The Russia-Ukraine Sevastopol deal, without hyperbole
Thursday, May 13, 2010 at 12:05AM 
Nice piece by Richard Weitz at WPR. Totally lacking in the usual hyperbole.
Some highlights:
Despite the controversy the agreement has provoked in Ukraine, where commentators have debated its constitutionality and economic costs, Western governments have not paid much public attention to the deal. This silence partly reflects a desire not to antagonize the new Ukrainian government or contest Ukrainians' right to determine their foreign policies without outside interference. But it also is due to the perception that the lease extension will not appreciably change the balance of power in the Black Sea region.
During the August 2008 Georgia War, vessels from Russia's Black Sea fleet, based at Sevastopol, deployed along the coast of Georgia's breakaway province of Abkhazia in a belated effort to support Russian military operations. They did not materially affect the course of the war. When NATO ships entered the Black Sea following the conflict to provide humanitarian assistance to the Georgian government, Russian officials accused NATO of covertly re-arming Georgia. Adm. Eduard Baltin, former commander of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, boasted that the Russian Navy could destroy the NATO naval contingent within 20 minutes. But despite the bellicose rhetoric, no such attack occurred, and the Western ships soon departed.
Russia's dominance of the Black Sea is due less to its maritime might than to the Montreux Convention, which severely constrains the presence of extra-regional navies in the Black Sea. Turkey has been very careful to apply these limitations to NATO warships so as not to antagonize Moscow or risk losing the unique privileges that the convention grants Turkey as owner of the Bosporus Straits . . .
Most importantly, Moscow demonstrated in 2008 that, even with minimal naval and air support, Russian ground forces can overwhelm Georgia's defenses . . .
At an April 22 news conference in Estonia, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that Ukraine's decision to extend the lease would not harm its prospect of eventually joining the alliance . . .On the one hand, Yanukovich had already made clear well before the base deal that he has no intention of joining NATO . . .
On the other, while the gas subsidies will take effect now, a future Ukrainian government could annul the lease extension before 2017, when the current lease expires. Even after that date, a new government might try to revoke the extension by deeming it unconstitutional or citing other reasons . .
Furthermore, the Sevastopol energy-for-base arrangement is unlikely to serve as a precedent for similar deals elsewhere. Notwithstanding invitations from Venezuela and other friendly governments to establish bases on their territory, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin described the Ukrainian package as a unique offer designed to restore good relations between two neighboring countries. "We have no need to build military bases around the world," Putin said. "I would ask our [energy] partners not to approach us with similar requests. The Crimea is a special case."
Well put, Richard.
Reader Comments (1)
I do believe that it is good for Black Sea stability to prevent encroachment of the USA into the area, and if the USA is sincere about stability and security, it should respect the Montreux convention. Turkey and Russia should be leading partners in ensuring stability in the Black Sea, also helped out by other countries with a coastline there--it is "Mare Nostrum" for them, but not for the USA, or UK or the like.
After all, Turkey is a NATO member, and can counterbalance Russia; so the last thing needed is a loose cannon like the current Georgian president thinking "he has full US support" and getting even more carried away in adventures that backfire--like the Abkhazian debacle--which may happen if there was a regular US Navy presence in the Black Sea.