Before NATO Summit. Black Sea Naval Powers

in Army · Conflicts · Crisis · Economics · EN · Europe · Euroskepticism · Money · Nation · NATO 2016 · Person · Politics · Power · USA · World 159 views / 6 comments
          
75% посетителей прочитало эту публикацию

GEOMETR.IT  stratfor.com

1X

Forecast

As it rises in importance, the Black Sea will witness a buildup of naval power.

NATO will attempt to enhance its influence and reach in the Black Sea.

Russia will seek to exploit divisions in NATO to undermine the alliance’s unity of mission in the critical region.

Analysis

Since Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, the balance of naval power in the Black Sea has shifted. Ukraine has been all but pushed out of the arena as Moscow, exploiting its position on the Crimean Peninsula, has built up its fleet strength in the sea. Meanwhile, the strategic importance of the waters has risen in NATO’s eyes as the bloc seeks to bolster its deterrence against Russia in Europe.

To counter Russia’s presence, Turkey and Romania will advocate strengthening the joint NATO naval force in the Black Sea at the security alliance’s Warsaw summit on July 8-9. Their proposal will be discussed at the summit, as will the possibility of an increased NATO presence in Poland and the Baltic states and other measures to expand the alliance’s presence in the region.

But as NATO contemplates enhancing its forces in the Black Sea, it must contend with the constraints set by the 1936 Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits. The pact imposes limits on nations that do not border the Black Sea, restricting the tonnage of warships as well as aggregate tonnage, number of vessels and duration of stay for any single nation.

A multinational force such as NATO’s, however, could circumvent those restrictions by building its fleet with ships from several nations and using force rotations. NATO could also lean on member states Romania and Turkey, which are largely exempted from the convention’s restrictions, to bulk up a Black Sea fleet.

Not all NATO members are likely to support a naval buildup in the Black Sea, though. While Romania might be the most enthusiastic and vocal supporter of an expanded NATO presence in the strategic waters, reluctance to antagonize Russia could curb support from Turkey and Bulgaria.

Bulgaria has a long and complicated history with Russia, and it has found itself at various times either allied with or opposed to the giant to the east. Right now, the idea of further acrimony with Moscow is unpopular among Bulgarian voters.

With a presidential election scheduled for October, the current government will be cautious about being perceived as hawkish toward Russia. On June 16, Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov reiterated the government’s opposition to an expanded NATO Black Sea naval force. Reinforcing that sentiment, the opposition Bulgarian Socialist Party is pushing for a parliamentary hearing to ensure that the country will not join any such force.

Until recently, Turkey was a strong supporter of the Black Sea initiative. But in the past few weeks, Ankara has made an effort to normalize ties with Moscow, which were strained following Turkey’s November 2015 downing of a Russian warplane on the Syrian border. In the aftermath of the incident and the Russian annexation of Crimea, it was understandable that Turkey would seek a greater NATO presence both within and near its borders as insurance against Russian military retaliation.

Now that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has apologized for the downed jet, though, Turkey is attempting to thaw its frosty relationship with Russia. As a result, Ankara will likely tread lightly with regard to NATO force deployments in the Black Sea.

In terms of sheer numbers of ships, Russia does not have the upper hand in the Black Sea. But the measure of naval force projection there is not strictly a numbers game, and Russia has many other military advantages that help make up for its smaller fleet size.

For instance, it has a significant lead in naval aviation and overall aviation assets that it could task for Black Sea missions. It also possesses long-range anti-ship cruise missile batteries that can reach most of the Black Sea. Russia has used its position on the Crimean Peninsula to build up these advantages, and it is in the process of substantially modernizing its Black Sea surface and submarine forces as well.

Russia will have to contend with NATO’s heightened interest and more frequent forays into the Black Sea. In effect, Moscow can no longer rely on the Montreux Convention and its own naval power to dominate the region, considering Turkey’s growing naval strength and NATO’s ability to work around limits set by the convention. Nevertheless, Russia’s position on the Crimean Peninsula gives it considerable advantages, and Moscow can work to exploit divisions within the NATO alliance to press those advantages. As the two sides jockey for the strategic edge, the competition to control the Black Sea will undoubtedly heat up.

Lead Analyst: Omar Lamrani

https://www.stratfor.com

http://www.usnews.com

GEOMETR.IT

* * *

Восточный фронт Европы.Эпоха перемен.»Советы» Вашингтона и Варшавы

Der NATO-Gipfel. Keine Meinung -1

NATO продает прошлое по цене будущего

Почувствуйте, как, умирая, вы живете. А.Сокуров

Die Agenda des Gipfels

Europe & NATO.Возврат к Восточной политике?

NATO-Summit. The Black See Strategy

NATO сделает из Польши колонию, — Томаш Янковский

NATO Summit and Beyond

What would happen after the Summit

6 Comments

  1. The Warsaw summit is focused largely on bolstering western solidarity reassuring eastern Europe against fears of Russian encroachment. Nato leaders will authorise the stationing of four multinational combat battalions in Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and is expected to announce a new stage of readiness of a missile defence shield in eastern Europe.

  2. On the eve of the summit, Poland’s president, Andrzej Duda, and the Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, insisted that Brexit would not affect the strength of the alliance.

  3. To be able to protect threatened allies, especially those in Eastern Europe, in a crisis, the summit adopted a Readiness Action Plan. Its key measures were to triple the size of the NATO Response Force (NRF) to forty thousand troops and to create a “spearhead” unit within the NRF capable of deploying five thousand troops anywhere within the alliance in two to three days. Across NATO, rebuilding strength was the new imperative.

  4. Klich said: “I don’t have any doubt that Russia will use this little military presence of the US and other Nato states as one of its arguments to raise the level of tension with the alliance.” However, he argued that if Nato did not strengthen its eastern flank in response to Russian actions in Ukraine, “it would be a puppet, not a tiger”.

  5. The global economic crisis of 2008, and sluggish growth thereafter, put further pressure on budgets. In France defense spending dropped more than 4 percent between 2010 and 2015; in Germany, more than 5 percent; in Britain, more than 6 percent; in Italy, by more than a third. (Although Poland and the three Baltic states increased their budgets by an average of 40 percent in this period, they were lonely exceptions.)

  6. The previous summit in Wales [in 2014] was, in a sense, an emergency summit,” Łukasz Kulesa, Research Director at the London-based think tank European Leadership Network, says. “It was a set of ad hoc decisions in response to the situation in Ukraine, which had to be taken with little prior preparation. Now it is about solidifying these defences.”

Добавить комментарий

Your email address will not be published.

Latest from

The same old song

* Transnistria. Plahotniuc wants $ and blood. Dodon wants peace. Moldova will

Klan Plahotniuca

Do przesilenia, którego efektem było załamanie duopolu władzy, doszło 15 października 2015
Go to Top