The most recent Ukrainian military operation against Russian separatists in Slavyansk could have a major strategic effect on the power struggle between Moscow and Kiev. The city has been the focus of a game of deterrence and brinkmanship that both leaderships feel compelled to play. The Ukrainian operation may propel Moscow to the very brink of overt intervention. 
The Ukrainian military operation that began this morning (2 May) in Slavyansk seems to have been directed against a lesser problem for the Kiev government than anything that has happened recently in Donetsk, Luhansk or Kharkiv. But there are hard strategic reasons why this small city has become the new focus of the Ukrainian crisis over recent days. It is at the centre of an escalating game of deterrence that both Kiev and Moscow are playing against each other.
In the event of a conventional Russian military invasion of the territories of eastern Ukraine it is highly unlikely that Kiev’s troops could do more than buy a certain amount of time. In any direct military confrontation Ukrainian forces would lose. That does not mean, however, that the government in Kiev is without any military cards to play.
Kiev knows that it has a strategic reserve of Kalashnikov assault rifles and other light weapons stored in Ukraine as a mobilisation reserve dating back to Soviet times. It has hinted quietly but strongly in back channels between Ukrainian and Russian military establishments that it might be prepared to open this strategic reserve of weapons to an eastern Ukrainian population prepared to resist any Russian military incursions. Since the stockpile consists of up to five million weapons, the prospect would be a nightmare for Russian military planners if they realistically prepared to move into eastern areas of Ukraine. The prospect of civil war and an anti-Russian insurgency on an unprecedented scale with unpredictable consequences represents a real – if extremely dangerous – bargaining chip for Kiev.
The stark fact is that at least half the strategic stockpile of light weapons on Ukrainian territory is concentrated near Slavyansk.
This explains many of the manoeuvres around this small and otherwise unimportant city. On 24 April Ukrainian authorities re-launched their ‘counter-terrorist operation’ against Russian separatists who had occupied key areas to restore Kiev’s control over Slavyansk. In a coordinated response Russian forces edged closer to the Ukrainian border in such a way as to threaten a territorial incursion to support the separatists. This Russian move was dangerous but had the desired effect when the Ukrainian counter-terrorist operation was immediately halted by Kiev. It was an interesting standoff between two sides threatening each other with their adversary’s worst fears. Today, Kiev has upped the ante in the standoff and will test Russian resolve to prevent the Ukrainian government from regaining control of the city and its light weapons stockpile.
Cutting off Kiev’s Strategic Weapons Reserve
Such a standoff has illuminated a number of strategic factors. The multiple seizures of government buildings in eastern Ukraine, not just in Slavyansk but also in Konstantinovka in Donetsk Oblast are aimed to make it impossible for Ukrainian forces to fully control the territory and, in effect, to cut it off from its strategic stockpile of light arms which are the essence of Kiev’s present deterrent posture.
Whereas symbolic government buildings in other cities might be occupied by Russian separatists for political and symbolic reasons, in Slavyansk the separatists effectively control the whole city and the immediate surrounding area. They have physical control over the strategic weapons reserve.
Certainly, there is evidence of instructions to Russian military personnel prior to their infiltration into Ukraine that the multiple seizures of government buildings and areas across a wide region of eastern Ukraine were explicitly to prevent any concentration among the opposing Ukrainian forces.
Moscow Fears the Worst
Secondly, whether or not military leaders in Moscow are effectively deterred by Kiev’s warnings of an extensive insurgency, their manoeuvres around Slavyansk indicate that they have not excluded the option of a ground invasion of parts of eastern Ukraine. Slavyansk evidently matters to them in some significant way that goes far beyond the city’s industrial, geographical or political importance.
It is possible, of course, that Moscow fears the export of armed insurgency onto Russian soil as revenge for the Crimean annexation. More outlandishly, it is also plausible that the Russians are concerned that weapon stocks in Slavyansk might be used for ‘ethnic cleansing’ or even genocidal purposes against Russian minorities in a Ukrainian civil war.
However far-fetched, such a motivation cannot be ruled out in Moscow where the characterisation of the Kiev government is that it is dominated by the ‘Right Sector’ composed of fascists and violent nationalists.
Russian Special Forces Already in Slavyansk
Thirdly, the presence of ‘Spetsnaz’ forces among the separatists in eastern Ukraine and around Slavyansk is completely consistent with the operational and combat doctrines of Spetsnaz units. One of the ‘special tasks’ of Spetsnaz forces – unlike their main task of reconnaissance per se – is the ‘liquidation’ or ‘neutralisation’ of strategically significant stores of armaments in areas where they may operate.
There is also evidence that instructors of the Special Reconnaissance Department of the Ryazan Airborne Troops Academy are also present among the separatists in Slavyansk. These elements would offer efficient coordination between the actions of separatists and Russian troops on the other side of the border.
Intervention Through Peacekeeping
Finally, there has been a notable increase in the public discussion by Russian diplomatic representatives around the world that Russia would have a legal right to send peacekeeping units into Ukraine should the situation in Slavyansk and other cities deteriorate further (such statements have been made by the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s permanent representative to the UN Vitaliy Churkin, as well as some Russian senators). The Geneva Agreement concluded by the US and Russia offers a useful mechanism for doing so: a Russian contingent could be presented as Moscow’s ‘contribution’ to an OSCE observer mission, which is explicitly called for in the Geneva Agreement.
On 24 April, in the Rostov Oblast, three columns of Russian troops including tanks, Armoured Personnel Carriers and troop transports ,as well as twelve helicopter gunships accompanying one of the columns, were seen bearing recognised ‘peacekeeping forces’ markings on their vehicles. These columns have been spotted on the M4 highway near Kamensk-Shakhtinskiy and Shakhty and between Kamensk, and Krasniy Sulin.
It should be noted that the Geneva Agreement of 17 April contained considerable loopholes which did not define any restriction on the number either of observers to guarantee a peace process or the structure of any formations to support them. Regardless of what explanation Russia may offer, the real outcome of any military intervention will be to boost the forces which are already defending Slavyansk against Ukrainian government troops.
Slavyansk may be a small city that has never been on the political radar of Western planners until very recently. It now seems to be the focus for a game of deterrence and brinkmanship that Kiev and Moscow feel compelled to play and in which, despite evident Russian military planning, neither is likely to be in full control of all the elements at work on the ground. And the further use of military options remain very much part of Russia’s strategic thinking. Today, Kiev has upped the ante in the standoff and will test Russian resolve to prevent the Ukrainian government from regaining control of the city and its light weapons stockpile.
The Ukrainian military operation that began this morning (2 May) in Slavyansk seems to have been directed against a lesser problem for the Kiev government than anything that has happened recently in Donetsk, Luhansk or Kharkiv. But there are hard strategic reasons why this small city has become the new focus of the Ukrainian crisis over recent days. It is at the centre of an escalating game of deterrence that both Kiev and Moscow are playing against each other.In the event of a conventional Russian military invasion of the territories of eastern Ukraine it is highly unlikely that Kiev’s troops could do more than buy a certain amount of time. In any direct military confrontation Ukrainian forces would lose. That does not mean, however, that the government in Kiev is without any military cards to play.
Kiev knows that it has a strategic reserve of Kalashnikov assault rifles and other light weapons stored in Ukraine as a mobilisation reserve dating back to Soviet times. It has hinted quietly but strongly in back channels between Ukrainian and Russian military establishments that it might be prepared to open this strategic reserve of weapons to an eastern Ukrainian population prepared to resist any Russian military incursions. Since the stockpile consists of up to five million weapons, the prospect would be a nightmare for Russian military planners if they realistically prepared to move into eastern areas of Ukraine. The prospect of civil war and an anti-Russian insurgency on an unprecedented scale with unpredictable consequences represents a real – if extremely dangerous – bargaining chip for Kiev.
The stark fact is that at least half the strategic stockpile of light weapons on Ukrainian territory is concentrated near Slavyansk.
This explains many of the manoeuvres around this small and otherwise unimportant city. On 24 April Ukrainian authorities re-launched their ‘counter-terrorist operation’ against Russian separatists who had occupied key areas to restore Kiev’s control over Slavyansk. In a coordinated response Russian forces edged closer to the Ukrainian border in such a way as to threaten a territorial incursion to support the separatists. This Russian move was dangerous but had the desired effect when the Ukrainian counter-terrorist operation was immediately halted by Kiev. It was an interesting standoff between two sides threatening each other with their adversary’s worst fears. Today, Kiev has upped the ante in the standoff and will test Russian resolve to prevent the Ukrainian government from regaining control of the city and its light weapons stockpile.
Cutting off Kiev’s Strategic Weapons Reserve
Such a standoff has illuminated a number of strategic factors. The multiple seizures of government buildings in eastern Ukraine, not just in Slavyansk but also in Konstantinovka in Donetsk Oblast are aimed to make it impossible for Ukrainian forces to fully control the territory and, in effect, to cut it off from its strategic stockpile of light arms which are the essence of Kiev’s present deterrent posture.
Whereas symbolic government buildings in other cities might be occupied by Russian separatists for political and symbolic reasons, in Slavyansk the separatists effectively control the whole city and the immediate surrounding area. They have physical control over the strategic weapons reserve.
Certainly, there is evidence of instructions to Russian military personnel prior to their infiltration into Ukraine that the multiple seizures of government buildings and areas across a wide region of eastern Ukraine were explicitly to prevent any concentration among the opposing Ukrainian forces.
Moscow Fears the Worst
Secondly, whether or not military leaders in Moscow are effectively deterred by Kiev’s warnings of an extensive insurgency, their manoeuvres around Slavyansk indicate that they have not excluded the option of a ground invasion of parts of eastern Ukraine. Slavyansk evidently matters to them in some significant way that goes far beyond the city’s industrial, geographical or political importance.
It is possible, of course, that Moscow fears the export of armed insurgency onto Russian soil as revenge for the Crimean annexation. More outlandishly, it is also plausible that the Russians are concerned that weapon stocks in Slavyansk might be used for ‘ethnic cleansing’ or even genocidal purposes against Russian minorities in a Ukrainian civil war.
However far-fetched, such a motivation cannot be ruled out in Moscow where the characterisation of the Kiev government is that it is dominated by the ‘Right Sector’ composed of fascists and violent nationalists.
Russian Special Forces Already in Slavyansk
Thirdly, the presence of ‘Spetsnaz’ forces among the separatists in eastern Ukraine and around Slavyansk is completely consistent with the operational and combat doctrines of Spetsnaz units. One of the ‘special tasks’ of Spetsnaz forces – unlike their main task of reconnaissance per se – is the ‘liquidation’ or ‘neutralisation’ of strategically significant stores of armaments in areas where they may operate.
There is also evidence that instructors of the Special Reconnaissance Department of the Ryazan Airborne Troops Academy are also present among the separatists in Slavyansk. These elements would offer efficient coordination between the actions of separatists and Russian troops on the other side of the border.
Intervention Through Peacekeeping
Finally, there has been a notable increase in the public discussion by Russian diplomatic representatives around the world that Russia would have a legal right to send peacekeeping units into Ukraine should the situation in Slavyansk and other cities deteriorate further (such statements have been made by the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s permanent representative to the UN Vitaliy Churkin, as well as some Russian senators). The Geneva Agreement concluded by the US and Russia offers a useful mechanism for doing so: a Russian contingent could be presented as Moscow’s ‘contribution’ to an OSCE observer mission, which is explicitly called for in the Geneva Agreement.
On 24 April, in the Rostov Oblast, three columns of Russian troops including tanks, Armoured Personnel Carriers and troop transports ,as well as twelve helicopter gunships accompanying one of the columns, were seen bearing recognised ‘peacekeeping forces’ markings on their vehicles. These columns have been spotted on the M4 highway near Kamensk-Shakhtinskiy and Shakhty and between Kamensk, and Krasniy Sulin.
It should be noted that the Geneva Agreement of 17 April contained considerable loopholes which did not define any restriction on the number either of observers to guarantee a peace process or the structure of any formations to support them. Regardless of what explanation Russia may offer, the real outcome of any military intervention will be to boost the forces which are already defending Slavyansk against Ukrainian government troops.
Slavyansk may be a small city that has never been on the political radar of Western planners until very recently. It now seems to be the focus for a game of deterrence and brinkmanship that Kiev and Moscow feel compelled to play and in which, despite evident Russian military planning, neither is likely to be in full control of all the elements at work on the ground. And the further use of military options remain very much part of Russia’s strategic thinking. Today, Kiev has upped the ante in the standoff and will test Russian resolve to prevent the Ukrainian government from regaining control of the city and its light weapons stockpile.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar
Catatan: Hanya anggota dari blog ini yang dapat mengirim komentar.