On 18 September, a perplexing, rudimentary drone was discovered on Bulgaria’s Black Sea coast, swiftly neutralised by Bulgarian authorities. Earlier, on 6 September, Romania and NATO agreed to exercise restraint after debris from a Russian drone fell on the Romanian bank of the Danube. These incidents underscore the pervasive threat looming over the entire Black Sea region. This risk escalated further due to the unresolved navigation problem in the Black Sea following Russia’s withdrawal from the Trilateral Agreement concerning cereal deliveries. To thwart any potential Ukrainian attempts to circumvent this situation, Russia systematically targeted Ukrainian port infrastructure, not only along the sea but also on the Danube. Simultaneously, by mid-September, Ukraine shifted gears in its bid to push Russian forces out of all Ukrainian territory, with a particular focus on Crimea and the Russian fleet at sea.
No surprise
In fact, the mid-September attacks should not have taken anyone by surprise. A month earlier, the Ukrainian Defence Ministry had designated the waters around Russia’s Black Sea ports as a “war risk area” starting from August 23. The statement proclaimed that, as long as Russians continued to “terrorise peaceful Ukrainian cities and destroy grain, condemning hundreds of millions to starvation,” there would be “no safe waters or peaceful harbors for Russia” in the Black and Azov Seas. This declaration shed light on the fact that the counter-offensive in the Donbass region, conducted on land, was only one facet of Ukraine’s comprehensive efforts to regain control over its entire territory.
Naval attacks offered the advantage of generating dramatic images, in stark contrast to the slow and blood-soaked process of reoccupying devastated villages. These attacks also emphasised that Ukrainian success depended on access to additional Western equipment, particularly fighter planes.
However, there is much more at stake. On September 16, Oleksiy Danilov, the secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defence Council, framed the latest attack on Sebastopol’s repair docks within a broader context. He asserted that “the destruction of the Russian Black Sea Fleet could bring the end of the war much closer.” Recognising the impossibility of negotiating with Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Danilov argued that Ukraine could only retake its occupied territory through military means, including the “complete or partial destruction of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.” This marked uncharted territory, even for Western observers who had hoped that Ukraine could deplete Russian forces enough to neutralise the ‘Russian threat’ for at least a decade. It is crucial to remember that the Russian Black Sea Fleet, based in Crimea for centuries, represents a cornerstone of the Russian navy, along with the Baltic and Northern Fleets, and the Pacific Fleet. These fleets play a central role in Russia’s military doctrines, and, for that reason, Sebastopol enjoyed a special status in Soviet times, akin to Moscow and St. Petersburg. Sebastopol also holds a more strategic location in the Black Sea compared to Novorossiisk.
Trade and energy
A few days earlier, on September 11, the Ukrainian Defence Ministry’s Main Intelligence Directorate announced that its agents had successfully regained control of four Black Sea oil and gas platforms seized by Russia in 2014. According to the announcement, Russia had been using these drilling rigs as helicopter pads and installing radars to monitor ship movements, as well as storing ammunition. Once again, this operation was presented as a ‘strategic move’ aimed at undermining Russia’s complete control over the Black Sea. Some experts, in their enthusiasm, even suggested that these operations could ‘potentially’ bring Ukraine closer to energy independence, overlooking the fact that ownership of gas exploration and extraction in the Black Sea is disputed among all coastal nations, including Turkey.
Concurrently, Ukraine had been exploring the possibility of delivering cereals through the Danube and international waters to aid in ‘saving millions of lives’ in Africa and the Middle East. However, President Zelensky remained deeply concerned about reviving industrial production in Ukraine, which necessitated the ability to export non-agricultural products, even amidst ongoing land conflicts. This reliance on free navigation for Ukrainian vessels and secure access to ports for foreign ships faced significant obstacles, with Russia heavily targeting Ukrainian port infrastructure to obstruct such operations.
Through these actions, Ukraine seeks to compel Western powers, including the EU, the US, and NATO, to prioritise Black Sea global security as they have done in the Baltic Sea. However, the regional balance of power is markedly different, and the Ukrainian Military Intelligence’s implication that the spectacular attack on Sebastopol was facilitated by access to Franco-British missiles raises concerns. This suggests that Ukraine may not fully comprehend the extent of its allies’ apprehensions.
Limits of communication
Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have cautiously introduced a certain level of reconnaissance following British remarks that allies were not akin to an Amazon shopping list. Nevertheless, this did not deter further requests, nor did it ameliorate their inability to perceive the situation from the perspective of others. Zelensky appears to be approaching the limits of effective communication with the world.
The past week has been emblematic of these limits. In just a matter of days, the Ukrainian president managed to compel the EU to address its internal challenges, to engage directly with the World Trade Organisation regarding free trade for Ukrainian cereals via its EU neighbours, to address the UN General Assembly with the demeanor of an impassioned president at a press conference, and unintentionally alienate the previously steadfast support of Poland, which had been unwavering since the onset of the invasion – but is in electoral campaign as are 5 other EU members, the U.S. for presidency and E.U. to renew parliament.
Furthermore, in an interview with CNN, Zelensky argued that Russia has no place in the United Nations, likening the Russian delegation to a group of terrorists, and saying that the world must decide whether to stop Putin or face a potential World War III. These extravagant declarations, made in the wrong forum and poorly timed, came just before his visit to Washington, where he sought to persuade senators to endorse another $24 billion in aid and attract American businesses to participate in Ukraine’s reconstruction.
These developments inadvertently play into the hands of the Kremlin, which has just to look and see.