Here is the map of the
Sea of Azov the way Ukraine, in light of the Crimea's return home, viewed this
Russian-Ukrainian internal sea. On 16 July 2015, a group of Ukrainian members
of parliament submitted a Draft Law on
the Denunciation of the Treaty between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on
Cooperation in the Use of the Azov Sea and the Kerch Strait which was not,
however, adopted. This is not surprising as Ukraine apparently relies on the
Cooperation Agreement for both its claim that the construction of Kerch Strait
Bridge is illegal and for its passage rights through Kerch Strait (see Part II
of this contribution). In 2016, a number of Ukrainian State agencies requested
satellite photos from Ukraine’s State Space Agency, naming
part of Sea of Azov Ukraine’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Thus, even if
a shared bay regime of internal waters exists in the Sea of Azov, it might not
be here to stay.
It is not anymore here to
stay. Ukraine, in a desperate attempt, to achieve any kind of destabilization with
and provoke Russia—a program clearly articulated by American foreign policy
"elite" in 2014—detained
Russian fishing boat Nord which was
operating within international waters in the Sea of Azov and escorted this boat,
with crew of 10 to the Ukrainian port of Berdyansk. I am not going to delve
into purely legal issues of this whole situation but something has to be
clearly understood about serious strategic ramifications of this seemingly
insignificant event. I already reviewed some thoughts (and geopolitical advice,
no doubt, to powers that be in Washington) by great naval thinker and
strategist such as Dr.
Stephen Blank who proposed moving (I assume using under-keel wheels) US Navy's
assets into this horrendously deep (average depth is 7 meters, that is 21 feet)
body of water to scare the shit out of those arrogant Russkies and uphold
Freedom of Navigation principles, but the matter is not as comic as it may
seem.
1. US, or Deep State, or
whatever the title of a cabal which runs Washington today, needs Russia to
react forcefully and dramatically in order to push the war between Ukraine and
Russia. This cabal wants to capitalize on all those, in their opinion, geostrategic
benefits it will gain if Russia responds militarily. This will allow to coral
US European lap-dogs, from Germany to ever folie de grandeur infected France,
into the needed compliance and then prevent any Russia's energy project from
materializing in Europe. Ukraine's violation of the agreed upon status of
shared bay regime is as good as any as a provocation.
2. Kiev also needs Russia
to react dramatically and militarily but not overly painful for the neo-Nazi
regime there, just enough to unleash a propaganda campaign which may
"mobilized" Ukraine's brainwashed population in yet another
anti-Russian frenzy and thus will remove focus on Ukraine's disastrous economic
state. But here is conundrum—US wants an all-out war, Ukraine wants it
"limited". The reason for that is:
3. Any major war with
Russia for Ukraine means only one thing—fast and catastrophic military defeat
and the end of the regime in Kiev, not only the regime of Poroshenko, but
liquidation of a "modern" Ukraine in principle, with her partition. Russia
doesn't want that (for now) because doesn't want to pay for tens of millions of
brainwashed, hostile and freeloading population. This is not to mention inevitable hysteria of
the West with Russia still not 100% being ready to part with it. Catch-22 for
Russia it may seem. But not quite.
Russian response will be
most likely very typical Russian—Russia will simply enforce the shared bay
agreement with one small caveat. She will place into this EEZ Russian naval
ships and will, no doubt, establish some air patrol routes there, with Black
Sea Fleet's naval aviation making sure that mighty Ukrainian naval forces get
the message. In fact Russian Navy, through former C'n'C of the Baltic Fleet Admiral Valuev made
a very clear statement that Black Sea Fleet will use weapons to prevent
Ukraine from acting as a pirate. What is remarkable here is the fact that this statement
was made not by representative of Russian FSB Coast Guard, which does also have
means to control Ukraine's outbursts of desperation, but namely by naval people.
The hint is very clear—in the end Black Sea Fleet and its aviation need live
targets to train its crews and pilots in the use of latest anti-shipping
missiles.
Remarkably, this warning
is not limited to the Sea of Azov, it helps to put things into prospective for
Ukrainian regime which had some ideas about sabotaging Russia's economic
interests in the Black Sea proper. But it seems that neither Kiev nor its curators
in D.C. understand what it means to control the escalation. Russia can control
escalation both in the Black Sea and in the Sea of Azov easily—through a
massive force there. In the end, in 2017 Black Sea Fleet's naval aviation had
to demonstrate to Ukrainian naval armada what to expect if it gets too close and
dangerous to Russian oil rigs as it once tried. It took one SU-30SM to forecast
the fate of the mighty Ukrainian Navy.
So, after the incident
with Nord will come to conclusion, Ukraine may forget now about any claims on
what Russia was gladly ready to implement prior to this pirate act—bay sharing agreement.
I guess by now Dr. Blank must be on the line with Washington D.C. demanding a
couple of Carrier Battle Groups to go to the Sea of Azov to implement freedom
of committing of pirate acts in a desperate attempt to provoke Russia--this is a very wrong strategy. God luck
to him, I guess.
