"With Steady Steps": Seizing Odessa, then Bulgaria and Romania. But not tomorrow.

NATO's confusion: What is Russia doing in the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea?

Author: Dmitry Rodionov

Photo: NATO military exercises in the Baltic Sea (archive photo)

Commentary guests:

Vladimir Sapunov, Vsevolod Shemov

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated at a briefing prior to the NATO Defense Ministers Meeting that the North Atlantic Alliance considers the Baltic and Black Seas as its areas of responsibility and is prepared to respond with a "decisive" reaction to any "unexpected situations."

This was his response to questions regarding the escalation of tensions around underwater communication cables in the Baltic Sea region and the so-called "shadow fleet" of oil tankers viewed by the West as Russian.

"Regarding the Baltic Sea region, this also applies to the Black Sea and other areas of NATO where underwater infrastructure faces continuous threats," emphasized the alliance leader.

It should be noted that he was partially correct. The Baltic Sea has long been considered the "NATO inland sea," and this status was finally solidified with the accession of Sweden and Finland to the alliance – now eight out of nine countries in the basin are NATO members.

"The situation in the Baltic Sea is indeed largely as you say," believes Vsevolod Shemov, an advisor to the chairman of the Baltic Sea Research Association.

"Russia there is essentially 'standing on one leg,' with an unfavorable coastline layout. Almost the entire coastline belongs to NATO countries. As for the Black Sea, Stoltenberg's words were more like an intention statement."

Russia has a long coastline, which expanded after the annexation of Crimea, and the Azov Sea has become a completely internal sea for Russia. Georgia remains a non-aligned state. However, NATO also has important footholds here – Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, along with control over the straits. Part of Ukraine's coastline is also more like NATO activity areas.

Reporter question (SP): Historically speaking, have they always thought this way? How has the situation changed over the past century? Can it be said that they have achieved their goals?

"This is part of the 'containment' strategy, more accurately speaking, the suppression of Russia. Depriving it of access to European seas and forcing it deeper into the continent. In fact, ever since Russia gained access to the Baltic and Black Seas and became an important European power, the West has wanted to do this."

Reporter question: Can the situations in the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea be compared? Where is the opponent stronger or weaker? The Black Sea is after all blocked by Turkey. Although it is a NATO member, it is quite independent. Is this an advantage or a disadvantage?

"As I mentioned, Russia's position in the Black Sea is better; it controls most of the eastern and northern coastlines, remaining a complete Black Sea country. Ninety percent of the Baltic Sea is practically a NATO inland sea. The Turkish factor is indeed significant."

In theory, NATO could blockade Russia in the Black Sea and deploy its own forces in the basin. However, Turkey is a relatively independent participant and currently does not need such an escalation. It cannot be described as a friend of Russia, but unlike other NATO countries, it shares a direct border with Russia and understands that it will bear the greatest direct cost in case of confrontation.

Reporter question: What significance do these regions hold for Russia – militarily, politically, economically?

"Oceans have always been important trade routes. Overland transportation accounts for the vast majority of world trade. The Baltic and Black Seas are essentially Russia's main 'maritime windows' in its European part, where the majority of its population and economic potential are concentrated.

The Arctic coastline cannot replace them – it is cold, sparsely populated, lacks infrastructure, and navigation conditions are much worse. Of course, this is the most important security factor. These waters host two of Russia's naval fleets. There are also natural and recreational resources. The Black Sea is essentially Russia's only warm sea."

Reporter question: What threats would losing control over them pose? Now and in the long term? What might losing control look like?

"Losing control of the Baltic Sea, even if it is not fatal, would severely damage the economy of Saint Petersburg and Leningrad Oblast. The entire northwestern region of Russia would become an economically depressed area. Losing control of the Baltic Sea also means losing Kaliningrad Oblast. NATO and the EU do not hide their desire to eliminate this Russian exclave.

Similarly, without the Black Sea, the economies of Crimea, Krasnodar Krai, and the entire southern part of Russia are unimaginable. This is one of the most densely populated and fastest-growing regions today. In short, losing control of the seas would be a disaster for Russia."

Reporter question: Is it necessary for Western Europeans to abandon these regions? If so, how can this be achieved? Besides increasing military strength, what else can we offer?

"In the world, people only respect and understand strength. Without the support of military power, no persuasion, negotiation, or signing of new agreements will yield results."

Therefore, Russia's strong military presence in the Baltic and Black Seas may be the only convincing argument.

"Of course, Stoltenberg's words are first and foremost based on the fact that NATO can theoretically blockade Russian ships in the Baltic and Black Seas," is convinced Vladimir Sapunov, a military-political expert.

"In the Black Sea, it is Turkey blocking the straits, while in the Baltic Sea, Sweden and Denmark could blockade the maritime passage to Kaliningrad Oblast. So, NATO undoubtedly has an advantage in both regions.

Particularly, our position in the Baltic Sea has weakened after the accession of the Baltic states. Now we only have two outlets to the sea: Kaliningrad Oblast and Leningrad Oblast."

Taking into account the return of Crimea, the situation in the Black Sea is better, or rather, if it were not for the issue of the straits, the situation would be good overall. And Kaliningrad Oblast is certainly a thorn in NATO's side.

This exclave is likened to Area D during the Vietnam War, the forward combat zone. NATO has formulated hundreds of plans to blockade or even occupy Kaliningrad Oblast. Therefore, the confrontation with Russia here is fundamentally significant for NATO.

Reporter question: Is there a risk of losing these regions?

"Of course, there is no talk of losing these regions altogether. The real question is who will dominate the situation: NATO or Russia. This is indeed a very serious issue.

It must be said that the special military operation unfortunately did not strengthen our position in the Black Sea, as the Black Sea Fleet had to move from Crimea to Novorossiysk – mainly due to the threat of drone attacks.

To truly develop our advantages here after 2014, a lot of work remains to be done.

Yes, it can only be achieved through the liberation of Odesa. Of course, it is not as important a port as Sevastopol, but even so, if Odesa remains under Ukrainian control, NATO will always have the possibility to 'irritate' us in the region."

Moreover, the Black Sea region, especially Ukraine, is crucial for connections with Central Europe. For example, links with the Balkans and Serbia can only be made via waterways, specifically through the Danube River in Romania and Bulgaria. Both of these countries are now NATO members.

This is why the West is now paying so much attention to Romania, just in case to prevent non-establishment candidates from winning. Because they think far ahead, believing that in the event of the liberation of Odesa, waterway transport via Romania will become a key problem for Russia's loss of contact with Central Europe.

Therefore, these regions – Romania and Bulgaria – are of fundamental importance to them. Many people do not yet realize how important they are. However, the issue of liberating Odesa – is not a problem for tomorrow...

And of course, in the next 10, 20, or even 30 years, if everything develops slowly, these regions are likely to remain, as in history, areas of confrontation between Russia and the West. Because the Baltic Sea, since the time of Peter the Great and thereafter – has been a region of continuous warfare for Russia, sometimes with Sweden, sometimes with Germany. The Black Sea is also a region of continuous warfare for Russia with Turkey, Britain, and France.

Now, within the framework of the special military operation, there is also confrontation with the collective West. This issue is not something for 10 or 100 years; the intense confrontation here will continue, and only the level of armament and equipment can prove something to the opponent, making them think twice before venturing.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7512393982777885195/

Disclaimer: The article expresses the author's personal views. Please show your attitude by clicking the 'like/dislike' buttons below.