Russia and the Crimea: Protecting minorities or protecting the Black Sea Fleet ?

The events currently unfolding in Ukraine are troubling and potentially extremely volatile. As the time of writing, it is estimated that around 2000 Russian troops are now present in Crimea, occupying key strategic locations. The Ukrainian interim government has now declared military mobilisation and is accusing the Russians of breaching Ukraine's territorial integrity. Tensions are running high. 

Russia is claiming that the mobilisation of troops is designed to help protect the Russian speaking minorities heavily present in the Crimea, but make no mistake - this is just a pretext being exploited by the Russian government in the wake of the Maidan movement in Kiev. Any student of history would tell you that the Russians don't exactly have a great track record when it comes to the protection of minorities (both within its own borders and without). The true interest of the Russians lies in Sevastopol. 

The great city of Sevastopol is home to the Russian Black Sea Fleet, and the Russians would be loth to lose control of it. Ever since the great power ambitions of the Tsars, access to the world’s ocean has been a primary concern of Russian strategic pursuits all the way through the Soviet period and into the Russian Federation. Russia ability to project power and safeguard its interest is directly linked to its ability for its military and merchant navies to navigate every corner of the world’s oceans. Naval power is just as important today as it was in the 18th Century. Indeed Sevastopol and the Black Fleet are Russia's only significant access to the Mediterranean (discounting the small Russian logistical port in Syria). And even then, their access was hampered by the Bosphorus Straight, controlled by Turkey, a major NATO member, and before that by the Ottoman Empire. Russian access to the Atlantic is also problematic, with the North Sea ports being difficult to navigate in winter and access to the Atlantic being blocked off by primarily by the Turks, but also the British in Gibraltar.

With these strategic considerations in mind, the collapse of the Soviet Union was a significant challenge to Russian ambitions in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Could a new independent Ukraine be trusted to safeguard Russian naval interests? If Russian involvement in Ukrainian domestic affairs during the last two decades or so are any indication, then the answer is no. And present circumstances may have proven them right. The Russians initially signed a lease with Ukraine, granting them joint access to Sevastopol (alongside the Ukrainian navy). This lease was initially supposed to expire in 2017, but was extended to 2042 by then President Viktor Yanukovych. The same Yanukovych who is on the run after being "deposed" by the Maidan movement. The current opposition in the new interim government has threatened to rescind the lease extension, which would kick the Black Sea Fleet out of Ukraine in 2017.  

Not only is Russia’s tenuous hold of their naval power in the Western hemisphere under threat, but Ukraine remains the last buffer zone in the West against European (EU integration) and American (NATO expansion) influence. A pro-European Ukraine would mark the death knell of Russian influence in Europe. This imperialistic consideration survived the Soviet Union and is still very present today, though obviously not unique to Russia. In many ways Russia’s leaders today are very much products of the Cold War.   

So what now? It is clear that the Russians are employing the same strategy that they did during the Georgian conflict in 2008. Under pretext of protecting minorities, the Russians are undergoing significant military build-up in foreign territory. Perhaps in the hopes of goading the Ukrainians into attacking first, as the Georgians did. Like Georgia this would increase Russian legitimacy and severely restrict any form of assistance Ukraine could receive from the West. No-one in Europe and America wants a direct military conflict with the Russians; after all we spent four decades trying to avoid doing so. This sentiment is perhaps best echoed in the weakness of President Obama’s statement yesterday regarding the situation.  

It is clear though that the claim of protecting the Russian minorities in the Crimea is just a pretext to justify Russia’s military build-up. The key objective here is Sevastopol, a key infrastructure to support Russia world power ambitions. Geography has always been a significant hurdle for Russian strategic ambitions and they will not let anything threaten their hold on warm water ports. Whether this is accomplished through the annexation of Crimea or through more peaceful means remains to be seen. 

Study of an arms deal: why India favours the Rafale

With the recent news that the negotiations on the adoption of the Rafale as India's MMF (Medium Multi-role Fighter) are moving ahead again, it’s worth asking what considerations might have influenced India's decision-making. Especially considering that the MMF tender is also the largest arms deal of the largest democracy in the world.

Ultimately governments make purchase decisions about multi-million dollar military hardware pretty much the same way that you or I might choose a mobile phone provider or car insurance. Essentially it all boils down to 4 things: performance, cost, customer service and trust.

1. Performance

Q: Does the product meet (or exceed) your requirements?

Let’s start by comparing the two finalists in the Indian MMF tender: the Dassault Rafale (France) and the EADS Eurofighter Typhoon (UK, Germany, Spain and Italy). (I’ll get to the eliminated offerings from the US later on.)

Both the Typhoon and Rafale are delta winged, multi-roled, fourth generation fighters (France was originally part of the Eurofighter programme) designed in the late 70's. To a layman, both aircraft are very similar, but the devil is in the detail.

The Eurofighter arguably has the edge in BVR and WVR (Beyond Visual Range and Within Visual Range) air-to-air engagement capabilities. However this does not play in its favour in terms of the Indian tender as the Indians already have a superb air-to-air machine in the form of the Russian Su-30 MIK (reportedly more advanced than the Su-35 Flanker-E in operation in the Russian air force).  

Where the Rafale has the upper hand is that it is considered to be an Omni-role fighter rather than the Multi-role Typhoon. It means that the aircraft was designed to perform various missions at the same time. Multi-role aircraft can be outfitted for various missions but often can only conduct one or two at a time. During the Libyan bombing campaign, the French operated Rafales in pairs, switching from observation to strike to aerial area denial at a moment’s notice. Whereas UK Royal Air Force often deployed 2 types of aircraft simultaneously, the Rafale means that you can perform the same missions with half the number of aircraft. 

Other advantages include a navalised version of the Rafale already in operation in the French navy (important to the Indians, who want to develop their own aircraft carriers), the ability to carry AM 39 Exocet anti-ship missiles as well as nuclear cruise missiles and finally the fact that the Rafale is compatible with French-made munitions already in use in the Indian Air Force on their Mirages (the predecessor of the Rafale), greatly simplifying logistics.

2. Cost

Q: Does the product offer good value for money?

It’s been suggested that the Rafale is being offered 5 to 6 million dollars per unit cheaper than the Typhoon. Were that the case, it’s rumoured that Dassault would effectively be foregoing any profit on the deal. If so, the price would be unbeatable.

3. Customer service

Q: How good is the after-sales service?

Germany (one of the 4 partner countries developing the Eurofighter) has been a more important aviation partner for India, helping to develop a native helicopter programme in recent years. Germany's standing is also helped by the fact that many members of India’s ruling class have been educated there and the German political model is often drawn for inspiration in India. However recent German flakiness in terms of technology transfers - and the ever-looming constraint that German law requires them to cease the supply of weapons and spares to their partners if they were to engage in a war - make Germany too unreliable a defence partner in the eyes of the Indians. 

Conversely France and Russia (India’s premier defence partner) have the advantage of not being subject to national or international arms embargoes when dealing with other states, so the supply chain would almost always be guaranteed. 

4. Trust

Q: Do you trust the product (or rather the people who make it)?  

As with consumer goods, trust is largely earned by getting (1) to (3) right. But trust also comes down to more intangible factors – in particular strength of relationship and political will.    

In this context, the Eurofighter is a thorny proposition for the Indians. It is built by a conglomerate of four nations, each with their own separate foreign policies and arms trade laws. Italy and Spain have never sold anything major to India, military-wise. Britain recently sold a batch of training aircraft to India, but the last combat aircraft sold to India was the Jaguar in the 70s. And that was developed 50/50 with France, so Britain and France share the credit for that. 

Here again the Rafale has the edge. The Indian air force has been using French aircraft since the 1950s and since then it has been involved in four major conflicts. The Indians have found the French to be particularly accommodating in terms of logistics and technology transfers – especially when they asked them to help modify their Mirages for use with Russian- and Israeli-made munitions in 1999.

It is this solid trust (or lack thereof) that eliminated the US offerings very quickly. Other than the fact that the American F16s and F/A 18s were not as advanced as their European rivals, the US has been supplying Pakistan (India's perennial enemy). It is also a well known fact that the US sold "incomplete" F16s to Pakistan (they lacked advanced radar), both of these  factors making the US an unreliable partner in the eyes of India. 

In the end, it’s probably trust that will have tipped the balance in France’s favour. A neat reminder that, like consumers, arms buyers want to have warm and cuddly feelings too.