The landlocked 420,000 square mile Black Sea straddling the Europe Asia divide is fast becoming a maritime hotspot to rival the manmade islands of the South China Sea.
That is why this week the Russians buzzed the British warship HMS Defender, shot missiles into its path and then summoned the British Ambassador to the foreign ministry.
The British Type 45 frigate, said the Russians, had invaded Russian territorial waters. Wrong, said the British. Their ship could not possibly have been in Russian waters because it was off the coast of Crimea which was unilaterally annexed by Russia from Ukraine in 2014. This annexation was not recognised by Britain or the rest of the world. Therefore, HMS Defender was in Ukrainian waters not Russian and was establishing its legitimate rights under international freedom of navigation law.
The attack on HMS Defender is not the first Russian manoeuvre designed to establish its maritime dominance and rights in the northern part of the Black Sea. Russian-claimed and occupied Crimea also guards the maritime link between the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. Linking the two seas is the narrow and easily controlled Kerch Straits.
The Sea of Azov is bordered by Ukraine and Russia, and Ukraine regularly ships goods to and from its port at Mariupol. But in 2015-2016 Putin built the 11.8 mile road/rail Crimea Bridge linking the Russian mainland to the Crimean Peninsula. He then posted naval patrols operated by the FSB, successor to the KGB, to obstruct Ukrainian trade between the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko dispatched a three-ship flotilla of coastal naval craft from the Black Sea port of Odessa to Mariupol in November 2018. The ships were first blocked, then rammed and confiscated by the Russians. Their crews were thrown into a Russian prison to await a prisoner exchange.
The “Kerch Incident,” as it was called, occurred a few days before a G20 summit. It was strongly denounced and resulted in a new round of sanctions; a demand that Russia respect international maritime law and a decision by NATO to send more ships to patrol the Black Sea. HMS Defender’s cruise was part of that policy.
Russia responded by increasing its Black Sea fleet. It now has 45 surface ships in the region, and the number is growing. The other countries bordering the Black Sea are worried. They include Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania and wannabe NATO members Ukraine and Georgia. German Vice Admiral Hans-Joachim Stricker said that Russia’s aim is to turn the Sea of Azov and Black Sea into a Russian lake.
Romania has been particularly vociferous in expressing its fears and asked for a regional naval command to be established on its Black Sea shore. But for the time being, NATO naval operations are operated from the Joint Forces Command in Naples.
One of the main reasons for NATO reluctance to establish a more conspicuous Black Sea presence is Turkey’s stated concern that it would be “provocative.” President Erdogan’s attitude towards Russia is probably best described as ambivalently flexible. His policy towards NATO and the neighbouring EU is politely described as just plain ambivalent.
Turkey is a key – and at the moment difficult – NATO member in the Black Sea naval equation. With 25 surface ships, it is the only local power which comes close to matching the Russian naval presence. But more importantly, it controls the Southern entrance and exit to the Black Sea at the Bosporus and Dardanelles.
Passage through the sea lane that links the Black Sea to the Mediterranean and the wider world is governed by the 1938 Montreux Convention which limits the size, type and number of naval vessels that can transit through the Turkish-controlled bottleneck. Aircraft carriers, for instance, are banned. Russia has managed to circumvent the bar by classifying its ship the Kuznetsova as a “carrier cruiser,” but its super carrier Ulyanov remains blocked.
All this is likely to change in 2025 when Turkey is expected to open the $13 billion Istanbul Canal linking the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmara and the Mediterranean. The canal will enable ships to circumvent the increasingly crowded Turkish Straits and the restrictions of the Montreux Convention as the treaty only applies to the Bosporus and Dardanelles. It will also enable Turkey to operate a more flexible foreign policy. Its government, rather than an international treaty, will determine which ships can pass through its waters. The Istanbul Canal (or Kanal Istanbul) is being built to accommodate the largest aircraft carriers or super tankers.
One final question: Why did the British government deny that HMS Defender was harassed/attacked, or at least minimise the incident? Especially as the BBC Defence Correspondent Jonathan Beale was on board to report the details. Was it because they were kowtowing to Russian sensibilities as part of their love everyone except the EU Global Britain policy? Or was it another example of Boris Johnson’s incompetence? Or perhaps a bit of both.
* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and author of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “America Made in Britain".
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Reform turn up in time for the end of the meeting
The Joy of Six 1382
West End ward surgeries #dundeewestend
Labour MPs getting the rebellious habit
ALS (MND) and the Mitochondria - what is the evidence that ALS is a mitochondrial disease?
Reform UK sheds another councillor: Sam Booth
Peter Chambers
Freddie
John Waller
David Warren
Paul Walter
20 Comments
Tom Arms: Thanks for this article it has given me a greater degree of knowledge and understanding of the complexities of this area.
What I find worrying about the HMS Defender incident is that the UK Government would have known that the decision to sail through waters claimed as Russian was likely to lead to such a response and they prepared for it by having reporters on board. Russia’s outrage at this deliberate act will be genuine. Really not sure what the UK has achieved apart from sending the message that the UK still thinks it is a world power.
Here is another account of this matter.
https://www.moonofalabama.org/
The law of the sea as described here https://theconversation.com/hms-defender-incident-what-the-law-of-the-sea-says-163389 is a vitally important body of International agreements designed to maintain freedom of passage for shipping of all kinds across the world.
As this article notes “All ships, including warships …, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea in accordance with international law, for which neither prior notification nor authorization is required.”
The UK is within its rights to send its ship through the territorial waters off the Crimean peninsula. This may not be the most diplomatic of voyages to the Black sea, but it does not justify any hostile reaction from Russia based on International law.
The Russian aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, was able to sail through the English channel unimpeded in 2016 on its way to and from Syria. This is the freedom of seas that is equally important to all countries and is surely worth respecting.
Interesting piece thanks, Tom. One quibble.
I’m interested in the supercarrier Ulyanov. Is that the one laid down in 1988, and scrapped before it was half built in 1991? 🙂 . I’ll be impressed if they sail that anywhere at all – unless there is a new one built out of ‘transparent aluminum’ (see Star Trek IV), which would avoid all the problems.
@Brad. There is no question that the HMS Defender trip is entirely in accordance with the Law of the Sea.
It’s a perfectly legal and normal thing to do, and Russian posturing needs to be viewed as largely a performance for the domestic audience. That they have not made any protests through legal (as opposed to political) channels speaks volumes. In fact the commentary reminds me of the output of the old “Radio Moscow Foreign Service” when I was in my teens before the USSR fell. The RN have been doing this type of operation continually for a couple of centuries.
We have been back in a cold war with a dictatorship in Russia for a few years now (see for example the increase in Russian flights grazing UK airspace, which need to be intercepted and deterred). The West prevailed in the last one by being sufficiently strong on defence and being firm but calm, which is what was done here. You can’t turn back dictatorships by pandering.
Personally I think it is Brussels that need to get their act together here, and decide how they are going to help deter Russia from aggressive actions in the Baltic / Poland / Ukraine group of countries.
@Steve. The piece you link relies on sources such as Russia Today, and a strange piece by Craig Murray. The author doesn’t even have an understanding of the concept of “innocent passage”.
Might it be an OK policy to try to gather information from sources other than the domestic and/or main stream?
Classified Ministry of Defence documents found at bus stop
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57624942
“Classified Ministry of Defence documents containing details about HMS Defender and the British military have been found at a bus stop in Kent.
One set of documents discusses the likely Russian reaction to the ship’s passage through Ukrainian waters off the Crimea coast on Wednesday.
Another details plans for a possible UK military presence in Afghanistan after the US-led Nato operation there ends….”
My thanks to Nonconformistradical. I usually watch the BBC News at least twice a day, but the bit I saw about the papers seemed to be designed to say as little as possible. Since whoever it was who was reporting did say that they had spent the night reading them I was wondering what was in them. Now I know rather more. So thank you.
I suppose that one could believe that the reason this is not attracting more attention is that everyone is more interested in Hancock.
Then we are all capable of believing anything, even when there is huge evidence that is not true.
While not wanting to be alarmist, The Black Sea issue could be seen as a distraction while Russia eyes opportunities further north as the Artic passage becomes more navigable and islands such as Greenland come within military capabality.
Brad Barrows 26th Jun ’21 – 11:43am:
Russia’s outrage at this deliberate act will be genuine.
Confected, mostly for domestic consumption.
Really not sure what the UK has achieved apart from sending the message that the UK still thinks it is a world power.
As a maritime trading nation it’s long been important for the UK to assert the law of the sea. The Royal Navy is considered to be the World’s second most powerful blue-water navy. Several other navies have more ships, but they are mostly for coastal defence or fisheries protection purposes.
Matt Wardman 26th Jun ’21 – 11:31pm:
I’m interested in the supercarrier Ulyanov. Is that the one laid down in 1988, and scrapped before it was half built in 1991?
Stopped in 1991, scrapped in 1992. Russia currently has only one aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, which is reported to be in a poor state of repair.
You can’t turn back dictatorships by pandering.
Indeed. Something the UK government could usefully learn in its dealings with the EU.
@Steve
Yes – of course. but I’d argue that ‘alternative’ sources need to be subjected to the same critical reading as normal sources. ‘Alternative’ is a word that can cover a multitude of sins.
On this occasion I think you picked a bad ‘un and a quixotic one, which was why I made the point.
The moonofalabama source quotes screeds from RT, which is the Russian Government position verbatim, and eg claims that the BBC reported ‘warning shots’, which afaics is untrue. Plus a selection of minor points and titbits from mainstream reports to create a patchwork story ignoring the other content.
To me that’s fairly clearly unreliable.
Craig Murray is more interesting, but on this one I think he is shooting from the hip. eg he states that “So far as I can establish, the British are not claiming they were engaged in innocent passage”.
In fact that claim was on the MoD twitter feed on the 23rd, the day before he published his piece on the 24th, which puts a question mark over it imo.
https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1407670812262518785
Peter Hirst,
there is an established inter-governmental institution in place with respect to the artic https://arctic-council.org/en/about/ which could preclude the kind of posturing seen in the Black sea.
The citing of a source does not, of itself, indicate the degree of agreement, disagreement or neutrality.
It only widens and, possibly, deepens the information and/or opinion presented.
Thanks @Steve.
I think I’ve covered that from my pov.
Apparently the Russians have now deployed Mig 31s and Backfire bombers to Syria. Also they have brought with them hypersonic anti-ship missiles (one type flies at 40 km before going into a vertical dive on target at Mach 4.5 – a bit tricky to intercept). And they are capable of delivering several kiloton nuclear warheads. Meanwhile, HMS High-Value-Target with its accompanying ASW and air defence escort is in the Eastern Mediterranean… what could possibly go wrong.
Hidden in the clearly highly biased moonofalabama stuff is the German legal opinion below which basically says that “occupying powers” do have the legal right to suspend law of the sea conventions near their bases. And the USA did it in Iraq
https://gpil.jura.uni-bonn.de/?p=2988
The other thing not mentioned above is that Defender was basically on a mission to sell two warships to the Ukrainians and the whole propaganda episode should be viewed in that context.
While I hold Russia in mainly responsible for the civil war in Ukraine which followed from the illegal annexation of Crimea, there is a big double standard in the West in condoning the active use of neo-fascist militias by the Ukrainian government, and the complete failure to convict anyone for the Odessa incident
“Defender was basically on a mission to sell two warships to the Ukrainians”
Ooh! Can we sell them HMS High-Value-Target and HMS Delusions-of-Grandeur please?
@Andrew
Thanks for the further comments.
I would be interested on how the West is condoning the ‘active’ use of Neo-Fascist militias. You mean the Azov Battalion? By the Odessa incident do you mean 2014 again?
It seems to me that between 2014 to now progress has been made, and that the way to get rid of any potential need to use the likes of Azov is to develop more professional armed forces in the Ukraine, which is happening. AIUI all the UK dealings are Naval anyway.
I’m not sure where I would stand on working with highly questionable groups if my country had been invaded, and was under threat of destruction. You?
ISTM that the big picture is that we want the Ukraine to be a prosperous democracy, rather than stand aside whilst Putin could turn it into another satellite or failed state. At the moment the state is Western oriented, in reasonable standing with the EU aiming for membership, working with UN in peacekeeping, in partnership with NATO, and potentially a good trading partner for the UK.
@Jenny
I think little or nothing will happen. It is only 2 aircraft. Shadowboxing.
Ru tests the response of the UK military 2 or 3 times a month by flying into UK managed airspace with Beacons turned off, which is a danger to civilian air traffic so they have to be ‘escorted’ by aircraft with beacons on so ATC can see them, or similar on the sea.
Russia said on Tuesday it had fired warning shots and dropped bombs in the path of a British destroyer sailing in the Black Sea off the coast of the Crimea peninsula, which Russia seized and annexed from Ukraine.
Britain’s Ministry of Defence said no Russian warning shots were fired at the Royal Navy’s HMS Defender, which sailed into the Black Sea earlier this month, and it did not recognize assertions that bombs were put in its path.
https://worldabcnews.com/russia-says-it-fired-warning-shots-at-british-destroyer-near-crimea-u-k-denies-it/