The Strategic Implications of Ukraine’s Bold Strike in Crimea

Christian Baghai
6 min readApr 18, 2024

In a world where geopolitical tensions often simmer below the surface, the recent military event in Crimea has sent shockwaves across the international community. Ukraine’s use of ‘US missiles’ to strike a Russian base has not only marked a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict but also highlighted the complex interplay of global alliances and strategic interests. The Ukrainian missile attack on the headquarters of the Russian Black Sea Fleet is politically a sign that despite the slow progress on the front lines in its counteroffensive, Ukraine can still inflict serious damage on the Russian military. Targets such as the Crimea bridge have considerable symbolic value as well as strategic purpose.

A Calculated Offensive Ukraine’s decision to carry out a massive missile strike against a Russian base in Crimea was a bold move. The strike targeted the Saki military airfield, a site with a history of attacks and a hub for Russian combat aircraft. This offensive maneuver showcases Ukraine’s growing military capabilities and its willingness to engage in assertive actions to reclaim sovereignty over its territories. The Saki airfield, initially built by the Soviet Union in the 1930s, has been operated under both Ukrainian and Russian sovereignty since 1992. It has been home to the 43rd Independent Naval Assault Aviation Regiment operating Sukhoi Su-24M/MR, Sukhoi Su-30SM, and Tupolev Tu-134 4A-4 aircraft. The recent attack on this strategic location, which included the destruction of half of the Black Sea Fleet’s communications command center, demonstrates Ukraine’s capability to strike deep within occupied territories and challenge the operational capabilities of the occupying forces.

Global Reactions and NATO’s Role

The global reaction to Ukraine’s strike was swift and multifaceted. While some world leaders expressed concern over the potential for escalation, others showed outright support for Ukraine’s right to self-defense. The Ukrainian missile attack on the headquarters of the Russian Black Sea Fleet is politically a sign that despite the slow progress on the front lines in its counteroffensive, Ukraine can still inflict serious damage on the Russian military. Targets such as the Crimea bridge have considerable symbolic value as well as strategic purpose. NATO, in particular, has been a pillar of support for Ukraine, providing unprecedented levels of assistance and reaffirming the country’s right to choose its own security arrangements. NATO condemns in the strongest possible terms Russia’s brutal and unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine. The Alliance fully supports Ukraine’s inherent right to self-defense, and its right to choose its own security arrangements.

The ATACMS Factor

Central to this operation was Ukraine’s use of long-range US-provided ATACMS missiles. These missiles represent a significant upgrade in Ukraine’s arsenal, allowing it to strike targets farther away while keeping its forces out of harm’s reach. The successful use of these missiles not only inflicted serious damage on the Russian base but also demonstrated the effectiveness of Western support in bolstering Ukraine’s defense capabilities. Recently introduced by House Speaker Mike Johnson, the U.S. House of Representatives Ukraine aid bill provides for $60 billion in assistance and mandated transfer of ATACMS missiles to Kyiv. The Ukrainian Defense Forces used American ATACMS missiles to attack the airfield in Dzhankoy on the territory of the temporarily occupied Crimean Peninsula. The British newspaper The Sun writes about this on April 17. The Biden administration had previously refused to provide ATACMS to Ukraine, but had decided “in recent weeks” to send them quietly, US media outlet CNN reported, quoting two US officials. It said that Washington wanted to take Moscow by surprise, in case Russia moved equipment and weapons out of reach before the projectiles could be used. Because of concerns about tensions with Russia, the missiles provided to Ukraine have a lower range than the maximum the system is capable of, according to the Associated Press. The variant delivered to Kyiv carries cluster munitions which release hundreds of small bombs from the air rather than a single warhead.

Strategic Implications for Ukraine and Its Allies

The recent strike’s success has profound strategic implications, not just for Ukraine but also for the broader international community. It underscores Ukraine’s ability to conduct sophisticated and coordinated military operations, which have been bolstered by the unwavering support from its allies. This support has manifested in various forms, including the provision of advanced weapons systems, military training, and financial aid, which have significantly enhanced Ukraine’s defense capabilities.

Moreover, the strike may alter the strategic calculus of the conflict, potentially deterring future aggression by showcasing the increased risks to Russian assets. The Ukrainian military’s ability to target and destroy key Russian military infrastructure has demonstrated a growing capability to strike deep within occupied territories, challenging the operational capabilities of the occupying forces. This development may lead to a reevaluation of global security policies and influence diplomatic negotiations and the strategic calculations of both Russia and the international community.

The strategic implications of Ukraine’s recent military operations have been a topic of analysis and discussion among experts and policymakers. The war in Ukraine has become a test of political will and industrial capacity between two competing blocks: allied countries aiding Ukraine and axis countries aiding Russia. The recent civil-military crisis in Ukraine saw the appointment of a new commander-in-chief but has had an impact on Ukraine’s international reputation. All of this should be understood within a broader context for this war.

As the Ukraine war enters its third year, the strategic goals of Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin take center stage. While Putin aims to keep the pressure on Ukraine and do everything possible to ensure that the world understands that Ukraine is not a sovereign nation, Zelenskyy seeks to preserve the sovereignty of Ukraine and minimize territorial losses. The recent strike operations to keep Black Sea trade open and conduct economic warfare against Russian energy export infrastructure are part of Ukraine’s broader strategy.

Looking Ahead

As the dust settles on the aftermath of the strike, the world watches with bated breath. The recent events serve as a stark reminder of the delicate balance of power that exists in today’s geopolitical landscape. Ukraine’s actions, backed by its allies, have not only changed the dynamics on the ground but also set a precedent for the international response to acts of aggression. The Ukrainian missile attack on the Russian airport in Dzhankoy, Crimea, which was under the protection of the S-400 system, has exposed gaps in air defense and has been a significant blow to the Russian military presence in the region.

The strike’s implications extend beyond the immediate military impact. It is a statement of strategic intent and a testament to the country’s resilience. The targeting of the S-400 and command post potentially indicates a well-planned operation aimed at undermining the operational capabilities of the occupying forces. Moreover, the attack on key Russian bases in Crimea, including the destruction of half of the Black Sea Fleet’s communications command center, has demonstrated Ukraine’s growing capability to strike deep within occupied territories.

In conclusion, Ukraine’s strike in Crimea is more than just a military operation. It’s a bold declaration of Ukraine’s refusal to be subdued and an illustration of the shifting tides in the ongoing conflict. As the situation evolves, it will undoubtedly continue to shape the discourse on international security and the future of Eastern Europe. The repercussions of these strikes are likely to influence diplomatic negotiations and the strategic calculations of both Russia and the international community. The resilience and determination shown by Ukraine could inspire other nations under threat to adopt a more assertive stance in their defense strategies.

The world is now witnessing a new chapter in the conflict, one where Ukraine has demonstrated its ability to conduct sophisticated and impactful operations. This development may alter the course of the war and potentially lead to a reevaluation of global security policies. The strikes in Crimea have not only inflicted physical damage but also sent a powerful message that may resonate across the globe, signaling a new era in the Ukrainian resistance and the broader struggle for sovereignty and territorial integrity.

--

--