Monday, March 3, 2014

Ukraine SITREP (March 3, 2014)


Ukraine SITREP (March 3, 2014)
 

Recommendations for NATO / EU / USA:
 

Since the onset of the current crisis in Ukraine, and the Russian intervention in Crimea, western allies have displayed mixed signals, which the Russian have taken advantage of.
 

Russian Motivations:

The Russians have stated that their interests in the Ukrainian matter is to preserve peace and safety, and protect the pro-Russian minorities and constituents. Their position is understandable, however, the Ukraine is capable of transitioning into their next governmental phase in a mostly peaceful manner. At no time was it noted that pro-Russian minorities were actually at dire risk. Offering support in stabilizing and reassuring the Ukraine and its pro-Russian population without military intervention would have been more effective at managing civil strife and normalizing the population.
 

Russia has a handful of valuable strategic assets in the Ukraine that are worth preserving. First and foremost is the naval base at Sevestopol on the Crimean peninsula. This base acts as the main homeport, supply, maintenance and HQ for the Black Sea Fleet. This fleet is also the lead fleet for its Mediterranean Task Force, and the TF is commanded and coordinated at Sevestopol. The base is being leased from Ukraine. The contract was recently signed and is good until 2049. Russia is also leasing an airstrip for training its carrier pilots. However, it’s since fallen into disuse, and both Russia and Ukraine have expressed an interest in terminating the Russian lease and converting it towards a different use.
 

Russia sees its relationship with Ukraine as almost symbiotic, with Russia providing energy, and Ukraine providing agricultural goods. Recently Russia has been negotiating energy agreements from a bully position, and this has discouraged further cooperation from Ukraine. In response to Russia’s negotiating tactics, Ukraine has been exploring the use of fraking technologies to explore domestic oil and natural gas deposits, and leading European companies have expressed an interest in working with the Ukrainian government to this end. If Ukraine is successful in this endeavor, then Russia’s position greatly weakens. Ukraine also hosts a major pipeline from Russia to Western Europe. If Ukraine is no longer acting in Russia’s interests, then Russia will feel weak in maintaining its controlling interest in the line.
 

Eastern and southern Ukraine is currently populated by a majority pro-Russian Ukrainian, ex-pat Russian and Russian national / speaking population group, reaching from Kharkiv to Crimea. This population group is strongly aligned with Moscow, and is willing to use civil strife and voter corruption to influence events in Kiev. This population group will act to bring Russia into Ukraine if that’s what Moscow wants. This region also hosts several major industries.
 

OPTIONS:

NATO / EU / USA have strongly disagreed with Russia’s incursion and de facto cessation of Crimea from Ukraine. However, no strong action has been proposed or taken. This sends mixed signals to Moscow. No one likes what Russia is doing, but no one is willing to challenge them. Europe is very war-phobic, and I’m sure the idea of taking action directly against Russia on behalf of a non-NATO nation makes them very nervous. However, Ukraine is seeing themselves in Poland’s position per 1939, and to them resistance is the only valid option. The other European superpowers, however, feel so strongly against conflict that any thought of action seems insane.

 
This writer agrees that a war with Russia over Ukraine is not in their interests, but inaction is also not in their interests. I suggest action that punishes and forces Russia to think twice, without directly forcing them into a fight.

 
NATO / EU:

First, it must be expressed that NATO needs to make a statement at its HQ saying that no direct action is to be taken. The EU is currently debating the formation of a rapid response force, and this is good, even if it results in the dissolution of NATO in 20-years. This fracture will allow NATO deniability if something happens, but also allows individual countries the option to render assistance. The EU should also begin lively debates on establishing total energy independence from Russia.

 
Second, the UKPOLBAT needs to be moved into Kiev independent of NATO. This battalion of Ukrainian and Polish army units will complicate things for Russia if they’re contemplating the escalation of conflict, a Kharkiv incursion, and march on Kiev …and I’m pretty sure that’s on their planning table right now. The majority of Ukrainians have a good relationship with Poland, and Poland’s strong stance vs. Russian hegemony and as a model for economic development is appreciated by Kiev. Having the UKPOLBAT there will strengthen their brotherhood and position. It will also make Moscow twitchy. The thought of accidentally drawing NATO members into a fight in this manner will force a recalculation and change their end-goals.

 
Third, Special Forces units (i.e. UK SAS, French, German, etc…) need to get on the ground in southern and eastern Ukraine as soon as possible to begin observing Russian units and relaying Intel data. The opportunity to observe Russian units playing in a hostile environment doesn’t happen too often, and so long as Russia is behaving like a bully and opponent to the EU, then you might as well watch them closely. I expect them to be in the process of doing this, but if not, then they’re being very negligent.

 
Fourth, the UK or France needs to begin quiet negotiations with Turkey to close the Bosporus ASAP. This allows the option to begin a punishing blockade of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and warm water commerce. Russia’s Mediterranean force would be cut off from reliable maintenance and resupply, and plans would have to be made to relocate all of the ships elsewhere. In return for Turkish cooperation, the EU could reopen the Turkish ascension option into the EU, and allow greater immunity in taking actions vs. Syria.

 
USA:

I’ve been very disappointed with the US’s response vs. Russia, and I’m sure future action will disappoint me too. But, let’s be optimistic…

 
Currently the US Navy has the USS Mount Whitney (Command Ship) and USS Taylor (Frigate) in the Black Sea. The Army has reduced its footprint in Europe, but still may have a brigade in Germany, Romania and Italy (unless they’ve rotated into Afghanistan). The Mount Whitney has excellent electronic monitoring and warfare capabilities, but little defensive capability. The Taylor is tasked as the Whitney’s escort, has limited offensive/defensive abilities (but it’s not harmless), but is in no shape for extended operations due to its props being damaged after running aground at Samsun, Turkey during the Olympics. The ship needs maintenance, and might not even get it since it’s due to retire soon. The Command Ship needs to locate to Odessa, Ukraine and hang around for a long time. The Taylor needs to leave the Black Sea and be replaced by a couple destroyers, or a cruiser and two destroyers, from the eastern Mediterranean patrol. One needs to escort the Command Ship, and the other needs to constantly bounce between Odessa, Ukraine and Batumi, Georgia, with some time randomly spent at Romania and Turkey. I suggest making port in those places for a couple hours, onload and offload some crates under guard, then go to Odessa, then randomly to a different port. Russian Intel will go nuts, and not knowing what’s going on will make them recalculate and hesitate.

 
The US needs to realign its PAC-III deployments, making 5-batteries available, and quietly mention it to the Ukrainians. The Russians will catch wind of it and resist the urge to get adventurous with their AF. The Russians would also hesitate to strike American PAC-III units, and risk undesirable consequences. The presumed air defense zones become no fly zones, and with the AF acting cautious, the chances of a Kharkiv incursion will lessen.

 
The US needs to reactivate the Polish / Romanian BMD negotiations, and speak about it in hurried language. The Russians will have a cow, without a doubt. Sticking to our guns and setting a groundbreaking date will force the Russians to negotiate.

 
The US needs to begin negotiations with Ukraine to sell them M-1A tanks, more Hummers, helicopters and air defense. The Ukraine is weak in these areas. Offering fire sale prices on our old equipment will make the Russians recalculate. It will make them move up plans prematurely. If conditions are not favorable, then extended plans will be cancelled. The Russians will dislike the idea of directly combatting US equipment and make long term adventurism less likely.

 
The US needs to offer the Ukrainians debt assistance, and open business trade initiatives. The Ukrainians are suffering from a weak economy and conditions. Offering them assistance will boost their economic confidence and stabilize the populace.

 
The Army needs to activate one Brigade of the 82nd Airborne and forward them to Poland for “NATO Exercises”. The Russians “know” that introducing US troops into Ukraine is insane, but having them next door for a long period of time would make them wonder. The Poles would appreciate the gesture, and the Ukrainians would see it as a strengthening measure for them.

 
GOALS:

No one wants to fight the Russians for no good reason (i.e. Defending yourself is a good reason, defending a non-NATO country isn’t), but the Russian’s tactics must be challenged.

 
The Ukrainians are in a weak spot. Their government is realigning and it needs time to stabilize. The people need reassurances and something strong to lean on. So far only the Russians are strong, but their bully tactics and self-centered policies aren’t stabilizing.

 
The Ukrainians need time to answer the Russian challenge themselves. Taking mixed, decisive, off-center action on various subjects will throw them off balance. The west needs to take action that jeopardizes the Russians strong hand: Oil, The value of the Black Sea Fleet base, leasing, contracts, military advantage, BMD… the more topics and jeopardy, the better.

 
We need to make the Russians second guess our actions and motives. They don’t relish the idea of fighting us either. I understand the Russian chiefs are very good at calculating forces, at planning operations and the forces needed to win. Forcing them to recalculate weekly is very destabilizing at Moscow.

 
Ultimately, the Russians must be calculating how to seize all of eastern Ukraine. All they need is the Crimea, but all they want is eastern Ukraine at the least. The problem is that there isn’t any good natural defenses bordering the eastern Ukraine. So, if they can’t keep Ukraine weak, then the only way they can secure east Ukraine is to march on Kiev. We need to stale their plans, force a recalculation, create hesitation, give Ukraine time to reconsolidate and mount a defense. Draw the line at Crimea, but don’t just say it, do it. But don’t be drawn in too far. Let the Russians miscalculate and recalculate.

 
Russian have no trouble dealing with Ukrainians, no matter how tragic is feels. But Americans? British? French? Even Polish? No, they would hesitate, and that’s our advantage.

No comments:

Post a Comment