By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has declared that Russia “has lost the Black Sea,” attributing this shift to the Ukrainian Naval Forces and other defense units. During events marking Ukraine’s Navy Day, Zelenskyy highlighted the successful liberation of Snake Island and ongoing operations against Russian fleet and forces in Crimea, asserting that the Black Sea will not be a place of peace for Russia. A revealed chart during a meeting with the Naval Forces indicated significant damage to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, with thousands of vessels reported destroyed or damaged. To further bolster its naval capabilities, Ukraine also announced the establishment of a new Naval Academy in Odesa to expand officer training.
Read the original article here
The notion that Russia has “lost the Black Sea,” as declared by President Zelenskyy, paints a striking picture of strategic shift and Ukrainian resilience. It’s a bold statement, and one that resonates with a powerful sense of accomplishment. The rapid transformation from a supposed three-day conquest of Kyiv to a Black Sea Fleet finding itself in multiple pieces is a narrative that many find hard to reconcile with Russia’s initial ambitions. This dramatic turnaround naturally leads one to question the longevity of Russia’s current stance.
The stark contrast in casualty figures between the Ukraine conflict and the Soviet-Afghan War, a conflict often cited as a major factor in the Soviet Union’s eventual collapse, is particularly noteworthy. With Ukraine experiencing an estimated 500,000 deaths compared to Afghanistan’s 15,000, the human cost on both sides is immense. Yet, despite these staggering losses, the question lingers: how can Russia, even with such a profound impact, endure? The irony of a nation launching an invasion and seemingly losing control of a major maritime domain to a country that historically lacked a navy is a point of significant observation.
This situation is truly remarkable, and the efforts of Ukraine in achieving this are to be commended. The sentiment of “Slava Ukraini” is not just a slogan but a testament to the ongoing struggle and the hope for a lasting peace where this regained advantage is permanent. While “lost” might be a strong word, perhaps “misplaced” or “functionally neutralized” is a more accurate description, especially when considering the strategic implications. The initial aim of securing a warm-water port, a key strategic objective, now appears to have backfired, potentially leading to a far broader loss of control over the Black Sea itself.
The ability for Russia to strike Kyiv is a complex issue, and it’s important to clarify that they have historically maintained access to the Black Sea, with Crimea still under their control, though Ukraine makes maintaining that control a difficult task. However, the assertion isn’t about Russia *lacking* access, but rather about their *control* and *operability* within it. When every vessel sailing the Black Sea is vulnerable to long-range sanctions and attacks, access becomes a hollow victory. The argument isn’t that Russia can no longer sail into the Black Sea, but rather that they are no longer free to roam and operate with impunity.
Some might dismiss Zelenskyy’s statement as an “idiotic lie,” suggesting that Russia still has access. However, the reality on the ground, where the Russian fleet is largely confined to ports, often behind defensive measures, and is demonstrably afraid to venture out, suggests a different interpretation. It’s not about access in the purest sense, but about dominance and the ability to project power. If the fleet is predominantly passive and fearful, then in a functional sense, the control of the Black Sea has indeed been eroded. This is not about Ukraine seeking to landlock Russia, but rather reclaiming what was rightfully theirs and neutralizing a significant military threat.
The idea that Russia is held together by “packaging tape and corruption” might be a vivid metaphor, but it also points to underlying fragilities. While Russia can still mobilize vast numbers of people and divert resources, often at the expense of its own civilian population, the strategic losses are mounting. The comparison to the Afghan War’s impact on the Soviet Union, while not the sole cause of its dissolution, does highlight how prolonged and costly conflicts can destabilize even powerful nations. It’s worth noting that the fall of the Soviet Union was a multifaceted event, not solely attributable to one war, but a confluence of economic, political, and social factors.
The current Russian regime, perhaps more so than the Soviet Union due to the pervasiveness of the internet, attempts to maintain a grip on its population. This is a subtle but significant difference. The Ukrainian strategic approach, while inflicting immense casualties on both sides, appears to be more efficient in terms of strategic impact. The devastating toll on Ukraine’s fighting-age population is a tragic reality, but it doesn’t necessarily diminish the strategic gains Ukraine has made in the Black Sea.
The notion of Russia’s fleet being “relocated” or becoming an “artificial reef” is a darkly humorous reflection of the successes Ukraine has achieved in disabling Russian naval assets. While the exact coordinates of these “relocated” vessels might be of interest to maritime archaeologists, the practical implication is clear: Russia’s naval power in the Black Sea has been significantly diminished. The argument is not about Russia’s physical presence but its ability to exert meaningful control and influence. The fact that the Russian fleet largely remains in port, a stark contrast to its pre-war operational capacity, speaks volumes about this loss of control.
The persistent focus on access versus control is crucial. Russia might still be able to physically enter the Black Sea, but its capacity to operate freely, project force, and achieve its strategic objectives there has been severely hampered. This “functional loss” is the core of Zelenskyy’s assertion. It’s a victory not measured in territorial conquest but in the neutralization of a significant offensive capability. The sustainability of Russia’s war effort, despite its human reserves and resource diversion, is a question that continues to be debated, especially in light of such strategic setbacks.