 |
| Credit: AP Photo |
Vladimir Putin said that
the US was the biggest threat to Russia's global naval ambitions. It has
promised to equip warships with unparalleled weapons. President Vladimir Putin
has announced plans to expand Russia's naval power and has identified the US as
the biggest obstacle. Putin signed a new naval doctrine accusing Washington of
trying to dominate the world's oceans. The 55-page document says NATO moves
threaten Moscow's borders and details plans to strengthen Russia's geopolitical
position.
In a speech on Navy Day,
Putin pledged to defend Russian interests in the Black and Azov seas.
"We have clearly
outlined the borders and territories of Russia's national interests, both
economic and strategic. First of all, these are our Arctic waters—the Black,
Okhotsk, and Bering Sea, as well as the waters of the Baltic and Kuril Straits.
We will protect them firmly and by all means. Motherland is a sacred concept
for all of us and its defense is the highest duty and meaning of life for each
of us."
The New Naval Doctrine:
What does it mean?
It should be some of the
strategic documents of the Russian government that needs to be changed because
we are now living in a new reality where the policy of the United States of
America has become very aggressive. The United States overthrew the
democratically elected president of Ukraine and imposed a repressive
undemocratic regime on the people of Ukraine. It supported aggression against
people in the Donbass who were hapless against the illegal coup in Kyiv. We could also see a
hybrid war organized and led by the United States of America involving other
NATO members including the European Union countries. Therefore, Russia needs to
adapt its strategic documents to this new reality. Naval strategy is one of
them. Document states that the United States is perceived as a major threat to
Russian security interests and it seeks to deter Russia, particularly from a
naval, sea and maritime perspective.
Does the new naval doctrine indicate a new reality?
It is the new naval
doctrine, which is also in some way a reaction to NATO expansion - NATO
expansion to the north with respect to Finland and Sweden. This significantly
weakens Russia's geostrategic position in the north. In particular, in the
event of a major war between Russia and NATO, the latter would have the ability
to threaten the Northern Fleet's naval bases near the Murmansk Peninsula. (Wolfgang)
Does it matter given the time?
Timing of this strategy can be of great importance. It undoes centuries of customary maritime law on the high seas and also undoes more than half a century of very good maritime relations between the former Soviet Navy (the current Russian Navy) and the US Navy. In the dark days of the early 1970s, the US Navy and the Soviet Navy signed an agreement known as the Incidents at Sea agreement to prevent the risk of unintended or possibly accidental damage between their ships. This came at a time of great rivalry between the Arab countries and Israel in the Eastern Mediterranean. The US and Russia had good relations, annual meetings, and grassroots resolution of potential disputes. They had contracts that meet the laws of the sea and road. (Lawrence)
NATO Expansion is a reason for Naval Doctrine?
There is not so much
concern about NATO, especially about Finland and Sweden joining it now. Because
of the agreements between NATO and the European Union and the membership of
Sweden and Finland and the European Union, we actually think that Finland and
Sweden are already part of the NATO’s architecture. The defense ministers of
Finland and Sweden attended all NATO meetings. The situation has not changed
dramatically. The reason Russia is so opposed to Ukraine's membership in NATO
is because it is being used as a tool of power to facilitate Ukraine's
transformation into anti-Russian and construct Russia-Ukraine relations as a
relationship between India and Pakistan. That's what Russia doesn't want as it
seems to be big strategic threat to Russia's security. Thus, now Russia is highly
concerned to the North, which is reflected in its newly announced naval
strategy. Russia thinks about protecting the Northern Arctic route. It is considered
important for economy and security issue. Also, Russia wants to protect the
Arctic from any aggressive behavior of countries that do not like its use for
the Russian economy.
Adding, the Russian navy in a conventional war was apparently not strong enough. That's why Russia's Vladimir Putin announced ambitious plans to build new warships for the conventional wars we hope to be involved in in the future. (Markov)
According to this
doctrine, the biggest
threat to Russia is
America's strategy
to dominate the World Ocean.
Why America opposes Russian expansion to North Pole?
Considering the
integration of the two countries into the NATO command structure, Russia's new
naval doctrine counters the independent threat perceived by these two
additional NATO countries. Referring to the US opposition, freedom of
navigation for global shipping lines are a key strategic interest. To ensure
this, the US Navy needs to maintain a presence around the world, at least with
regard to global shipping laws. (Wolfgang)
Will Russia succeed in its ambitions?
The new Russian ideology is a clear mismatch of strategic objectives and available means. The Russian Navy has about 210 vessels, of which about 55 are fully operational blue-water vessels and submarines. About half of them can be considered modern ships which means that it is unlikely that Russia will be able to threaten the US maritime control. It means that Russia aims not to dominate the sea, but to challenge the US control.
Russia failed in its
initial objectives of annexing Ukraine
or large parts of
Ukraine. Instead it has turned into a war
of attrition.
It wanted to gain
control of the Black Sea.
If this is now a war of attrition, how is Russia positioned to continue it?
Russian strategy was based on completely false assumptions. It did not believe that the armed forces of Ukraine would put up strong resistance. In fact, their assumption was that the majority of Russians living in Ukraine would join the Russian army in their advance. It also did not believe that the West, including the United States, would impose serious sanctions on Russia. If we look at the military concept, these quick attacks are a typical example of these false assumptions trying to reach Kyiv through so-called operations. They believe they can reach Kyiv and the war will be over. It clearly failed and now they have changed their strategy. This means a war of attrition in the Donbass. They want to be able to take over the entire Donbass and if possible if they are able to eliminate the vast majority of the Ukrainian forces. Their objective is to attack Odessa to capture the entire Black Sea coast. If it is possible, we will see in the coming weeks or months whether the Ukrainians are able to maintain their resistance. It will certainly also depend on the amount of supplies of arms and shipments from the West. (Wolfgang)
Hypersonic Missiles: What challenges do they present to potential warfighters?
Simply put, the Zircon missiles on small Russian naval combatants have a range
of about a thousand kilometers and a speed of about 500 nautical miles. Their
speed is nine times the speed of sound which is about 740 miles per hour. They
are impossible to destroy in flight. Here the Zircon missiles have to be
destroyed before they are launched, meaning that the target is the ship
carrying them. The ships that will carry them are relatively small Soviet
Russian destroyers. Their ability to defend themselves in integration into
larger groups is unknown. It is something that has to be planned. Navy
technicians at the US Naval War College must be studying this and come up with
countermeasures on how to respond before it happens. We also have to operate in
a world where we hope that no one will launch an unprepared, unannounced first
strike. This is not only the policy of the United States, but hopefully it should
be the policy of the Russian government or any other civilized government in
the world.
A grain deal was finally reached
allowing ships from Ukrainian ports to sail down
the Black Sea and into Istanbul's Bosphorus
for much-needed grain, essentially
to stave off a worldwide food crisis.
If the Russians and the
Turkish government, which controls the Bosphorus and the Black Sea exits and
entrances, agree to allow the grain to be released, things will work. There is
still uncertainty about what is really going to happen whether it will take the
form of a blockade of Ukrainian grain and an economic war. (Markov)
The Arctic Ocean: Why is it so important to Russia?
The Arctic Ocean is becoming more and more important to Russia for a few reasons. First, because of global warming there are more opportunities for trade through the Arctic Ocean. It has a long Russian coastline. It can offer an important alternative to other trade routes, including the Suez Channel. It is almost twice less the length of the Suez Canal. This could be very profitable for the Russian economy and the global economy as well. Second, it contains the vast resources including gas and oil extraction in the Arctic Ocean. According to many geologists there is a huge supply of gas and oil in the Arctic region. Those who will be able to get it from the Arctic sea will benefit greatly. (Wolfgang)
The Arctic is also important as a staging area
for Russian ballistic missile submarines.
Presence in Middle East:
Syria has been an important ally during the war in Syria. Russia may try to secure Allies or Partners in the region for port access such as Egypt, Cyprus, Greece or Libya.
One should not forget
that Russia's position in Africa is not as bad as is often assumed in the West.
There are many African countries that have warm and close relations with
Moscow. It should always be kept in mind. I would say that there are many
options for the Russians to locate naval bases in Africa, especially on the
African east coast. Regarding Libya, although there are Russian mercenaries at
the moment, it is highly unlikely that there will be a Libyan ruler who would
allow the Russians to establish a naval base in, say, Tobruk, because relations
with Europe are far more important for Libya than to Moscow. (Wolfgang)
Friendly maritime relations:
For more than 100 years,
Russian and allied navies have worked together in the North. At the end of
World War I, the British and American navies in 1917-1918 were romantic and kind
towards the end of the war. In later years, the US and other naval forces were
in Vladivostok for a number of reasons during World War II. Much of the goods
were shipped from the United States to Russia via Vladivostok. In 1918–1919,
the Western Allies were concerned that Japan would try to capture Vladivostok,
one of the warm-water ports in northern Russia. Hence, it is a long-term
problem with some good historical precedent. (Lawrence)
Subscribe to our website
and enable notifications for more in-depth articles.
Sergei Markov - director of the Institute of Political Studies and former spokesman for President Putin
Wolfgang Pusztai - security defence analyst and former Austrian defence attache
Lawrence Brennan - retired U.S. Navy
captain and adjunct professor of law at Fordham University
0 Comments