By General Monzer El Ayoubi
Translation: Dr Pierre A. Sarkis
There was no fresh breeze over the waters of the Black Sea on 28 June of this year, when “Sea Breeze” maneuvers hosted by Ukraine, a former member in the Warsaw Pact in the days of the Soviet Union and currently a candidate to join NATO, was launched. It included 5000 soldiers and 32 warships, in addition to 40 fighter planes and bombers, and the participation of 18 elite commando brigades from 32 different countries allied with the United States, including four Arab countries, Egypt, The UAE, Tunis and Morocco, which made it the largest maneuvers since the 1990s.
From the German city of Stuttgart, the headquarters of US military command in Europe (EUCOM), General Tod D. Woters supervised military operations, along with from the capital city of Kiev, General Valerii Zaluzhyni, Chief of Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The latter was newly appointed after the dismissal of General Ruslan Khomchak on the grounds of conflict of interest and a dispute between him as military command, and the Defense Ministry as political command. The week-long exercises which lasted a week were evidently a flexing of muscles by the US-NATO in the Russian lake, raising tensions between Moscow on the one hand, and Washington and NATO countries on the other. This was accompanied by sharp statements and exchange of warnings with the statement of prohibitions, to a point where Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said at the time that war was imminent, accusing Russia of preparing to invade his country.
The “Sea Breeze” maneuvers were preceded by the US-Atlantic “Defender Europe 21” maneuvers last April proceeding from Serbia. Last September also saw joint US-Atlantic-Ukrainian maneuvers “Trident Rapid”: the three prongs spear- the feature of the Greek God Neptune- which lasted two weeks at the Yavoriv training facility, near the western Ukrainian city of Lviv by the Polish borders. In the same context, and regardless of introducing the schedule of the opposing Russian-NATO maneuvers, particularly those taking place in the area of engagement “Eastern European Countries” bordering Russia, where the Ukraine is the spearhead. The joint maneuvers were aimed not only at raising the level of training and readiness, but also at strengthening the consistency of operational forces. Certainly, the strategy of the Western trio which considers Russia the number one enemy, is based on only one interim goal, which is to form a broad front opposing her to derail President Putin’s strategy of completing the Soviet entity road map geopolitically, or on the ground, as Washington would confirm through it, its military commitment to the European Union and avoids being accused of intentions of abandoning allies, whether by withdrawing, or through the reduction of the size of its armed forces.
In the context of the messages exchanged on the field “maneuver vs maneuver,” the Russian Defense Ministry announced Wednesday its intention to strengthen its armed forces to counter the growing activity of NATO at its southwestern borders, in conjunction with the launching of the annual or periodic winter military exercises in the southern region bordering Ukraine, which includes the Crimea and the contested Donbas region. More than 10,000 soldiers from the Mechanized Infantry Brigade moved to training sites throughout the vast region, while Kiev expressed its fear and readiness to face a possible imminent Russian invasion, citing unusual movements of Russian troops near its borders.
In parallel with a telephone conversation between Russian Chief of Staff Valery Yrasimov and his US counterpart Mark Milley on “current issues related to international security,” as was stated, a NATO meeting was convened Tuesday with the participation of Ukrainian Defense Minister, despite NATO leadership’s refusal to allow Ukraine to join the alliance “following a Russian warning that Ukraine’s accession is a red line.” The meeting was devoted to discussing the worsening of the crisis and the tense situation on the border with the introduction of possible confrontational scenarios. Simultaneously, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky commented on the current situation by stating that “his country was fully prepared for a possible military escalation with Russia after the latter deployed new troops near the Ukrainian borders” denouncing “acts of intimidation by Moscow suggesting that war is imminent.” In a non-arbitrary indication from Moscow, the response came through a security source rather than a political one, from the Director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, Sergei Nareshkin, denying planning or preparing for the invasion of the Ukraine, claiming that the Americans are drawing a scary picture of swarms of Russian tanks that will begin to crush Ukrainian cities.
On the other hand, the Twitter movement was active raising dust equivalent to that of armored vehicles, coinciding with the opinion of many local and regional analysts and politicians, who expressed the conviction of the outbreak of an imminent Russian-Ukrainian war, perpetuating the hypothesis of invasion. Correspondingly, the Kremlin persisted in using the tactic of exhausting opponents in the midst of a political hit and run abundance of political statements, which added ambiguity about its intentions. While Russian President Vladimir Putin continued to read the international climate and accelerating ground movement, and based on what he had practiced during his tenure as Russian leader, his mastery in producing the geopolitical equation confirms that there is no real danger of a preemptive war, even a limited one, especially after it became evident to him through his sensory military pulse of the maneuvers, the extent and degree of the opponent’s military preparedness. Political fragmentation has dominated and successive objections have been made in terms of supporting the Ukraine and engaging with her, or for her, in a military confrontation. Division was evident especially from the politicians of the European left and some NATO countries, rejecting any military intervention. In the midst of rising tensions, Ukraine’s luring the US and its allies into a regional war with Moscow also failed, based on the volume of the modest US support expressed by announcing the provision of two US coast guard warships to Ukraine, which were re-equipped to strengthen the Ukrainian navy and support its operations in the Black Sea.
Next, in the strategic equation, President Putin considers these maneuvers to be a “serious challenge” and “playing with fire.” Defensive Realism means sticking to areas, lines and positions while increasing security and strengthening force, but it does not at this time impose the option of offensive confrontation for a number of reasons, the most important of which are:
– That there is no transgression or departure from the rules of engagement yet.
– The Black Sea is an area of strategic and economic importance.
– In the field of energy, trade and security, the Black Sea remains the backyard of his country and there will be no compromise over this matter.
– The movements of Western naval pieces stay under the control of the fleet
of nuclear submarines stationed on the Kola Peninsula in Russia’s far north.
– NATO and Ukrainian ground forces are too weak to face a highly independent and complementary tactical air landing brigade with high firepower.
– The most important reason was the defeat of the United States for failing to block the North Stream 1/2 gas project, which feeds a large part of Europe through Germany after it was completed and put in action.
Alternatively, former US President Donald Trump had declared that his country, although the political and military protector of Europe, does not mean indulging upon request in a confrontation with Russia with a known beginning, unknown ending and terrifying results. This strategy was automatically passed on to current President Joe Biden as it was in the Pentagon’s list of prohibitions, which reinforced fears and doubts about the military partnership of the two sides of the Atlantic and prompted Berlin and Paris to focus on European self-defense, in terms of building a “unified European army” without needing US protection. This was reflected in the size of the financial budgets allocated to spend on the development of military structures and military manufacturing.
Finally, it is no longer necessary, either for the reasons or the results, for the diplomatic clamor to lead to a security shake-up. Rather, the escalation of the Western dialect in parallel with the noise of mutual military maneuvers keeps the repercussions within the allowed drawn lines. While Moscow is exposed to various pressures, keeping her busy with crises redeployment and igniting fronts, or through economic sanctions needing to be halted, it deals with provocations within the margins of conflict management while stabilizing facts and gains on the ground, especially after the close military and economic alliance with China, which has placed 2.5 million Chinese on the Asian Arch facing the Western shores of the United States. In the results, the rough playing cards are enough for all parties, and the negotiating process imposes wisdom and rationality to proceed with the game, far from any presumptuous fire or fatal arrogance.
Scholar in Security and Strategic Affairs
Beirut, 04/12/2021
