August 9, 2023 - 7:00am
A new arena of conflict is opening up in Ukraine’s struggle against Russian aggression. Attacks on Russian vessels by unmanned sea drones threaten to disrupt Moscow’s commercial operations in the Black Sea. Following Russia’s withdrawal from a UN-brokered grain deal, the attacks also risk causing irreparable damage to perceptions of Kyiv’s cause among non-Western powers.
One attack, on Russian oil tanker Sig off Crimea, demonstrated Kyiv’s new resolve to strike commercial vessels. The Sig and its owner are under US sanctions for transporting fuel to Russian forces in Syria. Meanwhile, Ukraine warned that Russian ports on the Black Sea coast should be considered “war risk” areas, and underlined this threat with an attack on a naval base near the major port city Novorossiysk. An advisor to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has now declared that “everything the Russians are moving back and forth on the Black Sea are valid military targets.”
This may seem like a justified tit-for-tat move following Russia’s withdrawal from the grain deal and its blockade on Ukrainian Black Sea exports. The Kremlin shows no compunction about destroying Ukraine’s economic infrastructure, so why should Kyiv hesitate to respond in kind?
Firstly, Ukrainian strikes on commercial vessels and threats to Russian ports – especially following recent drone strikes on Russian cities for which there is now “tacit recognition” of responsibility from Kyiv – complicate the moral narrative around the war. They may be necessary but, by putting civilian lives at risk, such steps raise questions about the good versus evil narrative which has been the precondition for Western support to date.
Further, by highlighting Ukraine’s eagerness to bring the war “to the territory of Russia“, such attacks will entrench opposition to supplies of longer-range weapons that could be used to strike deep inside Russian territory, as Germany faces strong international pressure to send Taurus cruise missiles to Kyiv.
Then there is the problem of perceptions in non-Western countries. Novorossiysk is a key departure point for Russian oil shipments to Asia and Africa — which skyrocketed following the imposition of Western sanctions on Russian goods, with China, India, Singapore and Turkey all significantly ramping up imports from Russian Black Sea ports. Between 15-20% of Russian oil exports are transported through the Black Sea, and Novorossiysk accounts for 17% of the country’s total maritime trade. Exports of Russian oil to the EU from the port have collapsed, but Novorossiysk remains a hub for vital shipments of Kazakh crude to European refineries.
Oil markets have so far remained stable, but further strikes on tankers “could pose meaningful risk to global supplies”, according to energy market analysts. Already, insurance for the foreign-owned tankers on which Russia depends for getting its oil to market is either “nonexistent” or prohibitively expensive in the Black Sea, potentially making such shipments no longer viable.
This would achieve Kyiv’s goal of damaging the Russian economy — but Ukraine might pay its own price in the form of reduced support, especially among non-Western powers. The Brics country leaders and other Global South powerbrokers which discussed peace plans with Zelenskyy in Jeddah this weekend would not look kindly on Ukraine if its efforts to disrupt Russian Black Sea trade lead to economic pain for developing countries — something the Ukrainian leader will have to bear in mind going forward.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI feel like this is the most opaque conflict in modern times – at least for me. While this was an interesting article I feel like I have no idea who is winning or losing this conflict as I hear contradictory messaging about it all the time.
Come on Peter, Russia is winning. Tragically in my opinion, but it is the case nonetheless. The West has provided a lot but not enough support for Ukraine if it wishes that country to survive; it appears to have somehow provided almost the perfect formula for a slow, grinding and very bloody Ukrainian defeat
Russia obviously having a far larger population and industrial base. It has learned from and corrected most of its early military failures, and is doing basic things well, like producing vast numbers of artillery shells, which seemingly the entire West cannot, or does not ultimately have the will to, match.
If the Western powers wish to curb their seemingly inexorable geostrategic decline, they need to wake up and start adopting a long term strategic approach, not just in military affairs. We need to actually make sacrifices and realise it’s some of the things that we obsess about are luxuries in a dangerous world. Let’s get real and realise that empty “no skin in the game” pontification do not win wars.
Obviously the defense against such weapons is to eliminate the launch platforms which are inside Russia. At some point that boundary must stop being some fictional limit on defense. Ukraine must have longer range defenses. They have done well in attacking airfields inside Russia but more is needed. If the world (US, UK, Russia, Ukraine) can’t resolve this conflict, we may very well enter a larger conflict. Anybody talking?
As the author notes, these weapons aren’t really new to this conflict – they’ve been being used for months now. Yes the RF have improved their use and (as with every one of their munitions) increased production & upgrading processes massively (most of the bombs used are ‘dumb bomb’ stock from storage).
A big factor in the mix is the general, and now almost complete, degradation of the Ukrainian air-defence systems which have allowed larger bombs to be deployed with relative safety. Heavier bombs can’t glide as far as lighter ones so the air-craft dropping them have to be closer and/higher to reach the same targets – the RF are currently testing 3 ton versions.
What is relatively new is the fact they’re being centred by the Ukrainians – and now the West – as excuses for what has been befalling them. It’s a handy distraction from the fact that they’ve missed their chance to dig new defensive lines – due to incompetence or corruption makes no difference now (probably a lot of both.
Beyond that, this is just another chapter in the book of disastrous underestimations of the Russians in this disastrous (and avoidable) war. Every single member of our upper military Establishment – Generals, Admirals, Air Vice Marshalls should be removed and forced to reapply for their current roles with everyone else from a few levels below them. High on the list of requirements for their applications should be a proper understanding of the capacities of our States and systems to support non-colonial conflicts and a proper understanding of the Russian way of war (and the Chinese too if they have one). The revolving door – to BAE, Lockheed Martin and the like – should be firmly shut and, ideally, those corporations broken up too. Likewise all the gravy-training think-tanks – the RUSIs, Brookings, Chatham Houses should go through the same process and be properly challenged on how they got this one so wrong whenever they prognosticate about anything.
I’m sure there are many perfectly reasonable criticisms you can make of the defense establishments of the West. However it is the politicians who make this decisions.
The Russians did indeed perform very poorly at the beginning of the war and perhaps that led to a complacency. However I have heard several high-out military people saying that the Russians tend to recover. I thought we got more sense from them than from the politicians.