In the latest escalation of his war crimes against Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin has pulled out of the painfully negotiated grain deal that for months has permitted exports of Ukrainian and Russian agricultural products from Black Sea ports.
There are several reasons for Putin’s withdrawal: frustration at Western sanctions; concern over Ukraine’s modestly successful counteroffensive; and anger at the Ukrainians’ bold strike on the symbolically and logistically pivotal Kerch Strait bridge that connects Russia to occupied Crimea.
In addition to ending Russian participation in the grain deal — which was brokered with the aid of the UN and Turkey — Putin said that he might begin attacking grain ships still plying the international waters of the Black Sea. This would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for shippers of grain and other agricultural products to obtain insurance — effectively creating a blockade.
Under international law, such blockades are illegal. There is no state of declared war between the parties (recall this is, in Putin’s own words, merely a “special military operation”) and it would directly curtail freedom on the high seas. Putin is also weaponizing hunger by cutting food supplies to North Africa and other parts of the global south. Ukraine is among the world’s largest exporters of several key grains, fertilizers and flower oils.
How can the West respond to Putin’s actions? And what might he do in return?
For starters, the US can learn from its own history. More than 30 years ago, then-lieutenant commander James Stavridis (with a lot more hair) was assigned as operations officer on a new US Navy Aegis cruiser, the USS Valley Forge. We were part of Operation Earnest Will, which helped resolve an Iranian attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz and thus cut off 25 percent of the world’s hydrocarbon shipping. That successful mission provides a rough blueprint of how to break an illegal blockade today.
In the Gulf in the late 1980s, Washington took the extraordinary step of “re-flagging” Kuwaiti oil tankers — putting them under American registration — to make them in essence US assets. We then set up a complex command-and-control system across the waters of the Gulf and — to use a basketball analogy — provided both zone and man-to-man defense arrangements: generally moving the ships in convoys, but occasionally assigning individual warships to protect individual tankers, depending on the situation.
Fast-forward to the present. On the plus side, because of the humanitarian nature of the cargoes, it might be unnecessary to fully re-flag the Black Sea vessels. The rationale for the escorts would fall under the broad provisions of international law that permit enforcing the freedom of international waters, and allow the protection of humanitarian shipping in conflict zones.
Unfortunately, the UN would not be able to take a lead role, because of Russia’s ability to veto anything coming out of the Security Council. So the mission would likely be undertaken either by NATO or by a “coalition of the willing” led by the US.
Operationally, a structure along the lines of Earnest Will makes sense. Assuming that this is a NATO mission, the main assets would be two standing maritime combat groups overseen by my latest successor as the alliance’s supreme allied commander, US Army General Chris Cavoli. He would probably delegate execution to the four-star commander of NATO’s southern forces, based in Naples, Italy.
Fortuitously, one of the standing maritime groups is composed of minesweepers, which would be very necessary given Russia’s continued laying of sea mines near Ukraine’s ports. The other maritime group, currently under the command of a British commodore, is typically composed of six frigates and destroyers, with plenty of firepower and air-defense capability. The HQ in Naples would likely install a three-star commander for the task force, possibly from the US Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean.
How would it work? Probably by bundling the merchant craft into three-to-five ship convoys, each escorted by a couple of guided-missile warships. There would be a significant air component to carry out patrols tracking the location of the Russian Black Sea Fleet — which operates largely out of ports in occupied Crimea — and to respond to possible Russian air attacks on the ships. Several squadrons of fighters could be assigned to NATO bases in northern Turkey or, more likely, Romania and Bulgaria. Satellite command-and-control would be necessary; air and naval drones could be integrated.
Obviously, all this would be terribly complex and risky. In terms of complexity, I am confident NATO (or a coalition formed by the US, UK and their Black Sea partners) could handle such a defensive military operation. The risk is obvious: It would bring Russia and Ukraine’s Western supporters into direct confrontation, if not necessarily combat. It would be crucial, before starting the mission, to give a public explanation of its intent and scope, making clear to Russia that we are not looking for a fight, but would do what we must to defend the convoys.
There are other risks as well. Turkey, which controls passage to the Black Sea, might prove politically reluctant to cooperate. And there is the possibility of an inadvertent incident of “collateral damage” — as with the terrible downing of an Iranian commercial airliner during Earnest Will.
Putin would fume, sputter and threaten — but is unlikely to take on NATO or a US-led coalition of Black Sea warships in direct combat. He would be well served to see how things turned out for Iran in the 1980s: multiple warships sunk, and a broken blockade. Convoys, anyone?
James Stavridis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A retired US Navy admiral, former supreme allied commander of NATO and dean emeritus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, he is vice chairman of global affairs at the Carlyle Group. He is on the boards of American Water Works, Fortinet, PreVeil, NFP, Ankura Consulting Group, Titan Holdings, Michael Baker and Neuberger Berman, and has advised Shield Capital, a firm that invests in the cybersecurity sector. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
A series of strong earthquakes in Hualien County not only caused severe damage in Taiwan, but also revealed that China’s power has permeated everywhere. A Taiwanese woman posted on the Internet that she found clips of the earthquake — which were recorded by the security camera in her home — on the Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu. It is spine-chilling that the problem might be because the security camera was manufactured in China. China has widely collected information, infringed upon public privacy and raised information security threats through various social media platforms, as well as telecommunication and security equipment. Several former TikTok employees revealed
The bird flu outbreak at US dairy farms keeps finding alarming new ways to surprise scientists. Last week, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) confirmed that H5N1 is spreading not just from birds to herds, but among cows. Meanwhile, media reports say that an unknown number of cows are asymptomatic. Although the risk to humans is still low, it is clear that far more work needs to be done to get a handle on the reach of the virus and how it is being transmitted. That would require the USDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to get
For the incoming Administration of President-elect William Lai (賴清德), successfully deterring a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) attack or invasion of democratic Taiwan over his four-year term would be a clear victory. But it could also be a curse, because during those four years the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will grow far stronger. As such, increased vigilance in Washington and Taipei will be needed to ensure that already multiplying CCP threat trends don’t overwhelm Taiwan, the United States, and their democratic allies. One CCP attempt to overwhelm was announced on April 19, 2024, namely that the PLA had erred in combining major missions
On April 11, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida delivered a speech at a joint meeting of the US Congress in Washington, in which he said that “China’s current external stance and military actions present an unprecedented and the greatest strategic challenge … to the peace and stability of the international community.” Kishida emphasized Japan’s role as “the US’ closest ally.” “The international order that the US worked for generations to build is facing new challenges,” Kishida said. “I understand it is a heavy burden to carry such hopes on your shoulders,” he said. “Japan is already standing shoulder to shoulder