Why did the Russians retreat leaving Fidonisi

LAST UPDATE: 15:00

Of Costa Rapti

Before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Fidonisi in the Black Sea was of concern only to those with a special interest in the international law of the sea. Just 0.7 square kilometers in area, this island, located about 40 kilometers southwest of Odessa but much closer to the Danube Delta and occupied by the Soviet Union during World War II, was the subject of a dispute between Ukraine and Romania, in particular as regards its impact on the delimitation of territorial waters and exclusive economic zone.

The matter ended up at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which in 2009 ruled, setting an important legal precedent, that due to its geographical distance from the Ukrainian coast, Fidonisi did not have full influence in the delimitation of maritime jurisdictions, with the result that 80% of the disputed waters registered in Romania.

The outbreak of this year’s war brought Fidonisi to the center of the news from the first moment. The false claim of the Ukrainian side that the 13 soldiers of the island’s guard arrogantly refused to surrender to the Russian forces and heroically fell to the last is known. In fact, the approximately eighty defenders of the island are alive, having been captured by the Russian side.

However, the hostilities around the island did not stop. L.g. May saw Ukrainian recapture operations (resulting in an increase in Russia’s military presence on the ground), while on June 17 Kyiv claimed to have sunk a tugboat carrying supplies in Fidonisi, and on June 21 that Russian garrisons there were seriously hit by Ukrainian missiles and drones, resulting in the destruction of military vehicles, anti-aircraft systems and a radar.

The study of satellite photos by experts (eg the American Sim Tuck of Force Analysis, who spoke to France24) offered a much more ambiguous picture. The Russian side, again, claimed that all Ukrainian missiles were intercepted and 13 of the 15 drones were shot down.

However, yesterday Thursday the Ministry of Defense of Russia announced the evacuation of Fidonisi, presenting it as a “gesture of goodwill”, while the negotiation, with Turkish mediation, for the resumption of grain exports from Ukrainian ports is progressing.

The reasons for this sudden development cannot but be operational. The cost of maintaining, defending and supplying this small island (which is 240 kilometers from the Russian naval base of Sevastopol) is not justified by its ultimately limited strategic importance. A guess about Russian motives could also be the desire to avoid escalation that would cause a direct confrontation with NATO forces, without whose support (e.g. from Romanian soil) it is difficult to imagine bold Ukrainian operations taking place in the Black Sea, such as e.g. the sinking of the Russian flagship “Moscow”.

In its analysis, the BBC emphasizes that Fidonisi was extremely vulnerable due to its geographical location and its defense against successive Ukrainian strikes was a “logistical nightmare” for the Russian side, especially after the sinking of the “Moscow”, hence the Kremlin “desperately wanted” the transfer of anti-aircraft and electronic warfare systems to the islet.

Fidonisi is often described as a “key” to control the sea route to Odessa, if not the entire Black Sea, however independent experts (such as the American Jeff Hon of the New Lines Institute, who also spoke to France24) they downplay its importance, interpreting the focus on the specific tiny rocky terrain more in terms of political symbolism and boosting Ukrainian morale.

In any case, Fidonisi, which is still within range of Russian missiles, remains empty as of yesterday, as there have been no moves to deploy Ukrainian forces.

What the Russian political game is becomes clear from the telephone conversation that the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had, one day before the evacuation of Fidonisi, with G.G. of the UN Antonio Guterres. The head of Russian diplomacy emphasized to his interlocutor that Moscow is willing to cooperate in creating safe export corridors for Ukrainian grain and blamed the ongoing food crisis on Ukraine itself, which has mined its ports, as well as on the West, which its sanctions interfere with the corresponding Russian exports.

It is noted, however, that Russia reserves for itself the right to inspect (for possible transport of military material) the ships that will move in the safe corridor and rejects any possibility that they will be accompanied by warships of the West. The decisions of the G7 Summit on June 28 in Elmau, Germany on the issue of food security leave open the possibility of military action to “facilitate UN efforts”.

But more than anything else in this war, Russia is investing in control of the Black Sea. And the temporary de-escalation of tensions with the creation of a safe corridor also reduces the risk of actions against its own facilities in Crimea.