Eastern Europe

What UK defense minister was doing in Odessa, or a taste for farce

Published

4 years ago

January 13, 2019

History repeats itself. This popular maxim also rings very true today. Many episodes of the Crimean War are still fresh on the memory of Russians, French and the British. Disregarding the sanctions and “annexation,” Britons and French nationals keep coming to Sevastopol to take part in a historical festival, donning period costumes and engaging in mock battles.

And yet, the distant successors of those who fought Russia during that war still remember, on a genetic level, how Russian soldiers kept fighting on against the tallest of odds (during one of the battles fought in Sevastopol, mortally wounded and bleeding members of a Russian regiment still refused to plead for mercy and, instead, continued fighting the enemy with their bayonets) even at lunch, after five in the evening, and, most unpleasantly, at night. The war fought not by the book, the freezing cold of the Crimean winter and the well-known “balaclava” headdress is something Russia’s foreign guests will never forget.

It still looks like the lessons of history have been lost on some representatives of the British elite. In December 2018, Britain’s Defense Minister Gavin Williamson arrived in Odessa in southern Ukraine to vent his outrage about the detention by Russia’s Coast Guards of three Ukrainian boats at the approaches to the Kerch Strait, and express London’s support for a second Ukrainian naval foray into the Sea of Azov. It was not Williamson’s first visit to Ukraine though – in September 2018, he bravely spent a whole 20 minutes on the line of disengagement in Donbass.

London is backing up its military-diplomatic efforts with real action.

“At 20:30 local time, on December 17, 2018, the Royal hydrographic survey ship HMS Echo sailed into the Black Sea via the Bosporus Strait. This modern reconnaissance ship is designed to conduct operations in support of submarines and amphibious operations. It can share adapted information almost in real time. (…) This is the first NATO warship to enter the Black Sea in the wake of the Azov crisis to demonstrate the UK’s support for ensuring freedom of navigation in the region,” Ukrainian expert Andrei Klimenko happily wrote.

In the mid-19^th century, Britain regarded Russia as an enemy in the Big Game, and opposed it using political and economic means available to it. Simultaneously, it was the case of an empire facing off against another empire – in the Balkans, in the Caucasus and over the straits (Bosporus and Dardanelles). Britain no longer rules the seas, but its keen interest in strategic straits, such the Kerch Strait, is still very much alive.

London’s strategy, being implemented as part of the anti-Russian bloc, can best be described as “I’m doing all I can.” However, the former empire is playing an ever increasing role now that Ukraine is not being viewed by US President Donald Trump as an object worth of any effort. Still, there are powerful anti-Russian forces out there, which will not just sit and watch the presidential elections in Ukraine and, even though they have lost their patron in the person of the US president, they remain hell-bent on making Ukraine instrumental in their efforts to ramp up the conflict with Moscow.

Washington is reviewing international agreements and withdrawing its forces from Syria focusing instead on playing spy games, but now on its own territory, to fight the “Russian threat,” “Russian aggression,” and most importantly – “Russian intervention.” The central events and characters here are the Mueller investigation, the case of Maria Butina, and the recent detention in Moscow of a former US Marine, Paul Whelan, on charges of espionage.

But this is not enough, so you need something else, more dramatic and attention-grabbing, preferably done by someone else.

No matter how opposed to Trump’s policies some top officials in the US government may be, they still can’t afford to openly defy the president and thus destroy the country’s power institutions. And here political analysts come up with a very interesting version: “Therefore, England takes the burden of orchestrating the Ukrainian-Russian war in its own hands. Well, not England as such, but, rather, the real masters of both England and the United States (…) Poroshenko may not venture a provocation, and to make sure that he gets no ideas about giving up on the war, the British defense minister arrived in Ukraine. (…) Britain is bringing pressure to bear on Kiev to go to war with Russia in the coming week, period.”

Although a second foray into the Kerch Strait planned for the coming week never happened, the plan itself hasn’t gone anywhere. A follow-up to the provocation in the Kerch Strait has gone beyond the time frame outlined by the martial law President Poroshenko imposed ahead of the presidential election, but the threat of new provocations fraught with a confrontation lingers on nonetheless.

The law “On the adjacent zone of Ukraine,” signed by Petro Poroshenko in December 2018, provides a legal basis for actions by the Ukrainian military and diplomats by expanding Kiev’s border and customs control in the Black Sea.

“In the adjacent zone, the State Border Service of Ukraine will prevent violations of national immigration and sanitary legislation. Border guards will be able to stop vessels, inspect them, detain or seize vessels or their crew members, with the exception of warships and other state ships used for non-commercial purposes.”

The new law sets the stage for further provocations against Russia by portraying it as “an aggressor and invader,” backing this up with “irrefutable evidence” and showing it on TV.

The coordinated nature of the actions and intentions by the “friends” of Russia in ensuring “free navigation in international waters” is too obvious to ignore. Following the provocation in the Kerch Strait, the US guided-missile destroyer McCampbell was allegedly spotted in the vicinity of a Russian naval base in Vladivostok.

US Pacific Fleet spokeswoman Rachel McMarr said that the ship had carried out a “freedom of navigation” operation.

“The USS McCampbell sailed in the vicinity of Peter the Great Bay to challenge Russia’s excessive maritime claims and uphold the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea enjoyed by the United States and other Nations,” McMarr told CNN.

She emphasized that “the United States will fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows.”

Britain’s policy of the past few years has been pretty strange. Execution-wise, its actions are perceived as a farce and essentially as a tragedy for the country’s political elite. London is taking cue from Kiev, with its actions and “projects” (the Skripal case and the Salisbury subproject) very much resembling Ukrainian projects. London came up with the “Skripal poisoning,” and Kiev – with the day-long “Babchenko’s murder” circus.

Sadly, this anti-Russian trend translates into a real policy based on farce and fakes, which does not change the essence of London’s foreign policy projects based on fakes.

Ukraine, for its part, continues its attempts at “coercion to conflict,” which may bring about a clash of civilizations, since this is an attempt to influence the decisions of the “core states of civilization (Samuel Huntington). However, the conflicts that Ukraine has been involved in and has initiated are the result of outside bidding and made possible thanks to the support from and sanctions by external forces.

Ukraine’s foreign policy is by and large determined by the logic of its policy at home. Ending up as a zone of inter-civilization conflict, Kiev is willy-nilly trying to rebuild the cultural foundations of the Ukrainian state and society.

The West appears all set to extract Ukraine from the sphere of the political, economic and socio-cultural influence of Russia. It is within this framework that Kiev and all sorts of other actors are working as they try to achieve their domestic goals thus stoking up tensions and radicalizing both the country’s political forces and some elements of the Ukrainian society.

All this farce and grandstanding by European and overseas leaders and politicians still fails to smokescreen the potential threats to the security of the Russian Federation. In this sense, the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait should be viewed as a place where the West may attempt a series of “tests” similar to the November 2018 attempt by Ukrainian naval boats to break into the Sea of Azov. The recent “heroic” cruise by US naval ships 100 kilometers off Vladivostok, presumably to “challenge Russia’s excessive maritime claims and uphold the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea enjoyed by the United States and other nations,” could be repeated also in the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait, along the Northern Sea Route, in the Arctic and the Baltic Sea.

The Black Sea region thus becomes a model of counteracting the “sea claims of Russia.” Indeed, it is a really volatile region with an unstable Ukraine ready for any provocations, Crimea, reunited with Russia (plus the Crimean Bridge), a high-handed NATO member, Turkey, which maintains close contacts with both Russia and the West, and the Caucasus region. It poses a problem for Russia due to the flurry of potential and real threats existing there, but it is also a problem for Russia’s “friends,” because of the high degree of security of the Crimean border and other borders of the Russian Federation. This combination of security and threats makes the Black Sea region an ideal place for all sorts of provocations and endurance tests.

Well aware of Russia’s strength, the West is trying to test Moscow’s determination with small, albeit significant, provocations, such as the Ukrainian naval ships’ attempt to enter the Sea of Azov on November 25, 2018. The West is equally aware of Russia’s response to such provocations by Kiev. What is not so clear to the West, however, and London’s activity attests to this, is how Russia will respond to similar passages by multinational flotillas. This uncertainty could only stem from a desire to trigger a conflict or from misguided thoughts about Russia’s indecisiveness to enter into a serious confrontation with the West.

Whatever grounds London or Washington may have for organizing a second cruise to the Crimean Bridge, no matter how many ships will take part and the flags they will sail under, Russia will do all it takes to protect its territory, border, water area, and important infrastructure.

The question London has to answer now is how will the former empire get out of this situation? There are only two options available: either to stage ever new provocations or continue grandstanding and firing verbal broadsides.

First published in our partner International Affairs

Related Topics:Defense Politics Russia UK Ukraine USA

Up Next

Canadian soldiers’ nightmare in Latvia

Don't Miss

2019: A difficult political year in Lithuania

Denis Baturin

Political analyst, member of the Public Chamber of the Republic of Crimea

Comments

Eastern Europe

Bombing of the Kakhovka Dam could be the worst, and most desperate war crime yet

Published

1 day ago

June 8, 2023

Chris Fitzgerald

Image source: war.ukraine.ua

Social media was abuzz on Tuesday morning with footage showing the Kakhovka Dam had been breached, with water surging down the Dnipro River.

Later in the day, the southern command of Ukraine’s Armed Forces claimed the dam, which is in Russian-controlled territory, was blown up with explosives.

Russia’s TASS news agency confirmed the dam had “collapsed” and that nearby areas were beginning to flood.

The dam itself is huge, 30 metres in height and hundreds of metres wide. It forms part of the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant, with its reservoir containing the same amount of water as Utah’s Great Salt Lake.

The effects of the breach threaten to be immense.

The dam is a critical water source for millions of people in Kherson, the Dnipro and Zaporizhzhia oblasts, and Crimea. It will also likely impact agriculture and food production in what is already a war-torn region.

Flood waters have already affected over 80 towns and villages. Over a thousand people have been rescued in Kherson, with many more displaced. While there have been no report of human deaths yet, it has been reported that 300 animals at the Kazkova Dibrova zoo were killed in floodwaters.

Rare wildlife species and habitats have also been affected. The Ukrainian Environment Minister, Ruslan Strilets told the media yesterday that at least 150 tonnes of oil from the dam has leaked into the Dnipro, and that the environmental damage has so far been estimated at $80 million.

The breach also puts the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant at risk. The plant, which is in Russian hands, relies on water supplied by the dam, without which raises the threat of a nuclear meltdown. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency announced yesterday that there is “no immediate nuclear safety risk”.

Many of these issues cannot be solved until a new dam is built, something Russia is unlikely to do while it controls the area.

The breach has immediately raised questions about who is responsible.

Ukrainian officials have blamed Russia, with President Volodymyr Zelensky tweeting that “the destruction of the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant dam only confirms for the whole world that they (Russia) must be expelled from every corner of Ukrainian land.”

Denys Shmyhal, Ukraine’s Prime Minister, claimed that “Russia has unleashed an ecological weapon of mass destruction, inflicting grave consequences upon hundreds of cities and villages”, and called on the world to “condemn this crime”.

Last year, Ukrainian officials accused Russia of mining the dam, which Russia denied, calling for a monitoring mission and for the dam to be taken under international protection.

There are also reports the dam was at capacity before the breach, suggesting Russia purposely raised the water level to ensure maximum destruction.

Russia has denied blowing the dam, instead blaming Ukraine.

Ukraine, for its part, has said that it would be impossible for them to breach the dam from the outside, considering it has been under Russian control for months.

But, while there is no definitive proof, pointing the finger at Russia is not unreasonable.

The Russian military continues to target vital infrastructure in Ukraine, including power plants, dams, railways and ports, in a desperate attempt to make the Ukrainian population suffer.

Russia’s invasion has also shown that its military does not respect human life. Russian forces have allegedly committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against Ukrainians, including torture, summary executions and enforced disappearances. They have also continuously targeted civilian buildings, including hospitals and apartment blocks, killing countless civilians.

Blowing up the dam also comes at a time when Ukraine is poised to launch its counteroffensive, which likely involves attempts to retake the Zaporizhzhia oblast and Crimea. Flood waters would complicate any crossing of the Dnipro and may be an attempt by Russia to buy time.

In contrast, Ukraine has very little to gain from breaching the dam and, unlike Russia, doesn’t have a history of using civilians as collateral damage.

If Russia is responsible, it may constitute a war crime.

The Geneva Conventions explicitly bans attacks in war-time on “installations containing dangerous forces”, such as dams, due to risks posed to civilians. The conventions also oblige waring parties to distinguish between “civilian objects and military objects”, with attacks on the former forbidden.

While dams aren’t specifically mentioned, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court criminalises “intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.”

Ukraine’s prosecutor general has opened an investigation into the dam blast, labelled it a possible war crime and “’ecocide” under Ukrainian domestic legislation. Ironically, Russia has similar ecocide laws.

Russia’s alleged involvement in the bombing of the Kakhovka dam would represent an incredibly desperate and dangerous act.

It would also be added to the long list of war crimes committed by Russian forces, something Ukrainian and ICC prosecutors would surely investigate and seek to prosecute.

Either way, it is yet another disaster for Ukraine and Ukrainians.

Whoever is guilty needs to be held responsible.

Eastern Europe

Ukraine war: A new multipolar world is emerging

Published

6 days ago

June 3, 2023

Charles Pennaforte

Ukrainian defenders on the Leopard-2 tank at sunset. By Serhii Mykhalchuk image source: war.ukraine.ua

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 is undoubtedly one of the biggest geopolitical conflicts of the 21st century to date. What would be a regional issue in our analysis, turned into a global event with economic and geopolitical impacts that will last for decades to come. The uncritical analysis of the subject is the main obstacle to a real geopolitical comprehension of the ongoing process. Our goal is to make some considerations to fill these gaps.

Russian demands about its geopolitical security have continuously been disregarded by either Washington or Brussels over the past three decades. On the contrary. Europeans and North Americans did their best to expand the European Union and NATO to Eastern Europe despite Moscow consistently expressing its dissatisfaction with such an advance.

In fact, Russia has always represented a *geopolitical concern* to Washington due to its military and technological capacity inherited from the USSR. The “ideal” Russia for the West only occurred under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin (1991-1999) when the country made the transition to capitalism in a sudden and dramatic process, going through one of its most severe economic and social crises.

Kyiv’s move towards the European Union and NATO accelerated Moscow’s determination to firmly secure, or at least make a concerted attempt to do so, the still unconcluded chapter after the end of the USSR: its geopolitical security, as well as Washington’s use of Ukraine as a future NATO military base posing a significant concern for Russia. The second invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 marked this second phase in our conception.

Western perspective has a divergent viewpoint. Maintaining NATO created in the Cold War to face the threat of no longer existing in the post-Cold War scenario makes no sense. However, it makes sense when we think of the billions of dollars in sales of war material produced largely by the US to its European partners and the multi-million commissions involved for the middlemen. It is fundamental to keep Europe under Washington’s political and military domain. On the economic side, the expansion of the European Union over Eastern Europe followed the same logic: “By increasing the number of member states, the aim is to address the challenges faced by a problematic economic union that has been subject to internal questioning, culminating in the apex of Brexit in 2020

Unlike the 2014 Crimean campaign when the Russian victory came relatively smoothly and quickly, the 2022 invasion may initially be considered, to say the least, disastrous. Moscow’s numerous errors in assessing the short- and long-term consequences of its subjugation strategy in Ukraine drew attention. The images of countless kilometers of trucks and military equipment along roads, the initial advance towards Kyiv, and various other parts of the country, followed by a withdrawal months later, exposed the flawed military calculations and the unforeseen consequences that ensued. This was despite Russia’s unquestionable military supremacy. The calculations were not well executed, leading to significant unforeseen consequences, despite Russia’s undisputed military dominance

In the Western diplomatic area, the situation completely got out of Moscow’s control when the US had the perception that it could take advantage of the moment to weaken Vladimir Putin’s leadership, promote an “upgrade” in the criticized existence of NATO and facilitate a possible “regime change” through economic strangulation. But Washington and its allies also made some misjudgments. They underestimated the neutral stance of China and several other countries such as India and Brazil, in addition to several countries on the African continent, for example. And the worst: they also provided the beginning of the acceleration of the de-dollarization of the world economy with the economic sanctions against the Russians, uniting the objectives of several countries that already questioned the supremacy of the dollar as the dominant commercial transaction currency. A supremacy’s downfall could certainly take decades, but that seems to be already underway.

We reiterate that the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict could never gain the international proportions that were generated from the action of the Washington-Brussels Axis. Their actions have directly impacted Europe, which bears the brunt of the consequences while the US benefits economically from Russian sanctions and Europeans suffer as much as Moscow from their effects.

In the military field, Ukraine is only managing to be able to withstand the hardships of the war due to the full support given by NATO. Even as reports of the military prowess of Ukrainian soldiers were disseminated by Western media. Without that support, the war would probably have ended. On the other hand, despite the initial military mistakes, Moscow seems to have preferred a strategy aimed at the attrition of its enemy even knowing that time would somehow help Kyiv to receive more weapons from the Western military alliance and delay the finalization of its plans.

It’s expected that this clash between NATO and Russia will bring about a permanent reordering in the power dynamics of geopolitical forces in the 21st century. The so-called “American Century” is being finalized by the rise of new and future powers such as China, whose global role is gaining strength. Beijing’s performance in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict demonstrates that its action is guided by long-term projects: collaboration in the weakening of the North American power to determine the “punishment” of its enemies through economic means, consolidating BRICS as a “global influencer”, the decrease of the dollar as an international currency and the support for a multipolar spectrum as the basis of the international system in the current century.

Eastern Europe

Pakistan-Belarus Ties Set to Boost and Strengthen

Published

6 days ago

June 3, 2023

Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan

Image source: Pakistan MFA

The Republic of Belarus is a landlocked country in Eastern Europe. It is bordered by Russia to the east and northeast, Ukraine to the south, Poland to the west, and Lithuania and Latvia to the northwest. Covering an area of 207,600 square kilometers and with a population of 9.2 million, Belarus is the 13th-largest and the 20th-most populous country in Europe. The country has a hemiboreal climate and is administratively divided into seven regions. Minsk is the capital and largest city. Belarus is a developing country, ranking 60th on the Human Development Index. The country has been a member of the United Nations since its founding and has joined the CIS, the CSTO, the EAEU, the OSCE, and the Non-Aligned Movement. It has shown no aspirations of joining the European Union but nevertheless maintains a bilateral relationship with the bloc and also participates in two EU projects, the Baku Initiative, and the Eastern Partnership. Its strategic location has been more prominent due to the Ukraine crisis and has become the focus of the Western world due to its close relations with Russia.

Belarus–Pakistan relations refers to the current and historical relationship between Belarus and Pakistan. Pakistan was one of the first countries to recognize Belarus after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Pakistan maintains an embassy in Minsk; Belarus maintains an embassy in Islamabad.

Pakistan and Belarus initiated joint ventures (JVs) in the textile, pharmaceutical, and lighting solution industries while sharing technological expertise with each other. Pakistan’s imports from Belarus stood at $42.65 million which mainly consisted of tractors (62.04%), artificial filament yarn (13.01%), and rubber tires (8.06%). Belarus has lauded Pakistan’s role and efforts in bringing peace and stability to the world by countering terrorism and offered his country’s full support in this fight.

On the invitation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan H.E. Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus H.E. Mr. Sergei Aleinik visited Islamabad from May 30 – 31, 2023 on an official visit.

During the visit, Foreign Minister Sergei Aleinik paid a courtesy call on Prime Minister H.E. Mr. Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif and the Chief of Army Staff General Asim Munir, in addition to holding comprehensive delegation-level bilateral talks.

H.E. Mr. Sergei Aleinik also held meetings with the Minister of Economic Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan H.E. Sardar Ayaz Sadiq.

During their meeting, the two Foreign Ministers had a wide-ranging and substantive discussion on a variety of topics including political, economic, technological, cultural, educational, and multilateral cooperation in an atmosphere of friendship and mutual understanding. The two sides agreed to take practical measures to translate the mutual goodwill between the two governments and their peoples into tangible cooperation in different fields.

The Ministers expressed satisfaction with the friendly relations based on mutual respect, friendship, and trust established between the Republic of Belarus and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and highly appreciated the bilateral meetings and interaction at the highest and high levels that have taken place in recent years.

The Ministers appreciated the holding of the 6th Session of the Joint Belarusian-Pakistani Commission on Trade and Economic Cooperation on January 12-13, 2023 in Minsk under the chairmanship of the Minister of Energy of the Republic of Belarus H.E. Viktor Karankevich and the Federal Minister of Energy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan H.E. Khurram Dastgir Khan.

The Ministers expressed their interest in strengthening cooperation within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the United Nations, and other International Organizations on matters of mutual interest, and reaffirmed their readiness to mutually support each other.

The Ministers noted the desire of both countries to expand the legal framework of bilateral relations and welcomed the signing of

the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Belarus and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on the Abolition of Visas for holders of Diplomatic and Service Passports as well as between the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad, and the Belarus Institute of Strategic Research.

The Ministers intend to support business initiatives aimed at the development of trade and industrial cooperation between the two countries, among other things, through the participation in exhibitions and fair events in both countries, holding face-to-face and online negotiations, and business councils.

Taking into consideration, that February 3, 2024, will mark the 30th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Belarus and Pakistan, the Ministers welcomed the intention to develop a plan of joint events dedicated to the anniversary of diplomatic relations.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus expressed his gratitude for the reception given to the Belarusian delegation and invited the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to visit the Republic of Belarus at a convenient time. The invitation was accepted with gratitude and the dates of the visit will be finalized through diplomatic channels.

Both countries are committed to supporting each other and benefiting from each other’s strengths. It is desired from both sides to enrich and strengthen the relations in all walks of life covering trade, economy, industry, science and technology, education, etc. Long lives Pak-Belarus friendship.