Ukraine has managed to outmaneuver Russia's navy without ever launching a ship. It is like a game of chess where Ukraine has checkmated the Russian navy without any pieces on the board.
In the ongoing Ukrainian conflict, much of the spotlight tends to be on the success or failure of the Ukrainian counter-offensive on land. However, periodic events in the Black Sea region serve as a stark reminder of the strategic importance that this body of water holds in the broader conflict. One such incident occurred on 13th September when Russia's repair yard for the Black Sea Fleet, Sergo Ordzhonkidze, faced a devastating attack. Ten Storm Shadow cruise missiles, fired from five Sukhoi Su-24 Fencers, targeted the facility. Although some of these missiles were intercepted, three found their mark, severely damaging the warship Minsk and the submarine Rostov-on-Don. In response, the Russian forces retreated to their backup command post at Verkhnesadovoe, which unfortunately fell victim to another attack on 20th September. It's worth noting that Storm Shadow, also known as the SCALP cruise missile, is a product of French technology with a British-supplied warhead, and it has been utilized by the air forces of both nations, as well as supplied to Ukraine.
One plausible explanation for how some of
these missiles successfully penetrated the Russian defenses is attributed to
earlier actions by Ukrainian special forces and the deployment of Neptune
missiles, which had managed to neutralize Russian S-400 air defense radars
several weeks prior. These actions exemplify classic multi-domain shaping
operations executed with precision. Ukraine's capability to coordinate across
various domains became apparent early on in the conflict, notably with the
sinking of the missile cruiser Moskva. In this incident, a drone operated in
close proximity to the ship, distracting its crew and leading them to overlook
the approaching Neptune missiles from a different direction. These strategic
maneuvers underscore Ukraine's resourcefulness and adaptability in the face of
a complex and evolving conflict, emphasizing the vital role the Black Sea plays
in the ongoing struggle for regional control and stability.
The attack on the drydock on 13th September,
while not as iconic as the sinking of the Moskva, carries profound implications
for the overall war effort in several strategic and tactical dimensions. Five
key factors underscore its significance. First and foremost, the strike resulted
in the removal of a landing craft/logistics vessel and a highly capable
Kalibr-armed submarine from the Russian order of battle, effectively rendering
them unavailable for the foreseeable future. As the list of losses for the
Black Sea Fleet continues to grow, Russia faces a diminishing naval force in a
strategically vital region.
Second, the incapacitation of the dry docks
poses a significant logistical challenge. Dry docks are essential facilities
for maintaining and repairing naval vessels, and their limited availability is
a concern even in times of peace. With two fewer operational dry docks,
Russia's maritime capabilities are further constrained, hampering their ability
to address critical maintenance needs.
The third factor revolves around the
feasibility of repairing the damaged vessels. While Russia has declared its
intention to repair them, experts raise doubts, particularly concerning the
damaged submarine. The extent of damage to the pressure hull, caused by the
warhead's penetration from the shoulder and exit through the back, suggests
catastrophic internal damage. This scenario resembles the injuries sustained by
Admiral Lord Nelson, which proved beyond repair. The challenges of salvaging
and rehabilitating these vessels pose a daunting task for Russian authorities
and may have long-term implications for their naval capabilities in the Black
Sea.
When considering the fate of warships, it is
important to acknowledge that the notion of "beyond economical
repair" often boils down to the political will to repair rather than
insurmountable technical challenges or financial constraints. History has shown
that wounded pride and national prestige can override fiscal prudence,
prompting nations to embark on costly repair efforts. In the case of the
damaged Russian submarine, it may necessitate innovative solutions, such as
leaving the nameplate in place while effectively constructing a new submarine
beneath it. Regardless of the approach, such endeavors will undoubtedly come
with a hefty price tag, and the Russian authorities will have to weigh the
costs against the desire to maintain their naval capabilities in the Black Sea.
Should the Russians opt not to repair the
submarine, their objective will likely still be to reclaim the dry dock. This scenario
would entail the challenging task of patching up the damaged vessel, flooding
the dry dock, and towing it to another location, none of which are
straightforward operations. Each of these tasks would demand additional time,
resources, and, perhaps most significantly, result in further public
embarrassment, underscoring the complexity of the situation.
Regarding the loss of the Minsk, while it may
be deemed less strategically significant than the submarine, it still
represents a notable setback. The Minsk served primarily as a logistics asset,
yet its sister ship, the Olenegorsky Gornyak, suffered a similar fate on 3rd
August in another attack. This underscores the mounting losses faced by the
Russian Navy and presents the same dilemma of whether to repair or tow, thereby
magnifying the challenges and resource commitments faced by Russian authorities
in the Black Sea.
The fourth critical aspect to consider is the
continued viability of Sevastopol as a naval base. With the dry docks
incapacitated and the alternative headquarters razed to the ground, the
question arises as to whether it can still serve its intended purpose. While
the answer leans towards a probable "yes," it comes at a steep price,
involving the replacement and bolstering of its defenses. Should the Russians
decide to abandon Sevastopol in favor of relocating their fleet to
Novorossiysk, it would have repercussions on one of the three major supply
lines sustaining Russian forces in Crimea, with the other two being the
besieged land bridge and the Kerch Strait bridges.
Expanding beyond the confines of Sevastopol,
the Crimea region holds almost mythological significance to Russia, with
President Putin likening it to Russians' "holy land akin to
Jerusalem," despite Russia having only gained control of it in 2014. This
analogy, however puzzling, underscores the significance of defending this
territory, making it an uncomfortable prospect to continually face challenges
and attacks in a region of such symbolic importance.
Furthermore, these events have significant
implications for the balance of power in the Black Sea region. Logistically,
they create obstacles for the Russian Navy. Concurrent with the Storm Shadow
missile attacks on Sevastopol, three Uncrewed Surface Vessels (USVs) targeted
the tanker Yaz and the arms ship Ursa Major. While early reports incorrectly
suggested these attacks were part of the broader assault on Sevastopol, they
nonetheless reflect Ukraine's determined efforts to regain control of the Black
Sea for the purpose of facilitating grain shipments. Although the USV attacks
were unsuccessful, they undoubtedly cast a shadow over the prospects of anyone
in the Russian Navy eagerly volunteering for duty aboard the Yaz or the Ursa
Major in the near future. These developments highlight Ukraine's resolve to utilize
the Black Sea for grain shipments, particularly as tensions mount regarding
overland grain exports to Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia. Moreover, two
significant events are currently unfolding: the first grain ship to depart from
Odesa since the end of the grain deal with Putin is enroute through the
Bosphorus, emphasizing the potential for a decrease in Russia's ability to
weaponize hunger if pressure on its maritime forces continues. The second
involves President Zelensky's discussions with President Biden, with the
potential inclusion of a request for the U.S.-made Army Tactical Missile System
(ATACMS) at the forefront of the agenda. This development could be a
game-changer and is closely monitored by those in Sevastopol and beyond.
Ultimately, the cumulative impact of these
attacks on the morale of the Black Sea Fleet is considerable. Warships are ill
at ease when docked in high-threat environments, as it compromises their
ability to defend against attacks, essentially rendering them vulnerable. Consequently,
they are compelled to set sail, but instead of heading east to safety, the
demands of grain shipments and other activities force them to venture westward,
closer to potential threats. Given the Russian Navy's historically challenged
morale and fighting spirit, the situation could hardly be grimmer.
Notes
Blank, S. (2023, September
28). Ukraine’s Naval Victories Show a Winning Strategy is Underway . Retrieved
from The Hill:
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4225615-ukraines-naval-victories-show-a-winning-strategy-is-underway/
Burgess, A. (2023, July 28).
Ukraine's Navy is No Match for Russia, But It Has Made Waves in the Black
Sea by Using Unconventional Warfare. Retrieved from ABC News:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-29/naval-warfare-black-sea-battle-ukraine-russia-invasion-/102643312
Fisher , M., &
Shevchenko, V. (2023, September 22). Ukraine Hits HQ of Russia's Symbolic
Black Sea Navy. Retrieved from BBC News:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66887524
Sharpe, T. (2023, September
21). Ukraine Has Won a Massive Naval Victory Without Having a Navy.
Retrieved October 14, 2023, from Yahoo News:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-won-massive-naval-victory-172303596.html
No comments:
Post a Comment