level of threat, the challenge consists in finding insurers (and operators) willing to take the risk.
This stasis benefits Russia, although the tolerance of the global south cannot be taken for granted by Moscow, given the demand for Ukrainian grain in many countries, particularly in Africa.
Ukraine can try and strike deals with insurers. The less credible the Russian threat is, the more likely such agreements will be reached. As of today, five ships have left Odesa and two have arrived to load grain. The insurance details have not yet been made public.
If this enables grain exports to resume, the pressure will mount on Moscow. Targeting humanitarian ships would be diplomatically risky for Russia. But if ships start moving freely, the so-called blockade will lose its credibility and rapidly become obsolete.
Nato’s role
To facilitate this outcome, Nato could be more vocal about freedom of navigation and set up a red line that would forbid Russia from targeting grain ships. Russia might not dare bypassing this red line but only if Nato’s deterrence threat is credible enough.
There is a spectrum of options from the more restrained measure of sending diplomatic warnings to Russia to the riskier gambit of sending assets, such as minesweepers, to the Black Sea. The former option would have the benefit of avoiding escalation, but would carry less weight and is likely to have little effect on Kremlin decision-making.
The recent incidents in which a Russian drone aiming for Ukraine’s Danube ports strayed across the border into Romania has demonstrated that attacking the Danube grain route is risky for Russia because it is adjacent to Nato territory. We can expect Moscow to be more prudent in the future.
Nato deputy secretary general, Mircea Geoana, said there was “no indication of a deliberate action [by Russia] to strike Romanian territory and therefore Nato territory”. This can be interpreted as a diplomatic way to remind Russia of the dire consequences of reckless actions – again deterrence and credibility are key.
Ukraine increases the pressure
With its recent attacks on warships and Crimean air defence systems, Ukraine is increasing strategic pressure on Russia, whose capacity to operate in the Black Sea has been further degraded.
Opening a new front in Crimea is also likely to oblige Moscow to redeploy assets away from the frontline on land, which might create tactical opportunities for Ukraine in its ongoing counteroffensive. Putting pressure on Russia in the maritime domain also shows that Moscow is not in charge in the Black Sea, which can help undermining the credibility of Russia’s blockade.
Since last month, Russia has extensively targeted port and grain facilities in Ukraine, on land. This suggests Moscow doesn’t believe its sea blockade can halt Ukraine’s trade. In itself, this is another admission of weakness, a lack of credibility and a failure to exercise power in the Black Sea.
Nato countries are under pressure to provide more weapons to Ukraine. Some of this resupply must be focused on the maritime domain, where a better capacity of Kyiv to destroy, immobilise or interdict Russia’s warships (and especially submarines) would make a big difference. If Ukraine can secure control of the Black Sea, it would represent a big step towards achieving its key military objectives on land.
Basil Germond, Professor of International Security, Department of Politics, Philosophy and Religion, Lancaster University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
“”This stasis benefits Russia, although the tolerance of the global south cannot be taken for granted by Moscow, given the demand for Ukrainian grain in many countries, particularly in Africa.””
From July 27th this year:
Putin promises free grain to six African nations after collapse of Black Sea deal
I do sometimes wonder if Ukraine is just too focused on the immediate Tactical Targets such as the Russian Black Sea Fleet and Kerch Bridge. They are important and high visibility targets but they do not seriously hinder Russias Internal economy, it’s Defence industrial capacity or hit the average Russian in the way Russia has effected Ukraine.
Russia is a vast country and really doesn’t move its heavy freight buy road or rail like we in the west do. St Petersburg, Moscow and most of Russias largest industrial cities are linked by the UDWS. A huge internal system of canals that shift 70 million tonnes of heavy bulk freight each year. So most of their coal, iron ore, fuel and grain uses that network. They even build small to medium submarines and frigates over a thousand miles from and sea.
Hit the locks on the lower Don River and they are in serious trouble !
Without those Mr Putin will struggle to keep the lights on, people warm, fed or working in factories never mind moving enough grain to export abroad.
FYI less than 200 miles from the Ukraine.
Tactically astute ABC, strategically don’t think Ukraines ready just yet munitionally ways. Watch this space I guess. ⌚😉
Thanks for the hard work prof. BG.
Check the distances Storm Shadow could do it, but the aircraft delivering them would be vulnerable
The question is, whose will do you want to sap, the Russian people’s or Putin’s? I think that isolating Crimea by severing the land bridge and destroying the Kurch bridge, as Ukraine is attepting, might be enough to let Putin know it’s all over bar the shouting.
Would starving people in Rostov persuade him? It’ll all be blamed on NATO and rebuilt fairly quickly; Russians will be expected to accept the hardship. So yes continually hitting the Don might carve away at Putin’s ability to make war, but I don’t see it as an end, any more than bombing the Ruhr in 1943.
The strategy appears to me to be to eliminate assets the Russian’s fail to defend. Loss of the black sea fleet or even part of it is a failure by Putin who is prioritising his doomed ‘military operation’. Russian defences are spread too thin. The next six weeks will be interesting.
Indeed the question is how, the west is not going to allow its equipment to be used to attack Russia directly..that limits Ukraines ability to deep strike ( for now anyway).
Wonder whether current situation re transit w/in Black Sea is not somewhat analogous to situation the Allies faced during the Berlin Airlift? This time NATO has the right to enforce the provisions of UNCLOS treaty. A treaty which both Russia and China have ratified. US State Dept./UK Foreign Office/French equivalent should observe all the diplomatic and legal formalities and inform Russia that UNCLOS provisions will be strictly enforced re NATO territorial water and aerospace. If Mad Vlad chooses to have the Orcs remain in international territory, no problem, status quo. If not, NATO has the legal right to address issue w/ extreme prejudice.’. Finis. 🤔
There are huge problems with trying to enforce a sea corridor in the Black Sea. The Montreux Treaty governs the access of all warships through the Bosporus and trying to coordinate a realistic Naval Force in the Black Sea would be a bloody nightmare. Restrictions on size and types of ship permitted, lack of support facilities and non Black Sea units have to leave after 21 days. Have a read M8 it’s pretty interesting.
The Big difference between this situation now and the Berlin Airlift was that only the US possessed the A bomb at that time and deployed them as a deterrent. Russia exploded its 1st 6 months after it was all over.
Don’t necessarily believe a large naval force would be required. Sufficient airpower should be adequate.
May be time to call Mad Vlad’s nuclear bluffs. He and all of his cronies would surely be consigned to the scrapheap of history. USAF could guarantee that.
Really ? Precisely how would the USAF deal with Anti Ship missiles (cruise, ballistic or hypersonic), launched from ships or Aircraft inside Russian territory. Try taking them you get Mushroom clouds 🫤
Sorry but you would need designated corridors defended by a large number of AB’s, T45 type AD ships plus MCMV and support ships.
You can’t deploy carriers to the Black Sea, so the NATO Airforces would be needed to provide AEW and CAP, plus huge amounts of logistical airlift.
Just remember the biggest loss of lives in recent years in the USN was done by the humble old fashioned sea mine. And the Russian have zillions of the damn things.
Cheap, stealthy, indiscriminate and deadly.
What might work is stay as far West as possible in Romanian/ Bulgarian waters and use ground based Patriots, THAD etc etc to provide cover.
If Russia is stupid enough to target civilian ships in nato waters with missiles from inside Russia that would really sow to the world how scummy putin is. I don’t think he would do it.
Not do I which is precisely why I’d do it. This war is being fought in the full face of not only the recognised press but the internet as well. Mistakes are there for all to see
They dont. They just attack the port facilities along the Danube arms and the Black Sea coast of Ukraine
Certainly, provision for robust GBAD and MCMV would be a portion of preparations, but believe you have missed the overarching point. If Russians voluntarily launch on targets w/in NATO territory, they have committed an act of war. Gloves come off at that point.
Hence my point, Ram that fact down their throats. But do it in a well thought out, sustainable and non belligerent way.
One of your Presidents said it nicely “Walk softly but carry a big stick”. European NATO carries a very big stick and it’s time we did so without the US.
You guys need to focus on the other issue and let us clean up our own mess.
Daft as if sounds but when you combine Europe’s capabilities and industry we could easily outmatch Russia. Heck UK and France have 8 SSBN and ours work 😉
👍
Believe that was Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt. According to all reports and accounts, one of our more rational and intelligent choices for POTUS. 😉
Unless you were a Bear, Cougar or Bison ? Don’t think they would have voted for him. But he was the man who recognised that the USA was no longer just a frontier, resource rich reception for immigrants but was becoming a full on Nation State which had to have a voice on the international stage.
I also liked Truman and Eisenhower for developing the theme.
Eisenhower, Reagan and Geo. H. W. Bush are personal favorites from the post-war era. Kennedy, of course, unfortunately not afforded a full term to properly evaluate performance. Ambivalent re Truman had many virtues, but find it difficult to forgive sacking MacArthur.
Can we do the sensible civilised thing and adopt UK Pub rules ? In other words respectfully agree to differ regarding Truman.
IMHO by 1950 MacArthur’s Ego far exceeded his abilities as Military Commander and having him espousing the use of the A Bomb against China was just a step no C in C was prepared to take.
Was Truman right or wrong ? I don’t know but the subsequent conventional conflict ended up in a Truce and we have never had a direct incident since. He risk assessed it and used his perogative as C in C, to do what he though was right. Not sure how you do things in US but in UK the oath is to the Head of State and not to be questioned or disobeyed.
I suspect that incident pretty well triggered the adoption of the very tight system of Command and Control of WMD in the US and all other Nuclear powers.
Hmmm…learn something new almost every time I visit this site. Agree to adopt UK Pub rules re assessment of Truman’s treatment of MacArthur. Will dutifully w/hold my quill re this topic. 😊
Please don’t withhold your quill on any subject, honest open discourse is the life blood of free democratic peoples.
And on here we all seem to like a good open conversation.
Unlike certain Politicians, many of whom seem to love the sound of their own voices far more than the quality of the content.
Or in simple English they don’t engage brain before mouth.
Even a Frenchman understood the importance of differing viewpoints in a conversation. Spookily it was right about the time you lot decided to start drinking coffee rather than Tea.
Oh and IMHO looking at present day US politics you may want to consider a rethink about that silly Republican experiment. It’s getting a bit silly when you give the Launch codes to men so old they can’t stay awake or be trusted with their own bank book 🥴
Voltaire said “I disaprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it”.
Sensible bloke (for a Frenchman).
😁👍
The Treaty of the Straits means that Turkiye has closed the passage to the Black Sea to all warships ( except its own)
You cant get military rubber duck from either side in. As far as I can see Russia targets the port facilities inside Ukraine, but Ukraine is going after its cargo ships with those surface drone things.
Been doing some digging and I think you don’t need to necessarily use the Bosporus if all you want to move are minesweepers such as the 4 Romania and Ukraine have acquired from the RN. The Rhine and Danube are connected by a 4m deep canal which means a shallow draft ship should be able to use it.
Check it out 😉
Did not originally address your contention re seas mines, and damned if British Intelligence has not just stated Russian intend to flood Black Sea surreptitiously w/ mines to interdict UKR cargo traffic. Fortunately, NATO may have an available nearly ideal response. It may be an ideal time to organize an OT&E trial of newly developed, RN and MN containerized mine hunting and clearance systems comprised of USVs and UUVs. Wouldn’t contravene Montreux Convention, minimal risk for NATO personnel operating w/in NATO territorial water, and reams of real world data to factor into spiral development of systems. If successful, virtually guaranteed a potentially huge export market for systems. 🤔
The problem is that Russia would flood the Black Sea with old fashioned Sea Mines en masse and the modern remote systems are designed to weed out the modern bottom mines.
To deal with the former you need good old fashioned mine sweepers and getting those into the Back Sea is problematic without Turkeys say so.
Romania has just purchased 2 former RN MS and it will be interesting to see if they manage to get them to their new bases.
🤔🤞
Curious, how will RN deal w/ sea mines, once Hunt class is retired (c. 2030)? Additional new tech to be developed?
It would be easier for the US to simply underwrite the insurance & supply Ukraine with sufficient weapons to eliminate anything which poses a threat. NATO has avoided getting drawn in so far – why throw that away.
Because it really is a NATO problem and primarily European. Bulgaria and Romania are NATO members if we put a corridor in their territorial waters then anything in that area is fair game.
The biggest mistake Putin has made is that he miscalculated European, NATO and US resolve. So why not Ram it down his throat and make him eat it
Set up a corridor for grain shipments in NATO territory guarded by NATO forces, what can he do about it ?
To be fair it would be simpler if a grain ship flying any NATO flag sailed straight down the shipping lane to Odesa. Don’t forget to tell Moscow its food under the protection of NATO and put some UN observers aboard.Job done.
Because we caused this mess, not the US but us idiots in Europe. In 2014 we turned our backs and ignored what happened, Ukraine suffered.
We need to fix it, and the daft thing is we already did the really important big bit.
We didn’t cave in, we showed resolve and upped our budgets and capabilities.
The second we did that Russia lost, it’s just a matter of time, loss of blood and the Russian middle class getting fed up. They now like nice German cars that no longer want holidays that are limited to skis or camping in the Urals.
Understand the sentiment perfectly, but believe there are multiple countries watching and assessing whether NATO, and more specifically US, can be intimidated into acquiescing to threats of either conventional (ChiComs) and/or nuclear warfare (Russia). Have been contemplating the implications and believe that would be a dangerous precedent to establish w/ near-peer/peer enemies. The French, British and Americans allowed the Germans, Italians and Japanese to commit unopposed acts of aggression in the 1930s, and history recorded the results. The US may possess the capability to utterly destroy either or both, if absolutely necessary, in 2023. If the US continues the process of sufficient rearmament, that should assuredly prove to be the case by 2035 and beyond, as well. The collective West and the democracies w/in the Indo-Pacific, are beginning the process of rearmament. However, either hostile state, realizing this period of vulnerability is finite, and if additionally sensing a concomitant lack of political will/moral fiber by the West, may choose to roll the dice on geopolitical conquest(s). The greatest risk will occur during this period in which the democracies’ collective strength is at a relative nadir. 🤔
(Believable or not, generally subscribe to philosophy of live and let live, as long as everyone behaves. Prudent, however, to be locked and loaded for (the) bear, if forced to walk in the wilderness.)
I completely agree with your reasoning based on past History. I do find it worrying that there seems to be another echo of that time an Axis is forming of Russia, China, NKoreaand & Iran.
China is effectively playing the long game and hoping that the conflict continues long enough for the West to get fed up, force a peace on Ukraine and then go back to sleep.
My hope is the opposite, we stick to our guns and European NATO countries take the burden on themselves. That is the real big win for the West. If we do so then the US can pivot to the Western Pacific and not have to worry about a war on 2 fronts.
I would also like someone to nudge your northern neighbour awake and tell them to get stuck in, because Canada is your weak spot.
Concur that NK and Iran are/will become the junior members of this unholy alliance, but are useful stalking horses for their masters.
Would be quite pleased if you Brits had an earnest discussion w/ your compatriots in the Commonwealth (including the Kiwis) re security matters. We have been lecturing the Canadians re this for a generation, but apparently to no avail. The Canadians are inherently an affable, peace-loving people who apparently can’t quite grasp that there are others in the world who harbor malevolent intent towards them. 🙄
UK has little influence over Canada these days, even less when the incumbent is a Trudeau (6 secongd delay before we hear “Quebec Libre” being screemed at us. The US on the other hand has a very Big Stick, all you need to do is change the terms of NATO membership to 2% of GDP spending of Defe3nce to be a Mandatory requirment or exit.
Intriguing proposition, believe it would have a nearly zero percent chance of becoming official US policy, unless Donald Trump wins the next presidential election. Personal reaction is that it seems too close for comfort to a policy of throwing the women and children out of the lifeboat after a large wave, in an attempt to keep from being swamped. Personal preference would be to adopt the goal re defense/defence expenditures of the average of those prevailing at end of Cold War I. Would simply be a recognition of current geopolitical reality. 🤔
Agree, this is very much a geopolitical game if you push to hard you will get a global war, if you don’t post enough you will get a global war…very difficult..unfortunately the west not pushing hard against china and Russia because of economics has put us in this very deadly and real game.
To our credit I think we have learnt the lessons of the pre-war years. NATO and the futility of nuclear conflict have provided a peace for the last 75 years especially in Europe.
The dictators of the world, it is true to say, are feeling a little vulnerable right now which is driving them towards some form of pact. Too soon to see how successful that might be.
I think it is fair to say that a natural reaction to that pact will be a NATO like organisation covering most if not all truely democratic countries worldwide..
Do you not agree that most democracies form from an internal struggle & I would expect Russia to be no different. Ukraine will, at great cost, push Russia back to it’s borders paving the way for Ukraine becoming a proper democracy & NATO member. It might take years, decades or centuries for Russia to be taken under the control of it’s people but we must be patient.
I always liked the philosophy of “speak softly and carry a big stick” although I agree with the “loaded for bear” sentiment as long as we give the bear every opportunity to back off.😀 .
Definitely agree that a ‘NATO equivalent’ treaty organization should be formed by the democracies w/in Indo-Pacific region. This should prove to be a more powerful and enduring partnership than a series of bilateral treaties/agreements w/US.
Believe Japan, South Korea and Australia may become formidable militaries w/in foreseeable future, if investment programs continue as announced. (If only the coattail riding laggards w/in NATO could be persuaded to similarity invest in their own defense. 🙏) (Uncertain whether autocratic regimes w/in Indo-Pacific should have an invitation of membership extended.) Alternatively, there may prove to be a pathway to transform/rejuvenate an existing organization such as SEATO, or the one which includes the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore? and Malaysia? 🤔 NATO and this organization would presumably instinctively cooperate re security issues. Further, propose a division of labor whereby the US and Canada invest foreign aid funding principally w/in South America, to promote the formation and strengthening of democracies. Would suggest that the EU and UK should invest similarly in Africa. Could be considered enlightened self-interest; disaffected populations vote w/their feet and migrate to the choicest democracies.
Truly wish to believe all nations inevitably transform into stable, self-governing democracies; however, the history of human civilization raises significant doubts re that hypothesis. There was a brief moment between the collapse of the Soviet Union and Gulf War I when some may have embraced that hypothesis. Unfortunately the democracies allowed themselves to become too self-absorbed harvesting the ‘peace dividend,’ w/ entirely predictable ensuing consequences. Someone stated that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance; definitely inclined to agree w/ that proposition. 🤔
Turkiye has blocked transit to all naval vessels into Black Sea under the Treaty provisions for ‘war’, so zero Nato or even Russian , Rumanian etc can pass through
I have read all of the comments of this and similar posts over the last 18 months. I also watch Russia essentially using food as a weapon against the poorest nations on earth and leveraging that to their advantage,
The fact is the West needs to be the good guys, support Ukraine through what may be a long war. We also want to avoid a direct tie to toe with Russia.
It’s a Trilema of issues, non of which are easy to achieve.
So I have a suggestion and maybe someone may take it seriously.
The USN and RN both have a long tradition of STUFT and brought into use for non combat purposes. RFA and USNS are non commissioned vessels operated by civilian crews and sometimes a small naval protection or communication team.
So take 20 or 30 Grain carriers into service and start a convoy route on the western side of the Black Sea within NATO waters. Protect them from mines and invite any neutral countries ships to join in under our protection.
Just shout freedom of navigation and Humanitarian missions. But invite Swiss, Brazil, Ireland and India to inspect them to ensure we stick to civilian cargoes only
It’s peaceful, non belligerent, displays resolve, feeds folk and sticks several versions of rude finger gestures up at Mr Putin.
And if we are conducting large Airforce exercises in Romania at the same time, we’ll c’est la vie.😉
Anyone think he would be daft enough to keep firing missiles at Ukrainian ports full of RFA and USNS civilian manned vessels ?
Believe your plan has many features to recommend itself. Uncertain whether RFA/USNS ships would be afforded safe harbor rights under international treaty(ies) as non-combatants, if voluntarily entering an active, acknowledged combat theatre. Certainly would be afforded treaty protection while w/in NATO territory. Diplomats should be able to determine the fine details. Believe all legal and diplomatic protocols should be strictly adhered to, in the spirit of W.S. Churchill, who stated, “If you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.” Firmly believe that if this action, or any other, ultimately results in WW III, future historians should be able to justifiably and unequivocally state that the opposition started the war. By my reckoning, it is, or should be, ethically and morally acceptable to finish a fight, but not to start one. If Mad Vlad chooses to start WW III, of his own volition, then that will be his sole responsibility.
I wonder what happened to the 4x Sea King helicopters the UK provided? If any are left could they be used in some role to help detect/threaten Russian subs in the Black Sea?
HAS.5 versions stripped of all ASW gear and predesignated HU.5 and for Ukraines air sea rescue
Thanks. Yeah. Just thinking out loud to see if they could be equipped with something from now on, and wondering if anybody knows if any left?
That insurance point – why can’t, for example, the US, UK, EU countries provide insurance rather than leave it to private companies?