Victory on the sea without fleet: How Ukraine forced Russia to leave the Azov Sea

According to the logic of the ongoing war, the Kerch bridge is doomed, and therefore doomed and Crimea, confident marine officer Tom Sharp in the column for The Telegraph. As a result, the Russians in the occupied south of Ukraine will, in essence, in isolation, more precisely, depending on the "land bridge", which is shot by the Western missiles . . . The Russian Black Sea Fleet is not going through the best of times.

First, he lost a third of his ships, or drowning or destroyed-a cruel loss, though not too high in Russian standards. Secondly, last week, the last Russian warship left has left Sevastopol Harbor, which since 2014 was the main base of the Black Sea Fleet. The representative of the Navy of Ukraine Dmitry Pletenchuk suggested that we "remember this day". In support of the feeling of retreat and defeat, he told us that there were no more Russian warships in the Sea of ​​Azov.

Azov is an important water body. It is located near Crimea, the "Holy Land" by Vladimir Putin, which was once surrounded by waters, controlled by Russia, and now not. The northern coast of Azov is held by the Russian army - it is a "land bridge" that connects Russia with Crimea. Russian troops on the long line of the front along the Dnieper and from Zaporizhzhya to Donetsk stand their back to Azov, but they could at least feel confidence that their fleet was behind them. There is no more.

The exit from the Azov Sea to the Black is the Kerch Strait, where the Kerch road/railway bridges and railway ferries are located - a vital line for the supply of Russian troops in the Crimea and the western half of the front. Perhaps the most important thing is that on the eastern region of Azov is the mouth of the Don River and the Russian city of Rostov-on-Don, the logistics center of the entire Russian military machine.

Thus, Azov is still surrounded by either the territory of Russia or the territory of Ukraine, controlled by Russia. But most of the territory held by Russia, and most of the Azov Sea itself, are threatened by a long-range weapon, such as American ATACMS and French-British Storm Shadow (also known as scalp). Ukraine has already shot Russian aircraft over Azov: in January, a shortage of A-50 and a Il-22 command-staff aircraft fell into the sea.

The Ukrainian special forces has already carried out operations in the Crimea. Given the Russian control over Kerch, it cannot be said that Ukraine is now dominating Azov simply because the Black Sea Fleet has no ships. But it is obvious that the balance is shifting. Crimea and Kerch Bridge are now less safe than before. Given the ingenuity and aggression that Ukrainians still manifest, it would be quite easy to imagine that they somehow take advantage of the weakness of the Russian Navy.

They may be able to drop out of the air or otherwise deliver overwater Magura V5 drones, for example, to the Azov Sea, and support them with Storm Shadow (which are launched from aircraft above the main Black Sea area) and ATACMS from the north. Then even Rostov himself can be in danger, and the first is recognized by shabby defenders of Sevastopol and Novorossiysk.

The Kerch Bridge may also endanger the unprotected side and be a victim of a brilliant coordinated group attack, similar to the one who first forced the commander of the Black Sea Fleet to leave the destroyed headquarters in Sevastopol. It is often said that Ukraine has no ordinary naval fleet. In fact, it is - different ships were donated to other countries or built on foreign shipyards.

But the ordinary naval fleet of Ukraine cannot participate in the war: just as Turkey will not miss Russian reinforcements into the Black Sea through the Bosphorus, it will not miss Ukrainian. Therefore, it will be absolutely correct to say that a stunning series of marine victories of Ukraine was achieved without the use of a regular naval fleet-and they were really stunning.

Currently, grain trucks are easily reached from the harbor controlled by Ukraine to a safe corridor on the island of Snake in the western part of the Black Sea. It is the same Snake Island that was captured by Russia in the first days of a full -scale invasion of 2022 - an uncompromising reaction of a tiny Ukrainian garrison to a call to seem to a legend. Initially, the Black Sea Fleet rejected the western part of the Black Sea, again opening the path of grain.

Then the Russians were expelled from their "Holy Land". Sevastopol has a deep historical importance, serving as a symbol of the naval power of Russia since the eighteenth century. Their new base in Novorossiysk has also repeatedly attacked. Maritime Russian logistics in the Black Sea is blocked - and now even Russia's control over Azov is weaker. The effect of marine victories is rarely felt immediately. Even after the battles at Trafalgar and Midwe, the defeated side continued to fight for a while.

The same will be the same with the Azov battle, because it is not over. Obviously, the withdrawal of troops of this scale will have political, logistics and military consequences. Finding out what all this means for war in general will take longer, and so far need to avoid excessive optimism. However, the fact is that the railway ferries in Kerch have been hit several times. The bridge itself has been injured twice, though not yet destroyed.

I think it is only a matter of time when Ukraine will be able to completely cut the Kerch connection, resulting in the Crimea and the Russian army on the Dnieper, in fact, isolated, being at the end of a long line of supplying a land bridge, every mile of which will be shot by Western missiles of Zelensky. The Putin "Holy Land" would then be in danger. In military sense, the loss of Sevastopol is even worse than it seems.

The base there provided great opportunities to support the Black Sea Fleet - the best than the base in Novorossiysk, where the remaining ships fled, so its loss directly affects the ability of the fleet to perform stable operations. The morale of the Black Sea Fleet, if not then was blown up then, now - probably. NATO's naval forces will acquire a lot of science on the effective use of drones in both offensive and defense.

This is not officially proclaimed, but it is already actively discussing that "(successful) use of unmanned surface ships (BPNA) by Ukraine demonstrates vulnerability, and therefore the futility of ordinary warships. " Expanding the use of drones is a direction of movement, so NATO military should definitely invest more in their use for attack, defense (including swarms) and logistics, but not at the expense of warships with crew and, of course, not because It is cheaper and less risky.

This is not a zero game, so a double approach is required, even if it costs more. Let's summarize. The shameful retreat of Russia from the Azov Sea has significantly increased the vulnerability of the Russian conquests in Ukraine - the Land Bridge and Crimea. The risk to Kerch's critical supply line is already highly higher.

In addition to the consequences on and around the Azov Sea itself, we also have to take into account the consequences in distant capitals, such as Washington and Berlin, where politicians will consider aggressive steps, such in the postwar, post -Baiden era.