On the initiative of the International Center for Security and Defense Strategies (ICSDS), the 1st International Conference on Maritime Security started in Kyiv on November 28. No such event had taken place in Ukraine before, throughout the period of Russian aggression.
Former Prime Minister of Ukraine, Head of the Security Service of Ukraine, Defense Minister and Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, currently serving as a representative of Ukraine in the Tripartite Contact Group in Minsk, Yevhen Marchuk acknowledged that this conference was an event of “concentrated expert level.” Indeed, it has brought together top-level experts in the field of maritime security, politicians, and foreign visitors. At the same time, Marchuk gently, but aptly criticized the authorities over the fact that an event of such a format was initiated not by the government, but by the public which was spurring government agencies into action. It should be noted that Deputy Defense Minister of Ukraine (2014), chairman of the supervisory board of the ICSDS, Admiral (Retired) Ihor Kabanenko, who was the main initiator of this respectable and extremely important event, now does not hold any government office, although this event has brought together people who would be useful in power in such a difficult period for this country. It is especially so given that they took the most important national-level decisions once...
IHOR VORONCHENKO, WHO HAS SERVED AS THE COMMANDER OF THE UKRAINIAN NAVY SINCE 2016, SPOKE ABOUT HIS VISION OF A MARITIME SECURITY STRATEGY
“THE THEFT IS ONGOING”
The conference started with a speech by Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the US to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. According to her, “it will only be possible to talk about the full restoration of Ukraine’s maritime security after the end of the war in the Donbas and the return of Crimea to Ukraine.” These two facts have shown the world that Russia violates international law. As a result, Ukraine has lost 70 percent of its navy and access to its key ports and naval bases, which, in turn, causes further losses.
“Russia’s continued construction of a bridge across the Kerch Strait greatly restricts the delivery of cargoes to Ukrainian ports in the Sea of Azov,” the ambassador emphasized. “The same ports are important gateways for the transportation of Ukrainian coal, metal, and grain to international markets. In addition, the theft is ongoing, as Russia has seized two Ukrainian gas platforms operating in the Ukrainian exclusive economic zone. Thus, there is a theft of Ukrainian gas going on. Moreover, the personnel working on these civilian rigs opened fire on aircraft of the Ukrainian Air Force.”
Admiral Kabanenko drew attention to the fact that Russian expansion in the Black Sea region has deep historical roots. “The Mediterranean, more precisely the Eastern Mediterranean, has been viewed by the Kremlin with interest for a long time. These aspects have to be analyzed not only in the context of Ukraine,” the admiral said. Kabanenko clearly demonstrated the expansion of the Russian military potential in Crimea, which is offensive in nature, and used the apt term “piracy of the 21st century,” since, as Ambassador Yovanovitch noted earlier, Russia has seized economic zones that are subject to the sovereign rights of Ukraine. Particular attention should also be paid to the so-called “Kerch valve,” which the Russian Federation is using to literally block Ukrainian ports (primarily Mariupol) from accessing external markets.
REPRESENTATIVE OF UKRAINE IN MINSK YEVHEN MARCHUK “SET THE TONE” OF THE CONFERENCE, EMPHASIZING NOT ONLY MARITIME SECURITY ISSUES, BUT ALSO THE NEED TO FORECAST FUTURE RELATIONS WITH THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Summing up, Kabanenko outlined two Concepts of the Black Sea Security (security aspects) as seen by the two opposing sides, which we need to be aware of to understand the “balance” of behavior strategies, in the following way:
“The Russian Federation:
• power politics dominating its southern policies;
• combined civil-military actions in vulnerable areas of the region;
• the principle of ‘divide and rule’ being used in the struggle for domination in the region;
• demonstration of ‘ineffectiveness’ of the sanction regime in Crimea;
• increasing military potential in the region.
“NATO +:
• a transformation of NATO’s 3D strategy’s vectors and content;
• aims to avoid provoking the adversary with one’s weakness, act adequately, strengthen survivability;
• value unity and organizational strength of security efforts;
• international monitoring of compliance with the sanctions regime;
• adequate presence of NATO forces in the region, joint NATO+ activities.”
DEFENSE, DETERRENCE, AND DIALOG
Commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces Naval Forces (UAF NF) Vice Admiral Ihor Voronchenko noted that the strategy of national maritime defense should be built on three aspects: defense, deterrence, and dialog. These are the very principles that NATO promotes. The participants fully agreed on the need to base the defense strategy on creating a so-called mosquito fleet, that is, a fleet operating a sufficient number of maneuverable fastboats, which are affordable and have optimal construction time.
“We have neither time nor resources, but we still have to take measures to deter aggression from the sea,” said Voronchenko. “And the threat from the sea direction which comes from the Russian Federation not only is not decreasing, but is growing and gaining momentum. Of course, building powerful ships, corvettes is prestigious, striking, and demonstrates a nation’s power. But if you do a simple calculation, then it turns out that one ton of the ship’s displacement costs 100,000 dollars. Imagine a corvette of 2,500 tons. We will have to pay 250 million dollars for it. Do we have such amount of money, and should we spend it like this while the urgent needs of defense are not met? No. We have just inducted six Giurza class fastboats. Yes, they are not able to perform the entire range of tasks. But they can protect the coastal zone.”
It is noteworthy that those present at the event drew a historical analogy between the mosquito fleet and the Cossack chaika boats. This comparison offers a fitting image, especially in conditions of modern combat.
“It is not only Ukraine that has suffered losses due to the annexation of Crimea and the war in the Donbas,” Marchuk began his speech. “I ask: has not NATO’s south-eastern flank suffered because of the fact that Crimea has actually been transformed into a full-fledged military base? When the annexation began, not everyone was ready for such a course of events. Why? We need to discuss it. After all, in order to be able to foresee the actions of Russia, one must perfectly understand its mentality in its military, military-political, and foreign policy varieties. I will name just a few nuances. The NATO summit in Rome, held in the summer of 2002. Look at Vladimir Putin’s speech. He looked like the world’s peacemaker No. 1. Russia’s cooperation with NATO was beginning, and all this sounded definitely very good. But already in 2003, Russia staged a risky adventure around the Ukrainian island of Tuzla. As the then defense minister, I can say that we were literally meters from a military conflict then. 2002 and 2003 were next to each other. The Munich speech in 2007. Again, we see Putin making a conceptual statement with a claim to a global vision and expressing his dissatisfaction with Russia’s role as an outsider in world politics. In 2008, the aggression against Georgia began. Again, 2007 and 2008 were next to each other. One can list more examples, including the Olympic Games in Sochi and the annexation of Crimea. We know that when they held the Games in Sochi, they created a land security component not only for the fight against terrorism, but one which later was involved in the annexation of Crimea as well. I emphasize the fact that Putin has been in power for a rather long time, and therefore, his behavior as a global player may already be, for all its specific features, predictable. Though it is not that simple. But forecasting should be done in the light of what we already know about the behavior of Russia, which, first of all, concerns Ukraine.”
U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE MARIE YOVANOVITCH NOTED THAT RUSSIA CONTINUED TO STEAL UKRAINIAN GAS AND IMPOSE OTHER ECONOMIC LOSSES ON THIS COUNTRY IN THE BLACK SEA REGION
Separately, Marchuk stressed the importance of maintaining a dialog with Russia and even expanding it in order to avoid leaving this nuclear monster in complete isolation and therefore beyond control and forecasts. It would be dangerous for the world, and for Ukraine it could end with a catastrophe. Indeed, calls are often made to break relations with the Russian Federation as completely as possible, and it is difficult to find historical analogies of maintaining such a high-level dialog with an occupying power. However, our reality is different. Marchuk specifically shared his experience of negotiating with the Russian Federation in the Minsk format and stressed its importance, “no matter how boring it may be.” Russia, in his opinion, is waiting for Ukraine to initiate a break of the dialog, thus giving it a pretext to tell the world that Ukraine itself does not want it, and therefore the sanctions are “inappropriate.”
GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY: DO THEY INHABIT PARALLEL WORLDS?
Before giving a comprehensive account of the economic losses and problems that the Russian Federation has created for Ukraine by annexing Crimea, Minister of Infrastructure of Ukraine Volodymyr Omelian made a brief analogy: “Crimea is not only an unsinkable aircraft carrier, but also a Cuba-2. What the USSR did to the US in Cuba in the 1960s, the Russian Federation did to Europe and NATO in Crimea.”
Due to the Russian Federation’s construction of the Kerch Bridge, Ukraine has lost its ability to supply 1 million tons of metal annually to the US. According to Omelian, “the Kerch Bridge is a means of exerting economic and political pressure and engaging in blackmail. The state of grain logistics in the Azov region has markedly deteriorated. After the construction of the bridge is complete, the vessel passage capacity of the strait will decrease significantly.”
President of the Jamestown Foundation (US) Glen Howard delivered a lively speech at the conference, which similarly turned to historical analogies. He would like to see Ukrainians among graduates of American maritime colleges, but we Ukrainians need to pay special attention to another aspect of his speech. Howard asked the military and concerned public to convey to the government the importance of the Kerch Strait issue. That is, it turns out the government takes no interest in this repeatedly mentioned sphere. Separately, the Jamestown Foundation’s president recalled that there are fastboats in US ports which the US wants to provide to Ukraine to replenish its navy, but the Ukrainian side has been slow to accept them because it is allegedly unable to find money to cover transportation costs.
Thus, the West points to our own problems, and the Ukrainian authorities pretend they do not notice them. Where is this weakness coming from?
In connection with this fact, The Day asked Commander of the UAF NF Voronchenko about the state of interaction between the government and the military. The latter answered: “There is no antagonism between the defense sector and the government. There are principles of military leadership. The Naval Forces have really found themselves in a very difficult situation due to the annexation of the Crimean peninsula. We need to go through a rebirth, and certainly there are issues, including with legislative provisions. I do not know how the previous leadership had it, but I do not have any issues in my relationship with the authorities. Everyone responds to my requests favorably, including the chief of the General Staff and the minister of defense. The cabinet, including the minister of infrastructure, provides me with funds to build the naval infrastructure. The same applies to movable property. There is a personnel problem that needs to be addressed at the national level. This affects the officers who left Crimea and abandoned all their property in the peninsula. Three years later, we have not yet received the appropriate funding to provide these sailors with housing. But I am sure the state will solve these issues.”
On the sidelines, the military participants shared with The Day another problem that answers the above question, it being the excessive presence of bureaucratic mechanisms that, in the fourth year of the war, still hinder urgent decision-making, including on the issue of arms deliveries. It is the bureaucratic rust that makes restoration of our defensive potential so slow.
