Home / Robert Farley / Say Hello to Your New Black Sea Fleet

Say Hello to Your New Black Sea Fleet

Comments
/
/
/
552 Views

Bad week for the Ukrainian Navy:

Ukraine’s maritime forces have been dealt a heavy blow by the Russian intervention in Crimea with 12 of its 17 major warships, nearly 40 support vessels, and much of its naval aviation assets now falling under Moscow’s control.

In the eight days following the controversial referendum on 16 March that opened the door for Crimea to be absorbed in the Russian Federation, almost every Ukrainian naval base and ship on the peninsula has been seized by Russian forces or local pro-Moscow self-defence units.

The scale of the crisis facing the Ukrainian navy is apparent from the fact that around 12,000 its 15,450 personnel were based in Crimea when Russia intervened on 27 February. Over the past three weeks, the majority of the Ukrainian military personnel in Crimea have defected to the Russian military or resigned from military service, according announcements by the new pro-Kremlin administration in Crimea. Independent media reports suggest the Ukrainian navy has suffered personnel losses broadly along the lines claimed by the Russians.

In a major blow to its pride, the service’s commander, Admiral Serhiy Hayduk, was arrested by Russian forces when the navy headquarters in Sevastopol was seized on 19 March and unceremoniously dropped off by Russian troops at the new “border” checkpoint with Ukraine at the north of Crimea. Those of the admiral’s sailors who wanted to continue to serve in Kiev’s navy had to make own way in civilian cars or public transport off the peninsula.

In Sevastopol, the Russians seized intact four major warship – the Grisha V-class frigates Ternopil and Lutsk , the Pauk-class corvette/patrol vessels Khmelnytskyi , and the Bambuk-class command ship Slavutych – as well as Ukraine’s only submarine, the Foxtrot-class Zaporizhzhia . Also seized in Sevastopol was the oceangoing tug Korets.

That probably understates the overall loss, which also includes infrastructure, communications, and training equipment. More captures may come, as the Russians continue to blockade Ukrainian ships in Lake Dunuzlov. I can think of two long-run upsides; first, the ships and equipment lost are relatively old, poorly maintained, and largely a drag on the Ukrainian defense budget. Two, Ukrainian military spending needs to be heavily refocused on land and air capabilities in any case, so a rump fleet (based in Odessa) is probably appropriate.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Jackdaw

    As far as valuable military assets go, the air force’s Crimean losses were probably more important. From the linked article:

    On 24 March, the Russian authorities claimed to have seized some 189 Ukrainian bases in Crimea, including final sections of Balbek airbase held by personnel of the 204th Tactical Aviation Brigade, which was overrun by Russian Spetsnaz troops in a dramatic assault two days earlier. The brigade’s 39 Mig-29 fighters were seized in first days of the crisis. The Ukrainian air force’s 174th Air Defence Regiment base at Fiolent on the outskirts of Sevastopol was overrun on 21 March and its inventory of S-300 surface-to-air missiles seized.

    • joe from Lowell

      Just saw this.

      I’m thinking sidearms and bayonets.

    • Dave

      Gives you an interesting picture of the legacy of the Cold War that there were 189 ‘bases’ on Crimea, which according to google is roughly the size of Massachusetts…

  • DrS

    Also the trained attack dolphins.

  • News coverage of the actual military situation has been terrible. The link went to one of about two decent articles I’ve seen, the other is http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/25/russia_s_window_of_opportunity_in_ukraine, arguing that the most likely time for an invasion of eastern Ukraine is from early April to mid-May.

    • Walt

      About half of the generals in the Pentagon have got to be hoping this happens. “Finally! Enough of this terrorism shit!”

  • Homer

    I am rather surprised there was no scuttling.

  • joe from Lowell

    Each of those ships’ crews had a Russian minority and, well, you know.

  • Warren Terra

    I’m a bit surprised at how unnecessarily tone-deaf Russia is behaving with things like this. Seizing the obsolete and irrelevant ships of the Ukrainian Navy doubtless gave a bunch of preening bullies a thrill, but letting them go would not have meaningfully diminished Russia and would have been less blatantly corrupt. Russia is seizing the Crimea; you’d think they’d pretend this was about national boundaries and the Russian People instead of making it nakedly about greed and power.

    I suppose when you’re in a brutal kleptocracy that every day flirts more seriously with fascism, dumb bullying ations are their own reward.

    • joe from Lowell

      They’re not trying to win friends and influence people; they’re trying to intimidate them.

      Looking like goons isn’t a setback for the Russians’ efforts, but an important objective in its own right.

    • Craig

      Their argument will doubtless be that the Ukrainians took all that stuff from the Soviet Union when they left, and the Crimeans are taking it from Ukraine in much the same fashion. It’s not one hundred percent wrong, either.

      • burritoboy

        No, that’s 100% wrong – the Ukraine didn’t TAKE that stuff from the USSR – they were given it by the USSR and the transfer ratified by post-USSR Russia by treaty multiple times. This was all explicitly and carefully negotiated (and renegotiated) over a period of twenty years.

        • Craig

          Yeah, and it was absolutely pristine, with no strong-arming or creation of “facts on the ground” to sully the constitutional purity of the process. You’d never see a ship just declare for Ukraine, hoist the flag, and run for Odessa while the rest of the fleet tried to ram it or anything sordid like that–not before the treaties were painstakingly negotiated and renegotiated! Twenty three years later, you have a tidy narrative that papers over a certain amount of ugliness. Very handy thing, a narrative.

      • joe from Lowell

        I agree; Putin only cares about his actions looking legitimate to people who are nostalgic for Russia’s Soviet-era power.

        It just doesn’t matter to him if the rest of the world finds his claims ridiculous, just as he doesn’t care about the sort of people who find his bare-chested nature pics ridiculous.

  • Sockie the Sock Puppet

    To what extent can the Crimean situation be considered not an invasion but a military coup (or counter-coup)? A lot of military assets are being handed over to “local pro-Russian self-defence units” — how does that happen if a significant number of Ukrainian commanders aren’t ready and willing to toss them the keys?

    Are there historical parallels for this sort of thing?

    That’s one of the things that most bothers me about Sunday Talkshow Senators who want to “be decisive” about the Crimea situation: If “Ukraine” isn’t willing to fight for the Crimea, why should we?

    • Jack Canuck

      From this perspective, there are perhaps parallels with the breakaway Serb territories in Croatia and Bosnia (and the Croat breakaway in Bosnia) in the early 90s: allegedly independent domestic actors like Karadzic, Boban and the like who coincidentally happened to suit the aims of neighbouring states and their leaders (Tudjman, Milosevic). As in this case, they got handed a lot of military materiel (albeit technically mostly from the Yugoslav Army, not the newly formed Bosnian/Croatian militaries)from the inside, rather than being an invading force from outside the borders of the states in question. I’m not up enough on the details of what’s happening in the Ukraine to say definitively whether this parallel could be taken too far, but I have been increasingly struck by some of the resemblances to the former Yugoslavia in the early stage of the wars there.

      • Jack Canuck

        Ack. Should be just ‘Ukraine’, not ‘the Ukraine’. Cloedarly my morning coffee hasn’t kicked in yet.

  • Patricia Kayden

    I guess Russia can pretty much do whatever it pleases — with no consequences. After Ukraine, which former Eastern bloc country is next?

    • Helmut Monotreme

      Is a Black Sea fleet even useful for Russia? Why put valuable military assets in a bottle that Turkey can stop up anytime they feel like?, that only drains to a slightly larger bathtub which can be locked up on one end by Egypt, and on the other by the UK and Spain? It’s not like the US feels the need to have a Great Lakes fleet.

      • DrS

        Until we claim the breakaway province of Windsor, Ontario anyway

        • wengler

          It can join the Detroit Oblast.

        • Warren Terra

          Or we can claim Tsawwassen in order to establish a land route to Point Roberts.

        • The only part of Canuckistan we need to seize is the southern maritimes, to ensure an uninterrupted lobster supply.

      • Warren Terra

        We need to talk about your disturbing Canadian sympathies.

      • hickes01

        Well there was talk about turning the USS Des Moines into a museum ship and placing it in Duluth, but the deal fell through. Thanks Obama!

        Wait a minute! We DO have a fleet on the Great Lakes.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Naval_%26_Military_Park

        • Damn right: it’s the largest inland naval park in the whole world!

      • kenjob

        we do have a great lakes fleet.

        more to the point, the black sea fleet serves to protect/threaten shipyards and ports in former/future soviet republics.

    • wengler

      None of them? The Baltics are in the NATO gang, Belarus is ruled over by a guy more old school Soviet than Putin, and unless Putin wants to attack Poland from the Kaliningrad salient it’s pretty safe too.

      • Trans-Dniestra and Moldova.

        Or Russian-speaking parts of the Baltics if Putin’s really feeling his Wheaties.

        But all he’s got so far is Crimea – eastern and western Ukraine aren’t gone yet.

    • ajay

      I guess Russia can pretty much do whatever it pleases — with no consequences. After Ukraine, which former Eastern bloc country is next?

      Kazakhstan?

      • IIRC Nazarbayev moved the capital from Almaty in the south to Astana in the north because the latter location is in the middle of an area with a large Russian minority and he wanted to forestall any potential irredentist hanky-panky.

    • Theobald Schmidt

      The two relevant questions:

      * Is the West willing to risk killing everyone in the world in a nuclear fireball over Russian national prestige in Crimea?

      * Is Russia?

      • Walt

        Do Russia’s nuclear weapons even still work? Do the US’s?

        • Walt: yes and yes
          Theobald: no and no (not that it changes anything)

          • Theobald Smith

            I believe Putin would be completely willing to end the world over Ukraine, if NATO pushed back sufficiently hard.

            • joe from Lowell

              Putin seems like more of a mob boss than a fanatic to me.

              • cpinva

                me too.

    • Walt

      I don’t check the news very often, but Russia annexed the entire Ukraine?

    • SIS

      What is the basis for that Statement?

      Russian aims in Crimea don’t seem to hard to envision:

      Raise Putin’s popularity at home because most Russians do see Crimea as land taken from them unfairly in the past.
      Paint the opposition as traitors
      Secure Sevastopol, possibly permanently, without having to worry about leasing it from Ukraine.
      Destabilize new Ukrainian government.

      Discussions about what he would supposedly gain from any further moves, be it moving into Eastern Ukraine, or anywhere else, appear rather nebulous and all hinge on some psychoanalysis of Putin himself.

      • kenjob

        +distract Russian media from Sochi corruption retrospectives

      • cpinva

        “Raise Putin’s popularity at home because most Russians do see Crimea as land taken from them unfairly in the past.”

        given Russia’s complete lack of historical legitimacy in the crimea, it doesn’t really matter what “most Russians” think. there are people who claim that any sperm not gaining unfettered entrance to a vagina, is an “abortion”. we call those kinds of people idiots.

  • jon

    At a minimum, Ukraine has a substantial case for damages and reparations. They have been denied substantial territory and population, national borders have been violated and reduced, military assets have been seized and personnel detained. And, of course, Russia violated a treaty that it was a principal of. Russia has tried to be proactive, by announcing a new, big bill for gas, and by repeatedly threatening to cut off gas supplies.

    I wonder what the view looks like today from Tblisi?

    • GFW

      >At a minimum, Ukraine has a substantial case for damages and reparations.

      I was wondering in what forum such a case would be heard and how damages would be awarded. (Hey France, about those two Mistrals…)

      • cpinva

        “I was wondering in what forum such a case would be heard and how damages would be awarded.”

        the Hague, I should think. Russia has significant monetary and non-monetary assets scattered about the world, all of which can be seized/frozen, by those countries where they’re physically located.

    • Pro-Russian demonstration downtown on Thursday. Smallish, but still.

      Ivanishvili’s course of attempting normalization without abject surrender is going to be even tougher sledding now than before.

      Also, too, plenty of hanky panky in recent months as the Russians’ fence-building exercise around South Ossetia takes extra slices of land pretty much every time you turn around.

  • Marek

    Time to dust off those REFORGER plans, methinks. Of course, we’d have to reconstitute several divisions to make them meaningful.

  • Pingback: [BLOG] Some Monday Crimea links | A Bit More Detail()

It is main inner container footer text