The events in and around the Kerch Strait over the last five days are a stark reminder of two things: the central role of Ukraine in the relations between Russia and the West, and the misleading notion of a “frozen conflict.”
It has become apparent how quickly a new cycle of confrontation and violence can erupt in and around conflict zones. The tension in the Azov Sea had built up in recent months but failed to gain the international attention it deserved and escalated dramatically this week. Individual EU member states (such as Germany and France), the EU, and international organizations (including NATO and the UN), have been scrambling to find an appropriate response; one that would stop Russia from escalating the situation further while also demonstrating support for Ukraine.
The legal situation is clear-cut: Russia has once again broken international law—this time, by blocking the access of Ukrainian ships to the Sea of Azov. Over twenty Ukrainian soldiers were captured, at least three were injured, and the first have appeared in a Russian court in Crimea. Moreover, Russian troops have concentrated and moved in close vicinity of the border with Ukraine.
Thus, Russia has gone beyond the annexation of territory in Crimea and is now claiming the Kerch Strait as national waters. By doing so, Russia is violating at least two legal foundations regulating the access to the Azov Sea through the Kerch Strait: the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and a 2003 bilateral Ukrainian-Russian agreement in which both countries assured each other unhindered access to the Azov Sea. Similar to the annexation of Crimea 2014, Western powers have been confined to watching the events from the sidelines without finding an effective response—so far.
The first reactions were high-level diplomatic talks and emergency meetings at the level of the EU, NATO, and the United Nations, coupled with calls for moderation and deescalation addressed to both Russia and Ukraine. These are sensible first steps in a volatile setting and, contrary to some of the commentary in the Western media, do not equate with misjudging where the aggression originated.
The Normandy Format would be the most suitable framework within which to conduct talks. This group of four—Ukraine, Russia, Germany, and France—was set up to oversee the implementation of the Minsk Agreement in eastern Ukraine.
Despite not having fulfilled the expectations on the Minsk Agreement, the Normandy Format has remained the only functioning communication channel at the level of heads of state and government. Russian President Vladimir Putin has so far apparently ruled out negotiations in this format on the latest events. Instead, he has talked on the phone to German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Other options on the table are new EU sanctions and military support through a NATO presence in the Azov Sea. The EU Foreign Affairs Council on December 10 is likely to consider new targeted sanctions against individuals close to Putin. This would be the easiest way to show that the EU does not carry on as if nothing has happened.
Even if no agreement materializes, at least the consensus inside the EU on maintaining the existing sanctions regime, which has appeared weak at times, is likely to be strengthened.
Demonstrating military support of Ukraine and sending NATO ships to the Azov Sea would most likely have a more immediate effect on the situation on the ground. It could help to deescalate by changing the balance of power, but there is also a risk of further escalation.
Extreme crisis situations inadvertently also reveal a lot about underlying perceptions and biases. The fact that Ukraine enacted martial law (in force since Wednesday, for thirty days) upon the initiative of Poroshenko has attracted significantly less attention in Western reporting and policymakers’ reactions. This is symptomatic of the widespread hesitation when it comes to critically engaging with Ukraine while it confronts Russia over the annexation of Crimea, the war in eastern Ukraine, and now in the Azov Sea, where the country sees its access to the ports of Mariupol and Berdyansk blocked.
A discussion of the implications of martial law in Ukraine does not have to distract from Russia’s role in Ukraine from 2014 up till now. On the contrary, the two things are inextricably linked, and not addressing one or the other would be the wrong approach.
Even with parliament’s revisions to the presidential decree that reduced the time period from sixty to thirty days, limited its applicability to 10 regions in the south-east, and adjusted its scope, it remains an exceptional measure that freezes Ukrainian politics, enhances the role of the president, and potentially disrupts the everyday life of Ukrainian citizens.
The president’s initiative is a means to bring the severity of the events to the level of international attention. In particular, in its original version, his decree was also linked to political calculations, as it allowed for the possibility to postpone the presidential elections in March 2019—where, judging by opinion polls, his chances are currently slim. His image as a war president managing an extreme situation as best as anyone could is his best bet at staying in power. From now on, Ukrainian domestic politics will be shaped even more by the rhetoric of war.
The situation in the Azov Sea remains highly volatile, even though both Russia and Ukraine ultimately cannot have an interest in a full-out war. A Western response is necessary to this latest breach of international law by Russia. It is most likely to come in the form of further offers to negotiate and targeted additional EU sanctions. But these are short-term measures that don’t amount to a long-term strategy on how to deal with the conflict between Ukraine and Russia.
Gwendolyn Sasse is a non-resident senior fellow at Carnegie Europe and the Director of the Centre for East European and International Studies (ZOiS), Berlin.
Comments(20)
Block the Bosphorus to Russian ships now as suggested by the Head of Ukraine's Navy. That'll annoy Russia which is always a litmus test of doing the right thing.
Such a move means violation of the Treaty of Montreux (1936) and the International Convention of the Sea (1982). It needs the collaboration of Turkey that has developed close ties with Russia recently. It's extremely utopian.
In reply to George Yiannitsiotis, PhD. Russia has already violated more international treaties than you can wave a stick at. As such treating Russia as a country that pays heed to international law is a non-starter. It is a mafia petro-state and behaves like one. Wake up.
OK, you have a freedom of movement in your town. Does it mean you should not to stop at red light at the crossroad? Actually no. The ukranian vessels didn't ask a permission to cross the Kertch strait. Then they violated the border of Russia. They refused to take a pilot on board. Their maneuvers for 12 hours were dangerous. But it seems the author don't want to analyse an incident. It's so sad when you call yourself an expert but indeed don't understand anything in Sea law.
Your comment is almost precise; however, taking into consideration that Ukraine (and the International community) do not recognize Russian domination over Crimea (subsequently over the western part of Kertch straits), its vessels did not have any obligation to accept Russian pilots on board since that could constitute "de facto" recognition of Russian authority on Crimea. The Ukraine tried to raise again the stakes but, I am afraid, their leaders have gravely miscalculated the balance of power in the region (they did not learn from Shaakasvili's similar blunder that led his country to a disastrous short-term war that left Georgia minus 50% of its territory)
I agree with Gwendolyn Sasse in part when she writes: “Demonstrating military support of Ukraine and sending NATO ships to the Azov Sea would most likely have a more immediate effect on the situation on the ground. It could help to deescalate by changing the balance of power, but there is also a risk of further escalation.” The part I don't agree with is that the war ships sent be under the auspices of NATO. Europe as this point needs to grasp that the Trump administration has to be led into action relating to Russian aggression. Ultimately France, Germany, and other willing European nations with warships would have to foot the costs for maintaining a naval presence in the Azov Sea outside the NATO framework. President Trump has already publicly stated he is willing to concede to Russia the Crimea and most of the the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine based on supposed Russian language and cultural dominance. Effectively President Trump has little interest in confronting Russia and what coherence remains of US foreign policy is focused on China both in terms of a trade war and preparation for a military conflict in the future. I think Gwendolyn Sasse by raising “new targeted sanctions against individuals close to Putin” and utilization of the Normandy Format for discussions with Russia is delusional without a military commitment by European nations to Ukraine. That commitment would need to go beyond military aid. That commitment would need to address corruption and strategic incompetence within the Ukraine military along with rampant political corruption and the rising tide of neofascist nationalism in Ukraine
In the killing fields of Europe, as the authors writes, “frozen conflict” is a misleading notion. Europe, the land where World Empires rise and fall, can’t ever be at peace. Examples abound: L’Alsace et La Lorraine, one of the many reasons of German-French bloody rivalry ended in the Franco-German engine for EU integration; the 100-year war, followed by many imperial wars, ended in L’Entente Cordiale; the Balkan wars and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the collapse of the Russian, then Soviet Empires. In other words, some conflicts solved, some not. The list is long, and this post is not about which side is right and which is wrong, but about the wider geopolitical context. A quick Internet search on the WWI Centennial finds in “Indian Express”: “The first World War lasted from July 28, 1914, to November 11, 1918, and saw the participation of 70 nations that had not yet gained independence from colonial powers”. Similar searches for WWII find China and India at many million military and civilian deaths, including 2 million famine victims in India. The emphasis is on the fact that in 2018 the Rest is no longer willing to sacrifice blood and treasure in wars that are not theirs. In this analysis the author mentions twice NATO ships in the Azov Sea, equivalent with the freedom of navigation for military ships sailing in South China Sea or Taiwan Strait. These ships will have to cross the Kerch Strait under the bridge, with all the implications. “Scrambling to find an appropriate response”, like all scrambling might result in an accidental hot encounter of military assets (or those in the Black Sea or Northern waters and air). After this, the positive feedback mechanism at work (the one that ended CFE, ABM, INF and so on) could ignite a war in Europe. Nuclear or conventional, long or short, it will this time be limited to around one billion people, same major powers as WWI/WWII, this time without colonial realms. It will also be destructive enough to forever tilt the balance of power to the Rest, many billions with fast growing economies as well as large and sophisticated militaries. WWI/WWII resulted in Pax Americana; the next will probably result in Pax Indo-Chinica (or similar new word construct), if Jonathan Schell was wrong (which is a separate discussion). Largely ignored in the Western media, the Doklam standoff high in the Himalayas was solved peacefully. It doesn’t mean it is not the frozen conflict which will trigger WWIV, but that is another discussion.
In response to US Army Retired: As described in the media, the incident occurred in the Black Sea, where NATO already has a large naval and aerial presence, including Romanian and Bulgarian ports and airfields (Turkey even!). As the incident begun in the morning, there was ample time for jets to be scrambled there, just in time to potentially collide with the Russian air force. An EU naval force in the Azov sea, assuming it will cross the shallow waters of the Kerch strait, how will it act if a similar incident occurs? If there is a live fire exchange, then Article 5 will be triggered immediately, and every NATO EU member will expect the US to bear the brunt of the war. Same logic will apply to the presence in the Black Sea, close to the Kerch Strait, of the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. Moreover, this will ignite memories of the Crimean War, and the brutal battles in that area during WWII; how do you think the Russian people will react? In what concerns real NATO US involvement in Europe, the Trump administration has continued and amplified those of the Obama administration, as always, at greater expense for US and ultimately us, the average citizen (why pay the $1.5 trillion student loans and not cut Social Security and Medicare when Norway doesn’t feel secure, just offer Trident Juncture?). In terms of war, the US Congress has the enumerated powers “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”, which it did last in in June 1942 with the now NATO member Romania. Not sure how a US president will veto this, but constitutional experts could explain. Ideally the wealthy EU nations should have been long time ago ready to bear the full burden of their defense and offense (like war is always). That is in no way limited to any GDP percentage, be it 1% of 4%, but rather the willingness to fight (see Afghanistan since Alexander the Great). As this is never part of any meaningful public debate during elections in Europe, they will still always wait for the US. The best example is their limited Article 5 participation in Afghanistan. In what concerns Ukraine, the EU appears to apply the Washington consensus, instead of taking full responsibility in preparing Ukraine’s accession as full EU member with massive expenses. The Normandy format, it is stalled, and will probably never function as expected. Peace is always better; the alternative is nuclear war and the end of the West (Russia included).
Mike Pompeo today speaking at the German Marshal Fund today characterized US foreign policy as “principled realism.” Which Pompeo defined as “common sense [where] every nation must honestly acknowledge its responsibility to its citizens and ask if the current order serves the good of its people as well as it could.” The answer is of course no as it relates to NATO, although Pompeo avoided saying that. His argument was for nation states to exert their own self interests. Given this ideological framework European states will need to be prepared to force the hand of the USA in relationship to the freedom of navigation issues relating to the Kerch Strait. Trump is far more concerned about China and the Spratly Islands. China has introduced anti-ship cruise missiles and surface-to-air missile systems on three of its fortified outposts in the South China Sea. It is completely possible China has tactical nuclear warheads available on these islands. The Kerch Strait is not high on either the Pompeo or Trump agenda right now. Europe must lead on this issue right now or prepare for further Russian aggression.
Limited space for such an article not allowing it, I'd still add some things: 1. TheUkrainian vessels were in neutral waters - both directions. This negates the entire bs Russian apologets try to use. 2. Yes the Normandy format is indeed the only existent(!) mechanism. Yet it is not the only way to respond. When existing mechanisms fail or under-deliver, a joint(!) NATO+EU policy with appropriate US involvement needs to be developed fast. An increased pressure on both military&non-mil fronts would be needed. 3. Tactically speaking - though an existing NATO maritime op in the Black Sea would face the Montreaux convention limitation (a ship can be in that sea only 21d), a rotating presence would solve the matter short term. 4. Militarily speaking strictly in terms of Azov Sea, in mid-long term, (making a statement about) & helping build Unrainian navy & anti-vessels capabilities would be a serious step to do.
Mr. Lupan wrote: The Ukrainian vessels were in neutral waters. - Really? Let us see... It's a photo of incident . We can see glorious Ukrainian boats trying not to be captured by Russian Coast Guard. My question is what is the distance from them to the coast? For your information: the visibility range of the horizon at sea is 8-10 km. The depth of territorial waters is 12 nautical miles. one mile is equal to 1,852 km. Are there any other questions?
In response to Domnul: Actually not only has the Ukrainian navy stated they notified Russia that it was planning of using the Kerch strait but also please know that the ships had already turned around and started going back to their port in Odessa when the Russian ships rammed the ships and seized them. You can also see this in the video as the coast is already behind them. It was also illegal for Russia because of the 2003 agreement of the free use of the strait. Here's a link to the Kremlin website in which they actually boast about signing this agreement.
Oh dear. More agit-prop by those with an agenda. The current Ukraine is run, not governed by some very spurious local oligarchs. They have both wrecked and stripped the country of just about everything. Their leader is about 10% in the pols. This is so obviously staged given how quickly the anti-Putin media has responded. The Europeans are not buying this. They aren't that easily deceived.
Having seen 10,000+ killed, 10’s thousands crippled, nearly 2 million IDPs is it any wonder that I and millions of others stand against Putin? And just how will martial law (ending December 26th) increase Poroshenko’s chances of re-election? Zaporozhzhye Ukraine
Sending NATO ships to Azov Sea is a military mission impossible in the absence of an overall strategy towards Russia.
Obviously, real politics is not at the scope of the commentator. Suggesting NATO military presence at the Azov Sea shows two things: 1. inexperience of military capabilities at a very narrow closed gulf whose entrance is fully controlled by the adversary 2. lack of understanding regarding the security concerns of the adversary. 1) Sending NATO ships into the Azov sea would provoke Russia's direct military action (there are also agreements between Russia and the USA as well as NATO regarding NATO naval presence at the Black Sea in general). Escalation may lead to a 3rd WW! 2) G.Bush and M.Gorbatchev had agreed back in 1989 in Reykjavik that NATO won't expand further in the Balkans as well as crossing into the ex-USSR territory. That "New Yalta" agreement has already been violated by the USA regarding the three Baltic states and attempted to be violated in the cases of Ukraine (2012), Georgia (1990-2008), Chechnya (1990-2008) as well as some central Asian ex-USSR member states. Russian answer to those threats was extremely brutal though successful: Georgia lost almost 50% of its territory (2008); Chechnya was "pacified" the same year; the Ukraine was attempted to be controlled via "democratic" path but the elected President was overthrown by a peculiar "coup-d'etat" where facebook and other social networks played major role in the developments; Crimea (that was offered to the SSR of Ukraine in 1956 - up to then part of SSR of Russia) was annexed by Russia in 2014 via a bloodless, well-planned military operation; Russia counterbalanced the western military pressure by a spectacular (US-style) military campaign in Syria (Sept.2015 up-to-day) shiffting the balance of power in the region. Turkey is ready to mediate between Russia and the West, depriving NATO from vital military support at the critical theater (Black Sea) and countries like Bulgaria and Greece are not in the position of sustaining war (roughly can sustain sanctions against Russia).
Norbert Röttgen chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the German Bundestag published an opinion piece in the Guardian titled “The EU’s response to Russia must be bold and unanimous.” It is in fact a proposal for a response that is anything but bold. It rules out any freedom of navigation passage attempt by EU warships into the Sea of Azov stating “Military means are out of the question, but all measures short of war should be taken into account.” While Röttgen correctly in his essay depicts Russian aggression his ruling out utilization of warships as part of a strategic approach to this aggression only further emboldens Putin. Röttgen will of course not even raise the military option because the entire idea of a EU military force costs money and that money is no where to be found without either increased taxation or reductions in social welfare expenditures in EU nations, and given the fear generated by the yellow vest protests in France the latter option is highly unlikely. Röttgen’s solution attack Nord Stream 2, “maintain dialogue with Russia,” and maintain “strategic patience.” Truly pathetic. This is the reality of the situation when the USA has more and more abandoned its role militarily of confronting Russia on the conventional level in Europe as opposed to the nuclear strategic level in favor of focusing on confronting China.
There is a reason Röttgen is talking to “The Guardian” and not to the German people at the CDU conventions (like the one where AKK took the leadership). The salvos of a FONOP operation in the Azov sea might be the first in the last act of the war started in 1914. This is not anymore about spending money for deterrence, it is fighting in a war which most likely will quickly escalate to a strategic nuclear exchange. In theory, the EU states have some form of democracy, and the people should be somehow prepared for this kind of war, including civil defense a la Swiss. Rottgen knows very well that people aren’t ready to die on remote shores storming machine gun nests or at home from radiation sickness for a FONOP. May and Macron also never talk about war in the East, it is implied that the US must take care of everything, with them providing a token presence, like in Afghanistan. They never talk about their duties if something happens in the Pacific of South China Sea, although NATO should cover the world. In what concerns US military presence in Europe it is there: ERI is now EDI, Atlantic Resolve, Trident Juncture, Deveselu, Rygge, Campia Turzii, soon more tactical nuclear weapons (after INF exit) and it is a long list of initiatives we pay for. Regardless of how much we spend the NATO EU members will never fell it is enough, like any free service provided by somebody else. In what concerns Ukraine the wealthy EU doesn’t appear to provide a meaningful economic help, in the tens of billions a year, unconditional while Ukraine is addressing EU’s requirement; free movement of people should have been granted a long time ago, Ukraine will get it anyway after the EU accession.
The author's non-reference to the USA in Russia's latest power-play is telling!!!
In response to US Army retired: Pompeo’s speech was widely criticized, and his criticism of the EU is misplaced. When criticizing Bretton Woods it becomes only worse (separate discussion). However, taken outside the general tone of the speech “rallying the noble nations of the world to build a new liberal order.” is correct. After decades of the US youth borrowing money for student loans (at more than $1.5 trillion), new cuts in Medicaid, probably Social Security and Medicare, and a long cuts list (including parks) it is time for the US to lead the NATO EU members to take care of war in Europe. The NATO members of the EU, the largest, wealthiest entity in Western history can easily defeat any threat from anybody, not just Russia. Russia’s GDP is a rounding error compared with the NATO EU’s, and its military budget is far smaller; and this is year after year, a compounding effect. This is where the US must lead, “rallying the noble” NATO EU members to be prepared to wrestle any aggression, from anybody, aligned with their human and material resources. It makes no sense for us like in the US to pay for the Deveselu ABM protecting the EU against Iran and NK missiles. Afghanistan has shown over millennia how to fight foreigners, from Alexander the Great to the USSR, via the British Empire. This type of popular war is the best approach and the NATO EU members should follow it, with advice from the Swiss; popular militias, molded after the intent of the second amendment are a must. The US should still provide nuclear deterrence (including tactical), although the wealthy NATO EU members could easily afford a large nuclear triad. Both the UK and France have skeleton nuclear triads and associated technology and could easily afford to enlarge them; Norway could easily provide the couple of tens of billions needed; if India can afford a serious one, these former colonial masters can too. In addition, despite the chorus of complaints, Obama’s ERI is continued and amplified by the present administration, the same multilateral approach being implemented; we pay for the infrastructure which will allow our armor to cross the EU, not the wealthy EU. On a subtler level, it is their war, and they have done little to mobilize their populations. AKK, May, Macron never talk to their constituents about their duties. So rather that than the EU states forcing our hand, the Trump administration should lead, as the previous administrations have tried, always rebuffed. Peace is always better.
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.