3

From the video BBC journalist reports from British warship as Russia “fires warning shots” - BBC News in June 2021 here are some screenshots and transcribed audio (mine but based on BBC's closed captions).

Discussion between The BBC's defense correspondent Jonathan Beale and Lieutenant Commander Ben Dorrington, HMS Defender:

Beale: (Narrating) HMS defender is going to sail within what Russia now claims is its territorial waters but following a legally recognized shipping lane.

(Question to Dorrington:) Would you say there's a flashpoint here in terms of how the Russians will behave?

Dorrington: There's a contentious point. Their posture will likely be more belligerent because of our proximity to what they recognize as (pause) their waters.

This apparently cautiously choreographed (by both sides) event might be somewhat staged for appearances. But I'd like to ask about how things are going on days when there are no non-Russian military ships nearby this area (within 12 nautical miles of the Crimean Peninsula (area with Cape Fiolent and Sebastopol labeled)).

Question: How is Russia responding to non-military maritime traffic in the legally recognized shipping lane passing within territorial waters off the Crimean Peninsula? Is there commercial traffic passing with (or without) permission through the 12 nautical mile limit, or is it generally staying outside to avoid confrontation? If there is regular commercial traffic within it, is Russia allowing it to pass, giving permission on a case-by-case basis, or discouraging it?

screen shot from the video BBC journalist reports from British warship as Russia “fires warning shots” - BBC News screen shot from the video BBC journalist reports from British warship as Russia “fires warning shots” - BBC News

first: Screenshot from the linked video. second: Ditto but with contrast boosted a bit. click images for full size

Anshul Sahni
  • 618
  • 5
  • 15
uhoh
  • 16,541
  • 3
  • 76
  • 172

2 Answers2

2

Non-military maritime traffic is treated as usual maritime traffic, according to the UN rules:

foreign ships (military and civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it

So, sometimes on vesselfinder.com, you may notice foreign ships in Crimean waters, like that one, from Moldova: enter image description here

Many countries treat that waters as contested, so there are not many such ships. But some are still present.

And about the incident, somehow mentioned in the question:

UK interpretation: HMS Defender is sailing in "international" waters and was not warned by Russian ships. No planes, no warning shots, nothing:

"We believe the Russians were undertaking a gunnery exercise in the Black Sea and provided the maritime community with prior warning of their activity.
"No shots were directed at HMS Defender and we do not recognise the claim that bombs were dropped in her path."

Exact incident:

Russia responds to it as break into its territorial waters[*], as an act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence, or security of the coastal State.

Also, it should be noted, that there was a BBC correspondent on the British ship, treating it as a more contested provocation. Also, a witness of this correspondent highlights an open lie of the UK officials, which were denying that incident.

The exact timing was:

  • 11:52 - British destroyer Defender crossed the Russian border and entered territorial waters around Fiolent cape
  • 12:06 - 12:08 - Russian coast guard ship made a warning shot
    FSB, which is operating coast guard published a video from one of the two coast guard ships, tracking Defender: https://youtu.be/nAVRcyndS_g. At 0:20 you may even see mentioned BBC correspondent near the bridge. Warning shots (denied by GB officials) can be seen at 5:21. enter image description here
  • 12:19 - Russian bomber Su-24M made a warn bombing with 4 OFAB-250 in destroyer's path enter image description here
  • 12:23 - Defender has left Russian internal waters

After the incident, the British attache and British ambassador were given strong demarche.

Later, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov warned British officials:

If that doesn’t work, we can bomb not only the path but also the target, if our colleagues don’t understand.

*in fact, those waters are contested areas, as long as western countries do not accept Crimea as a Russian region.

Gary 2
  • 2,353
  • 7
  • 31
user2501323
  • 11,825
  • 4
  • 44
  • 91
  • 14
    "in fact, those waters are contested area, as long as western countries do not accept Crimea as Russian region." -> Or, we might say, "in fact, those waters are contested area, as long as Russia do not accept Crimea as Ukrainian region." – Evargalo Jun 24 '21 at 12:12
  • @Evargalo, as you like.) I like my formulation - and you are totally free to use yours - It doesn't change anything. – user2501323 Jun 24 '21 at 12:14
  • 3
    You're welcome. More constructively, maybe it is worth precising that the chronology of events given by Russia and that you transcribed here is contested by England : https://tass.com/defense/1306397 – Evargalo Jun 24 '21 at 12:23
  • With all respect, no. BBC correspondent being on board highlighted lie of the GB officials. And it is mentioned in answer - there is a link on BBC page with this. I've specified it in answer – user2501323 Jun 24 '21 at 12:37
  • 4
    @user2501323 And Russian sources are more trustworthy than the BBC?!? A balanced presentation should state the narratives of both sides and then let the reader decide which one they consider more believable. – Philipp Jun 24 '21 at 14:30
  • @Philipp, I don't get it. I mean, BBC is more trusted in this case than GB officials. And I've mentioned GB claims, and obvious refutation of it, done by BBC. What's wrong? – user2501323 Jun 24 '21 at 14:34
  • @Philipp, I've attached link to the video from the coast guard ship. Now, finally, I don't think, that some other "narrative" is present - warning shots can be seen directly. Even BBC correspondent on the main deck can be seen. – user2501323 Jun 25 '21 at 05:14
  • 7
    Actually, the BBC correspondent says the warning shots were believed to be happening at a distance, not close to the UK ship (a proper warning shot would be placed across the bow of the target ship). As your linked BBC article states (in the section from the correspondent on board): "Increasingly hostile warnings were issued over the radio - including one that said "if you don't change course I'll fire". We did hear some firing in the distance but they were believed to be well out of range." – JJJ Jun 25 '21 at 05:30
  • And I like it.) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-uk-black-sea-crimea-warship-warning-shots-bombs/ - UK denies warning shots. Aaaaand - warning shots shown. Who is now "trustworthy"? I'm pretty sure to see bombing published - to close the gap. – user2501323 Jun 25 '21 at 05:33
  • 5
    @user2501323 So did the warning shots land close to the British ship or not? I guess that's the question. If the warning shots weren't a shot across the bow then both parties are right. The UK is right in claiming there were no warning shots aimed at or near their ship and the Russians are right to claim that shots were fired, which the UK doesn't deny by saying they understood there was a Russian exercise (as they claimed in the Euronews article you linked). – JJJ Jun 25 '21 at 05:38
  • So, radio talks about warning shots and then heared shots were treated as " understood there was a Russian exercise"? With all respect, that's strange. But I understand your point - it really may be treated so by GB to "save face". Maybe next time, we'll see hits at last - that's the only thing that can be treated in one way only. – user2501323 Jun 25 '21 at 05:52
  • 1
    @user2501323 but that's kind of the point right? The UK (and the Dutch HNLMS Evertsen) ships are there because it's their position that those are international waters. So by extension, if they were fired at (as in hit, not just a warning shot) then that would be declaration of war (firing at a ship in international waters). Note that their may also be a discrepancy in actual positions and the ones on AIS. – JJJ Jun 25 '21 at 06:02
  • For me - no. That would be incident, as long as they were warned. But if GB want to start great war over Crimea - they are welcome. Also, I may be wrong, but it's unclear for me if 5th point of NATO rules would be applied here - as long it's not a territory of any alliance members. – user2501323 Jun 25 '21 at 06:08
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – JJJ Jun 25 '21 at 06:19
  • 8
    Now that the (long) dialog in chat has established that neither the Russian nor the British official statements are obviously false, and that they are not even contradictory, this answer would be improved by expliciting both instead of dismissing the english one as an "open lie". Alternatively, all the off-topic "about the incident" section could be removed; I would gladly upvote the first part about "Non-military maritime traffic" which actually answers the question, if it was not tainted by what comes after. – Evargalo Jun 25 '21 at 08:24
1

I've found a source that seems to address this. Though I'd prefer something more definitive, substantial and in depth, I'll post this for now as a partial answer to my own question, in hopes that a better answer eventually supersedes it.

CBS News' U.S. warship leads drills in Russia's backyard, a message that the Black Sea is "for everybody" says:

Russia has refused to allow foreign ships to pass through what it considers its territorial waters off the Crimean Peninsula — territory that Moscow unilaterally annexed away from Ukraine in 2014. Russia has threatened to bomb any vessels that enter the area.

That says "foreign ships", but later the same article uses "warships":

Russia has threatened to bomb foreign warships that sail into those waters in the future.

The training exercise that the USS Ross is participating in is several miles away from that patch of the Black Sea, and the American warship is heavily armed with Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles, and torpedoes.

Thus it is still less than certain (to me at least) if passage by all foreign ships or only military ships is refused, as well as what exactly "foreign ship" means (registry, ownership, etc.)

uhoh
  • 16,541
  • 3
  • 76
  • 172