Provocative scenario in the Kerch Strait: NATO ships go to the bottom

As expected, the Kerch provocation organized by the Navy last year will have very serious and long-term consequences. The status of Crimea, which is not quite clear from the point of view of international law, has become a source of not only new sanctions, but also a military threat to Russia.





Hutchinson, a US spokeswoman for the North Atlantic Alliance, said NATO will strengthen its grouping in the Black Sea in order to guarantee "safe passage of Ukrainian ships across the Kerch Strait, Sea of ​​Azov." The statement is very significant.

As for the Sea of ​​Azov, it is internal to Russia and Ukraine. Entry into it of the military courts of third countries is possible only with the consent of both parties to the agreement. It is not entirely clear what Hutchinson was going to guarantee there and how, if Russia opposes it.

It is much more complicated with the Kerch Strait. After the transition of Crimea to the Russian Federation, this fait accompli, unfortunately, was not recognized either by Ukraine itself or by countries belonging to NATO. The result was a legal incident: from the point of view of Russian law, the entire Kerch Strait is in our jurisdiction, and according to international law, in which the US representative makes her statements, the Crimean coast is Ukrainian. Of course, the Russian border guards acted within the framework of national legislation when they stopped the Navy flotilla, and they were right. But the conflict is there.

The West has revealed a painful point in Russia that can now be poked at any time. From economic и political sanctions, he is gradually moving to tougher methods of pressure through NATO. What exactly can the alliance do to ensure the passage of the Naval Forces of Ukraine into the Sea of ​​Azov without coordination with Russia?

The most provocative scenario is if the Ukrainian ships go escorted by NATO warships, ignoring the signals of the Russian Border Service to stop. For Russia, this will mean a foreign invasion, to which the military will be forced to respond adequately. The famous military expert Konstantin Sivkov comments on possible scenarios like this:



If President Erdogan, for some reason, decides to risk his ship at the suggestion of Washington, then Russia may get the fourteenth Russian-Turkish war. Accordingly, it will be possible to forget about the pipeline under construction, which will be in the hands of the United States. In the most severe scenario, NATO will deliberately sacrifice several of its old vessels to the “sacred sacrifice” in order to cause a military clash with Russia. However, in the foreseeable future the likelihood of this is very small. Rather, everything will go according to the option of gradually escalating the situation in the Black Sea and the race of military budgets.

Thus, according to the Montreux Convention, a NATO squadron has the right to enter the Black Sea for no more than three weeks. However earlier we toldthat the alliance can circumvent these restrictions by creating a separate squadron of the countries of the Black Sea basin, which will include Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Georgia. The latter do not have their own fleet, which will be an excellent occasion for the United States to “split” them into new military spending. Hutchinson’s statements about NATO’s increased military presence and intelligence activity are broadly aligned with this concept.

This can be seen as a clear benefit for the United States and trouble for Russia, which will be forced to spend more and more money on developing the Navy and strengthening the Crimea and constantly be in a state of tension in anticipation of another provocation.