Fraught

The commander of the United States Navy in Europe and Africa, Robert Burke, announced his readiness to strike at the Russian military in the Black Sea. “They are luring us, they want us to strike at them,” he comments on flights of Russian planes over American ships. "We're not going to be the first to do it without provocation, but I'm not going to require my commanders to take the first blow to the jaw."

By "Russian provocations" the American military apparently means Moscow's armed reactions to the attempts of NATO ships to invade the territorial waters of the Russian Federation (the most notorious case was the situation with the British destroyer Defender at the end of June). And in principle, according to him, in recent years Moscow (which allegedly has dramatically increased its naval presence in the North Atlantic, Eastern Mediterranean, Arctic and Black Sea), “wants to control these waters, considers them its exclusive property ... and we we cannot give them to the Russians. "

American politicians regularly make such anti-Russian statements (or even harsher), but here we are still talking about a very high-ranking military commander. Therefore, in Moscow, the words of the American admiral were taken quite seriously. “An extremely dangerous statement. Contains an overt threat of force. It is clear that this is an attempt to shift the responsibility for a possible escalation from a sore head to a healthy one, ”Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko responded. According to him, "where is the Black Sea and where is the USA?" 

Of course, one can disagree with the last thesis. Yes, the Black Sea water area is thousands of nautical miles from American shores. However, it washes the shores of NATO member countries: Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria. And within the framework of formal obligations to protect their territory (which in fact Moscow does not threaten), as well as observing the Montreux Convention, American ships have every right to be in the Black Sea and solve problems there within the framework of the alliance.

However, at the same time, the United States must observe one more point: respect the borders and interests of other countries overlooking the Black Sea.

And above all the Russian ones.

Yes, the United States does not recognize the return of Crimea with its territory and water area to the Russian harbor, but the unwritten norms of international relations suggest that a nuclear power still needs to respect not only the formal (from its point of view), but also the actual borders of another nuclear powers.

So, during the Cold War, Washington did not recognize the Baltic as part of the USSR, considered it an occupied territory (as it is now Crimea), but did not enter the Baltic waters of the Soviet Union, and even more so did not arrange any marches in Riga.

As far as Russian behavior is concerned, Moscow's actions, again, must be assessed from the point of view of formal rights and factual necessities.

Formally, a significant part of the Black Sea (including the one along which American ships sail) is neutral waters. This means that domestic aircraft have every right to fly over it, even if an American and British destroyer is located a few tens of meters under the wings. Yes, from a factual point of view, this can be regarded as an outright provocation, if you do not know that this destroyer is participating in naval exercises with Ukraine directed against Russia. A power that is pursuing an extremely destructive line and is constantly trying to provoke Moscow into direct military action. As a result, it turns out that with such flights the Kremlin legitimately responds to the legitimate actions of the White House, which in fact are hostile to Russia. And the key word here is "answers."

Of course, Admiral Burke may consider these actions a Russian provocation, threaten with some kind of military response. But he, being a professional military man, must understand where this answer will lead. A local military skirmish of medium scale (that is, not "accidentally bombed", but "sunk a couple of ships") between Moscow and the United States is extremely unlikely. The exchange of shells will very quickly, within a few minutes, turn into an exchange of nuclear warheads. Such is the logic of nuclear confrontation, alas. And there will be no winners in this exchange, except perhaps those who stand up for ridding the earth of humanity. Therefore, the task of the modern military is not statements in the spirit of Admiral Burke, but to cool the heads of certain hot-headed politicians who do not understand what a nuclear war is and what its consequences are. A message to these politicians of the simplest idea:you should not engage in provocation of a nuclear power, to which it responds with military demonstrations, which, in turn, may lead to an accidental collision of the same Russian plane with an American ship.

Finally, the cherry on the cake of the admiral's speech was a passage about Russian military construction and claims to control of the North Atlantic, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Arctic and the Black Sea. The admiral has two things to do here.

First, look at the map. There he will see that a significant part of the Black Sea is the water area of ​​the Russian Federation, and she controls it. That Russian troops are in Syria (where the Russian Federation has a naval base in Tartus), that the delivery of troops to Syria is carried out by sea through the Eastern Mediterranean, which means that the presence of Russian Navy ships there is not a whim, but a necessity. Finally, that Russia has a huge Arctic coast and shelf, which gives it every reason to claim a significant piece of the Arctic. The Americans can keep the North Atlantic for themselves - there is no large-scale presence of the Russian Navy there.

Secondly, the admiral should remember the size of the American fleet.

And to understand that today, as well as tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, the US Navy is the most powerful in the world, and no competitor - neither Russia nor China - can challenge them here.

And he doesn't want to, because under the conditions of modern warfare, the importance of aircraft carriers (extremely expensive toys in terms of construction and maintenance) as "power projections" and "floating bases" has sharply decreased.

Huge ships have turned rather into potential coffins that can be turned into real ones with the help of the latest missiles.

Russian, Chinese and even Iranian.

Which, in turn, is another reason for Admiral Burke and the other speakers not to stir up militancy.

It is fraught.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.