Editor’s Note: The chairman of Ukraine’s National Security and Council, Oleksandr Turchynov, said in an interview with the BBC’s Ukraine Service on Dec. 19 that Ukraine was preparing to send more of its warships to the Kerch Strait and into the Sea of Azov.
The previous attempt resulted in an open attack by Russian naval forces on three Ukrainian military vessels. The vessels were captured and their 24 Ukrainian crewmembers imprisoned.
The Kyiv Post polled some top military experts for their opinion about Turchynov’s proposal to send more warships into the Azov Sea via the Kerch Strait.
Mykhailo Samus, deputy director of the Center for Army, Conversion, and Disarmament Studies
“We don’t yet know all the detail of this operation, but I believe the navy should continue its efforts to cross the Kerch Strait.
If Ukraine wants to remain a sovereign independent nation, it must be ready to enter the Azov Sea again. Ukrainian military and commercial vessels are fully entitled to do this freely, under international law and the 2003 treaty with Russia. There’s no reason to simply give up this totally lawful right.
However, nobody can predict how sane the Russian reaction will be. For them, our ships crossing the strait means the Crimean question is not closed forever, and this is quite stressful for (Russian President Vladimir) Putin’s voter base inside Russia.
Next time, the Kremlin could order to blocking of the Ukrainian ships again. So I would suggest there’s proper international observation of the next mission, with the involvement of the European Union and the Organization For Security and Cooperation in Europe.
It’s also highly desirable that several NATO warships be deployed close to the Kerch Strait. They would be fully entitled to navigate and support the Ukrainian vessels during their mission.”
Taras Chmut, former marine, chief editor of the Ukrainian Military Portal news website
“(Turchynov’s) proposal was just populism.
Such statements have to be backed by proper information from the navy regarding their ability to conduct such an operation. And there has to be 100-percent support from our Western partners for such an action.
But we also have to understand what our goal is.
The Russians might just let the ships through this time, just in order to say: “See? We let them cross the strait, just like we did in September, because the Ukrainians weren’t provoking us with aggressive behavior. We always let them go through safely when they obey all the rules and commit no provocations.”
By taking such a bait, we can make things look worse for us in the eyes of the world.
Besides, everyone for some reason turned a deaf ear on another claim made during the same interview – that Ukraine would have no problem delivering a missile strike on the Kerch Bridge if there was a threat.
That’s a very serious statement, and such a high-ranking official shouldn’t throw around claims like that.”
Andrii Klymenko, chief editor of the Black Sea News media outlet
“In our country, unfortunately, a lot of people just don’t understand not only specific features of maritime warfare, but even naval affairs in general. Ukraine is still a nation with land-based thinking.
We’ve got used to horses, machine gun carriers, armored cars, and tanks in war. We project the principles of land warfare onto the sea. But at sea, things are different.
The truth is that Russia enjoys total supremacy in terms of sea power. They have approximately 30 vessels armed with artillery, and the same number with heavy machine guns, while we have only three and seven such vessels respectively.
So what now? Do we surrender? Or do we take action by using our small forces and their available advantages?
Turchynov is calling for exactly that. And this approach, embraced in particular by the Naval Command, is absolutely right. Lest we forget, the 2003 treaty on the Azov Sea and the Kerch Strait is still in effect, and this is what should be used, but in a smart and unconventional way.
From the perspective of U.S. Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan, a classicist in the theory of maritime supremacy, the sea is not a barrier but a road. Those who consider the sea to be just a very broad moat and voluntarily give up attempts to control it are inevitably defeated.
Military might is about the freedom to navigate in a sea, or in the Azov Sea case, barring the enemy from using it.”
Glen Grant, retired British Army Colonel, former adviser to Ukraine’s Defense Ministry
“It’s clear that the time for action is long overdue.
But any action for a country at war has to have a military purpose. This purpose must give a strategic, material or moral advantage. It is very hard to see how this action will achieve any of that. The two key activities of Russia are stopping trade into the Azov Sea ports and gradually eating into ownership of the Ukraine coastline.
This appears to help neither. Even if this act were to be successful, it would likely not change the activities of allies or trading partners in a positive fashion, as the Russian posture and creeping dominance would likely continue unchanged.
The act risks losing more military assets and international support, but for no obvious gain other than legal principle, and Russia doesn’t care about that at all.”
Ihor Kabanenko, retired Ukrainian navy admiral
“To be honest, I don’t see any strategic logic or any tactical advantage from such a voyage. Amplifying the gunboat force in the Azov could be done in a number of different ways.
In the broader context, trying to reach equivalence of forces with Russia is not the best idea. It would be better to work on better protecting the locations most vulnerable to the threat from the sea, and also to speed up creating a powerful fleet of small, fast vessels.
Time is running out fast, and it is against us.”
Ben Hodges, retired Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, former commanding general United States Army Europe, 2014-2017
“The Kremlin has demonstrated that it will never respect Ukrainian sovereignty if Ukraine does not demand it and demonstrate that it is prepared to defend it. It is essential to Ukrainian sovereignty and security that it develop, resource, and implement a maritime strategy that ensures its freedom of navigation in the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea.
This requires well-trained and equipped naval units, robust sustainment capabilities, and a rigorous exercise program with regional and international partners. The brave men and women of Ukraine’s armed forces deserve such a navy and a strategy. The people of Ukraine also deserve an efficient and transparent defense industry that makes the best use of Ukraine’s resources.”
Michael Carpenter, senior director with the Penn Biden Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement
“My view is that this would be a disastrous move. Currently, most of Ukraine’s Western partners correctly understand that Russia was the aggressor in late November. However, if Ukraine now tries to send another ship through the strait, Western views will flip, and Ukraine will be seen as a provocateur.
To be clear, as a matter of international law, Ukraine is well within its rights to sail ships through the strait whenever it wants. But at this delicate moment I believe this would be a catastrophic move from a public relations and diplomatic standpoint.
Ukraine should instead publicize the plight of the captive sailors in the West, and underscore how Russia is holding Ukrainians as prisoners of war.”
