Putin's sea battle

What role can the Russian Navy can play in the event of an invasion of Russian troops in Ukraine and are there any signs of preparing such an invasion not on land, but at sea?

As Russia increases its military presence among the borders of Ukraine, and Russian and American diplomats continue negotiations on "security guarantees", tension is growing not only on Earth, but also at sea. The grouping of Russian large landing ships of the North and Baltic Fleets entered the Mediterranean Sea, where NATO NATO NATO Strike 2022 began on January 24. Russia states that its ships are also going to participate in the exercises - following the newly completed exercises in the Black Sea. According to experts, despite these statements, part of Russian landing ships that came from the north in the Mediterranean may also go to the shores of the annexed Crimea. Whether this will become clear if the Russian group passes through the Bosphorus Strait.

Along with this, Russia is transferring from the Baltic Sea and high -speed patrol boats of the project 03160 "Raptor" - they are taken on the ground, and these boats fell on the video, which was posted in Tiktoka.

Hull 002 Which Is Part of the Baltic Fleet. Safe to Assume the Other 3 ALSO Boats from there, Which Means 4 of their 9 Project 03160 Raptors are on the Move. pic.twitter.com/w4ifml8ty2

- Oliver Alexander (@oalexanderdk) January 30, 2022

The layman, who critically evaluating the state of the Russian army, may have the impression that the Russian fleet is not in the best form: the endless problems of the admiral Kuznetsov, which became the Mem of Airman, a recent fire at the Severnaya shipyard, which actually destroyed the unfinished corvette "Pryny", the list can be continued for a long time. Despite this, Western experts are not inclined to underestimate the power of the Russian naval forces and their possible role in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, if this conflict, as they fear in the West, will grow into a full-scale war.

Does Russia prepare landing in Ukraine? Does the Russian fleet threaten northern countries? Why did Moscow choose for some other exercises starting on Thursday, water near Ireland - agreeing to transfer the firing place after the protests of Irish fishermen?

Researcher and expert on Russian naval forces , Eich Aych Sutton , creator of the Settlement Site and the author of books on the Russian fleet, answers at our request to these questions, and also tells in an interview with Radio Liberty, what movements of Russian ships should pay attention to the context of a tense situation on the border of Russia and Ukraine and in what scenarios of the conflict surgery around Ukraine The fleet can play an important role.

"Russia has a good position in the Black Sea"

- We see an unprecedented extension of Russia of the ground forces near the Ukrainian border. Are there any movements of the Russian fleet that bothers you or can be regarded as potentially dangerous?

- Yes, they happen, and in large quantities. All of them should be considered in the context of Ukraine, although not 100% of these movements can be caused by the situation around it. But yes, the situation is such that everything that does the Russian Navy should be considered with an eye on Ukraine, both from the Russian side and from Western countries, including those countries that are not included in NATO. A number of ships are moving from the Baltic Sea to the Mediterranean and, possibly, then to the Black Sea. These are landing ships that can be used both directly for landing and other hostilities, especially in the Sea of Azov. There are also ships of the Pacific Fleet, I would say a squadron that enters the Red Sea to the Mediterranean and includes the cruiser. Russia also has a cruiser and other ships in the North Sea and the North Atlantic. Finally, Russia transports boats from the Baltic and from the Caspian to the Sea of Azov. Thus, they strengthened their naval presence at the local level. These are four main directions.

- The grouping of large landing ships, which comes from the north, - do you really think that they will not stay in the Mediterranean Sea, but go to black, to Crimea? What could be the goal of such a transfer?

- I suspect that part of the ships will remain in the Mediterranean Sea or Atlantic, from there they will be able to indirectly support actions in the Crimea, constraining NATO forces, forcing NATO all the time to look over the shoulder. Some of these landing ships are really useful only if they go to the Black Sea in order to exert some influence on the situation, they must physically attend the scene. They can also be used for logistics, they would be useful if a ground conflict began in the Azov Sea. If there is landing with air support, they will play a significant role, because the landing products of the Black Sea Fleet itself are very limited.

- How important is it for Russia to get full control over the Sea of Azov?

- Perhaps this is not so critical for Russia. They could succeed without it, but control over this water area is reached and will definitely help them if there are any military operations. It is unlikely that anyone can interfere with this because of geography, since Russia de facto controls Crimea. They have absolute control over the waterways in order to enter the Sea of Azov if necessary. And the only thing that can threaten them there is large-scale naval operations of another state or an active confrontation from the air. Both that and the other is unlikely, so Russia has a really good position. This is not to say that Russia desperately needs complete control over the Sea of Azov, but they can get it, and to some extent it will help them when performing other tasks.

"Military conflict is not a game of chess"

- When you talked about the transfer of ships of the Baltic Fleet to the Azov on the ground - did you mean a video that appeared yesterday in Tiktok with high -speed patrol boats "Raptor" ("Predator" - Rus.) In the Voronezh region? Some of them were in camouflage coloring, but there was one "ceremonial", the same as the one from which Vladimir Putin took the naval parade in St. Petersburg. Now he or Shoigu intends to take a parade on him in Mariupol? What is the importance of transferring these boats?

- I would consider it as it is called - as a "predator". It can also be used for logistics. These are capable of many coastal landing ships for infantry, albeit for a very small amount of infantry, but still capable of influencing the situation. There are "raptors", there are similar boats of other types, but all the same, they are all to a large extent - assault boats, several of these already have these. Now there will be quite a lot of them there, and they could probably be used as part of elite troops, such as special forces or something like that. Although it can be any troops. I would consider them as a small purely offensive landing fleet in addition to other landing ships. Of course, the naval parades have nothing to do with it. Such a transfer has an obvious meaning not from the point of view of propaganda, but exclusively from a military point of view.

-What are the general capabilities of the Russian naval forces in comparison with the forces of the United States, Great Britain, France and other Western powers? We all saw Admiral Kuznetsov, smoking like the old Lada, we all read about a fire in St. Petersburg, where, as a result of negligence, the Knight Corvette burned out, about other incidents of this kind, but is everything really bad for Russia?

Your browser does not support HTML5

Fire on the corvette "Knight"

- The Russian fleet is highly functional, although it has strengths and weaknesses. It is very different from the NATO fleet: firstly, due to the geographical location of Russia, and secondly, due to the emphasis on the underwater fleet. In the broad sense of the word, Russian submarines are in no way inferior to NATO, and they are controlled very competently. Yes, separately, some of the American or British submarines can be more perfect in technical terms, but here Russia plays with Western countries in the same league. Russian diesel submarines are also very effective. Domination in the Black Sea is a matter of geography and NATO. Due to the Montrem Convention, Western countries are extremely limited in the possibilities to ensure military power in the Black Sea region. This convention limits the number of ships that can pass through the Bosphorus Strait belonging to Turkey. This restriction concerns Russia to a lesser extent, but it limits a number of other factors with which, however, it successfully copes. This applies to the passage through the Bosphorus of aircraft carriers and just submarines, although it is known that one day Russia will say "this is not an aircraft carrier, but a cruiser" and it will work. Any military conflict is least like chess, where rivals begin every new batch on the same board with the same set of figures. The Russian fleet is scattered in different places, each of them has its own specifics, but in general it works quite well. And certainly Russia absolutely dominates the Black Sea.

"Russia regarding Crimea as its back yard"

- The incident with the British destroyer "Defender" in the Black Sea, which, according to Russia, went into its territorial waters, - What was it? Great Britain simply decided to demonstrate its strength to Russia and allies as an independent marine power? Or something more?

A volley of the boat of the Russian coastal guard towards Defender. Later, the Ministry of Defense said that it was not a fire on a destroyer or in its direction, but carried out planned educational shooting

- As I understand it, their goal was to show support to the allies, which they did. This is quite normal and quite expected that the US Navy also acts in the Black Sea. Defender visited Ukraine and demonstrated what the people would call "freedom of shipping." Great Britain was quite in its legal law, although they passed very close to the waters, which Russia considers its own. Obviously, Crimea is a controversial territory, and, from the point of view of the British government, this part of Ukraine and Russia should not be there. Along with this, it is clear that Russia is considering Crimea as its back yard and wanted, in turn, to send an appropriate message so that it was noticed. In this story, another circumstance is no less important: the spread of fake GPS-data , which falsified the real location of the ships. At that time, this falsification remained only somewhere on the fields of the incident, but I think this is a topic that is worth following intently. People are looking for information in open sources, in the media, people who can influence public opinion on social networks - and here we must be very careful, because Russia and other powers can manipulate data. This is what we saw on the example of a fake the route of ships that went to Ukraine past Crimea.

- Do you think that data on the exact location of the Defender were falsified by Russia to “prove” that he went into Russian territorial waters?

- Officially, in open sources, they did not assign responsibility for this. But "Russia" is an obvious answer in this case. It was done professionally, I do not think that there were some activists or lovers behind this. Whoever does this, he made more efforts to this fake than the layman would do, and this could only be done in Russia.

"Teachings next to Ireland - provocation"

- What do you think of Russian exercises in the exclusive economic zone of Ireland, against which Irish fishermen rebelled - and Russia passed back, promising to move the teachings away from this zone? What is worth it? According to one version , the place of these teachings is actually a kind of "intersection" of important underwater communications, and this is all their meaning.

- Yes, this is a "intersection" of underwater communication cables, and this is an important fact. At the same time, I do not think that the purpose of these teachings is to cover up some secret manipulations with these cables. This is unlikely, although we should be careful, because we do not know the motives and calculations of Russia. Ireland is a strategically weak place in Europe, because it is not included in NATO and it actually does not have its own navy. She has literally a few ships, but I do not think that at least someone in Ireland considers her well protected from the sea. Historically, it was normal. This is a kind of opposite of Sweden or Switzerland, it is naked neutrality, where you say: "I am neutral or not involved, leave me alone." This works if no one is interested in your space, but recently the water around the islands even more than land has acquired strategic significance. Therefore, instead of arranging exercises in the waters of Great Britain, which is a member of NATO and a nuclear power, Russia does it in Ireland in waters where Ireland is almost defenseless. However, as is the case and as we saw, the Irish were able to organize public pressure on Moscow and achieve advantageous changes from it. Despite this, such a choice of place for exercises was completely within the legal rights of Russia. This is legal, but it was done as a provocation - just like Russia considered a British ship in the Black Sea with a provocation of NATO. Britain, of course, would never say that. There are always two sides. These teachings send the signal of Ireland, but I do not think that because of them we will see any significant increase in Ireland's expenses for defense.

"Russia must not forget about the Montreo Convention"

- Syrian operation. Did she increase the combat readiness of the Russian Navy? Can Turkey become a real problem for Russia, closing the passage of Russian ships through the Bosphorus, how did it already threaten to do in the event of an escalation in Idlib?

Russian frigate "Admiral Makarov" during a parade in honor of the Navy Day in Syrian Tartus, July 26, 2020

-The fighting in Syria, as well as the war in Georgia in 2008, increased the combat readiness of the Russian naval forces in all directions and allowed them to experience new weapons, in particular winged missiles. It was a valuable experience. As for the closing of the Bosphorus, this is a very interesting question. Türkiye is a member of NATO, so Russia is unlikely to take direct military operations against it. I do not want to talk too much about politics, but you obviously know that the situation of Turkey in NATO was sometimes tense. Turkey has many foreign policy interests in North Africa and Syria, which are complex and often seem to be contradictory. Türkiye could try to close the Bosphorus in order to test and demonstrate its political power, play this game and enlist friendship with the West. In short, the closure of the Bosphorus, of course, can affect the [Russian-Ukrainian] conflict. I do not think this will change the result, but this can affect the situation. Along with this, Turkey, NATO, and Russia should not forget about the Montreo Convention. Russia is clearly unhappy with many aspects of this agreement and is trying to find loopholes that to get around. Nevertheless, interested countries, it seems, do not want to pay too much attention to this, because any change in the Montreo Convention can work against any of the players. Yes, this is an old -fashioned and obsolete agreement, Russia is unhappy with it, especially in the part that regulates the passage through the Bosphorus of submarines and to a lesser extent aircraft carriers, but there is in the Convention that Russia likes. If not for the Montreo Convention, Russia would have received an American aircraft carrier in the Black Sea. It would be a completely different alignment of forces.

- Is there a marine threat from Russia for the northern countries, such as Sweden, which recently strengthened its forces on the island of Gotland?

- There is a certain level of threat, yes. Baltic stations included in NATO, as well as the northern countries oriented to the West, well know that in recent years the situation has become complicated and the Russian military potential in the region has intensified with winged missiles for shock on coastal targets located both on submarines and on warships. These missiles can play a strategic role in any potential conflict, either as a regular deterrent, or if war really begins, Russia can launch cruise missiles over Poland towards Germany from the Baltic Sea. So all these countries, including Sweden and Finland, but especially NATO members are probably very concerned about it.

"The sea incident can be used as a trigger"

- Russian nuclear submarines equipped with missiles with nuclear warheads. Can Russia simply move them closer to the United States, instead of placing rockets in a cube or Venezuela, as they talk about it a lot?

- Of course, Russia can strike a nuclear blow to the United States at any time. Russia also focuses on its strategic weapons of ground -based basing, and I do not think that in the case of the scenario of the Third World War in order to destroy the world, they will need to relocate submarines so far from the Arctic or the northern part of the Pacific Ocean. In general, I would not focus on the problem of submarines or ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads in relation to the current conflict.

Russian multi-purpose nuclear submarine with winged missiles (Plaark) of the 4th generation "Kazan", Murmansk, June 1, 2021

- What do you personally think about the probability of the beginning of full -scale military operations? The United States still claim that the war is “inevitable”, the President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky is trying to knock down the intensity of passions, Russia, as always, denies that he is going to fight.

-I do not think that I have some intelligence or I know something that the rest do not know. It seems to me that no one really understands what the goals of Putin or Russia are. As for the options, probable scenarios, this is a large -scale military operation in Ukraine as a whole, the capture of the whole country, we can imagine how they will do it. Such an operation can, but it will not necessarily include the actions of the Navy. There are scenarios of more local actions of Russia, for example, in the Azov Sea region, and again - the fleet can act here, but this is not a prerequisite for such an operation. The role of the Navy can be strategic, it is completely optional to plant a landing from them. Firstly, the very presence of landing ships will force the enemy to look back at them all the time and build assumptions about what will happen next. Secondly, these ships can be used for logistics, supply of supplies and other similar tasks. There are other options for how a fleet can be used in this conflict. For example, some kind of sea incident can be used as a trigger, as a way to justify potential escalation.

Ukrainian patrol boat in the Sea of Azov, Mariupol, January 29, 2019

This is just a hypothesis, but such actions can allow the enemy to force the negotiations without starting a full -scale invasion, they can create a situation where the balance of power changes. In addition, Russia can use a fleet for a small but unconditional victory over Ukraine to the sea, while stopping a step from the red line in the form of invasion of land. This may be something like the interception of Ukrainian boats in the area of the Crimean bridge in 2018, when they were heading to the Sea of Azov. In fact, this would be an invitation of the Ukrainian naval forces to self-destruction in order to achieve a small and popular victory among the people, while avoiding a large escalation. I am not ready to assess the likelihood of a particular development of events as a percentage.

-Do the Ukrainian naval forces be seriously not worth perceiving?

- Just not purely military terms. I do not want to take the tribute from specific Ukrainian military leaders or to underestimate the power of individual Ukrainian ships, but it is impossible to seriously compare the abilities of the Russian and Ukrainian army in the naval war - neither in terms of technical equipment, nor in important geographical parameters, nor in the circumstances in which these countries are located.