Numerous incidents involving the convergence of Russian and American aircraft and ships seem to have come to an end. At the very least, there are indications that the country's top military-political leadership has issued direct instructions to the Armed Forces not to allow any more incidents like the famous overflight of the American destroyer Donald Cook. Why was this decision made?
The Kremlin's statement on Friday about how Vladimir Putin treats the incidents between Russian and NATO planes and ships is so curious that it requires a separate reflection.
Let us remind you that the presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov did not confirm or deny the information that the Russian leader allegedly "besieged" the meeting participant for "confrontational" words about the incident in the Black Sea, RIA Novosti reports. According to him, Vladimir Putin is not a supporter of escalating tensions in the international situation and advocates following the provisions of international law in order to avoid dangerous incidents.
“Closed meetings are held in order to be able to freely exchange views on the most pressing issues, so I can neither confirm nor deny this information,” said Peskov. And his non-refutation looks like a clear signal to the military. According to Bloomberg, Putin called the incident a "high risk" when Russian warplanes flew in close proximity to a US ship in the Black Sea. During the meeting, according to the agency, some of the participants said the Americans "deserved it." In response, Putin asked: "Are you crazy?"
We are talking about the overflights of Russian naval and coastal aircraft of American warships in the Black and Baltic Seas, first of all about two cases with the long-suffering destroyer "Donald Cook", which caused an extraordinary resonance. The American side accused Moscow of violating the provisions of international maritime law, and a wave of hurray-patriotic emotions arose on the Russian Internet. Then, in the spring of 2016, the position of the Kremlin, voiced by Dmitry Peskov, was much more categorical. Dmitry Peskov then said that he "is inclined to agree with the explanations that were provided by representatives of the Ministry of Defense." Despite the general similar tone, then it looked like support for the actions of naval pilots, but the current comments seriously change the general background.
International maritime law is one of the most ancient legal systems governing legal relations, including between the navies of non-belligerent states. But precisely because of its antiquity, gaps constantly appear in it, which must be filled in the course of the development of technical means and the changing international situation. At the same time, the military component is regulated by civil law - with the exception of cases of open hostilities.
But since 1939, humanity does not remember the "official declaration" of war by one state to another, when an official note is sent through diplomatic channels, embassies are sent and countries are very gentlemanly "go to you". Even the Argentine-British War of 1982 over the Falklands was in fact undeclared, and the legal regime of the sea was governed by very dubious unilateral acts. For example, London simply declared the two-hundred-mile zone around the islands a "war zone" and "recommended" foreign ships not to enter it. All this did not prevent the British submarine "Conqueror" from sinking the Argentine cruiser "General Belgrano" outside the two-hundred-mile zone, citing "the right moment" and "danger to the British fleet." Killed 323 Argentine sailors - about half of all Argentine losses in that war. In fact, the very declaration of this two-hundred-mile zone was already a violation of international legal norms for the conduct of hostilities at sea, and the sinking of General Belgrano - the only attack by a nuclear submarine on a surface ship in history - was a war crime. But Argentina was denied an international court decision "due to the expiration of the statute of limitations."
As a result, the current maritime law is constantly being amended, mainly through bilateral or multilateral agreements, which, it seems, should be perceived as a precedent based on the Anglo-Saxon interpretation, but are ignored by those countries that did not sign these documents. The Soviet Union in the 70s and early 80s (and these documents are still in force, according to the succession of Soviet international agreements by Russia) with the United States, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, France, Canada and Greece (the latter is not here for the sake of a red word, and as one of the largest owners of the merchant marine in the world) "on the prevention of incidents outside territorial waters." These agreements prescribe the warships of the parties to the agreements in all cases to be at a sufficient distance from each other to avoid the risk of collisions, they oblige warships and aircraft not to undertake imitation attacks or imitation of the use of weapons, not to conduct maneuvers in areas of intensive navigation, and also not allow some other actions that could lead to incidents at sea and in the airspace above it.
Key phrase in this document is "far enough away." In the texts of the treaties (at least in their open articles), specific distances in miles and heights in meters are not specified, which are no longer "sufficient". Article IV of the Agreement between the USSR and the USA on the prevention of incidents on the high seas and in the airspace above it reads as follows: “The commanders of the aircraft of each Party must exercise the greatest caution and prudence when approaching the aircraft of the other Party operating over the high seas, and the ships of the other Party operating on the high seas, in particular to ships engaged in the release or reception of aircraft, and in the interests of mutual security should not allow: simulating attacks by simulating the use of weapons on aircraft, any ships, performing various aerobatic figures over ships and dropping various objects near them in such a way that they pose a danger to ships or hindrance to navigation."
In parentheses, it should be added that in the most important document for Soviet military pilots - the Manual on Combat Service - specific values were prescribed, closer to which it was forbidden to approach NATO ships, both in distance and in height.
Maritime law is largely based on common sense, as opposed to, say, tax. The captain of the ship and the commander of the crew of the aircraft, in theory, himself must understand that "enough" to "avoid the risk of collisions", and what is no longer, that is, according to the agreement, "to exercise the greatest caution and prudence." But at the same time, the rejection of "imitation of attacks or imitation of the use of weapons" - the concept is quite specific.
The American side just accused the Russian Air Force of "imitation of attacks", and John Kerry, after the second incident with the same "Donald Cook" (already in the Baltic Sea - an unlucky ship) suddenly started talking about the "rules of war", although there was no war on There is no Baltic. “We condemn this behavior. It's reckless, provocative, it's dangerous. In accordance with the rules of conduct of hostilities, they (Russian planes) could be shot down, "Kerry said, adding that the United States would not be allowed to" intimidate itself on the high seas, "and recalled that the Russian side was informed of the US position regarding the danger of such actions. The Russian side, represented by anonymous sources in the army and navy, appealed to pseudo-patriotic feelings: “there’s nothing to swim here,” “stay at home,” “they drove our townspeople.”
But the history of overflights of Western warships from this did not cease to be very practical and legal, although it threatened to develop into an ideological campaign. A hurray-patriotic wave has begun on the Internet. Some couch craftsmen even ordered from the Moscow Mint a commemorative token "Lessons of Peacefulness" with the image of a Su-24 flying over an American destroyer, with the inscription: "Terrible, but disarmed", which is sold on the Internet for 1000 rubles. At the Mint, you can order any token, it is not prohibited by law, but it will not belong to the official register of government awards and this initiative is not in any way connected with the Award Department of the Ministry of Defense.
But one thing is a "couch" reaction, and another - when these actions were at the level of emotions supported by a part of senior and senior officers of land origin. A former high-ranking officer of the Russian Air Force, who was directly related to naval aviation, commented on the VZGLYAD newspaper about the possible reaction of the president like this. If our pilots not only do not comply with the international rules for flying over foreign warships, exposing themselves to danger, and even boast about it, then trouble is not far. Under international law, Americans have every right to shoot down these cowboys. People will die, and the situation will escalate to the limit. It will not be commanders who will get out of the situation, but diplomats and politicians. And how events will develop in general after such an incident - only God knows. And the fact that the Americans themselves violate all agreements on the law of the sea will no longer worry anyone. The Russian side will definitely be to blame for a particular episode, and in an environment where decisions are made very quickly, emotions can be used to sink this "Donald Cook" by coastal means, having answered two hundred for two deaths. And there it is not far from World War II.
As this high-ranking officer told the VZGLYAD newspaper, when one of the ground commanders was informed about the pilots' recklessness in the Baltic Sea, he actually sanctioned all this out of emotion: like, well done, drive them further. The tanker is not required to be familiar with international maritime law and the details of such actions, which does not absolve him of responsibility if something goes wrong. And this is not a textbook conflict between the infantry and aviation, but an attack of jingoistic patriotism that has crossed the line of reason.
Let's talk about the practical feasibility of this kind of action. If someone has forgotten, then we are not living in 1941, and the bomber has not needed to be directly above the enemy ship for a long time. Tactical launch of anti-ship missiles is carried out from a distance of tens to hundreds of kilometers to the target. Tactical strike simulation is a constant element of coastal aviation training in all fleets. Moreover, such training can be carried out even without the suspension of the missiles - the electronics allows you to track the data of the simulated launch. And the Black and Baltic Seas are puddles, even massive use of aviation is not required there, modern coastal defense systems are enough.
"To practice attack techniques" by the forces of "dryers" is at least strange. Trying, like in World War II, to attack an Orly Burke-class missile destroyer with free fall bombs and cannons is an amazing idea. In a combat situation, a single plane will be shot down immediately; in principle, it cannot pose any serious threat. And the stories about the fact that the electronic systems of "Donald Cook" were allegedly suppressed by Russian electronic warfare (specifically "Khibiny"), initially did not stand up to any criticism. "Khibiny" were created exclusively for the Su-34 and are incompatible with the Su-24 avionics. Jamming does not "extinguish" the radars and does not make the aircraft invisible, but rather, on the contrary, demonstrates its presence.
The "dryers" that flew around the Donald Cook were engaged in reconnaissance, not imitation of a strike. They apparently received such combat missions, and this is a completely different story. On the one hand, this kind of takes them out of the provisions of international agreements on the prevention of imitation of an attack, but “brings” them under another article: “performing aerobatic maneuvers over ships”, which is no better and does not relieve them of responsibility.
In the old days, the recklessness of naval scouts was partly due to imperfect equipment. Such reconnaissance at one of the aviation forums was very colorfully described by the former military pilot of the Baltic Fleet, who flew just on the Su-24, Igor Larkov: “The chief of reconnaissance, Colonel Yegoshin (gave the order) … scout. After such instructions and the words "I believe in you," you will start flying in reverse … So they were wise if Colonel Yegoshin ordered to steal a new air defense system from them. And they did it! " In Soviet times, shooting in general was carried out by almost two-handed cameras by the pilots themselves, and this technique required an approach to a minimum distance, since the authorities demanded close-ups, and not the blurry outlines of something unidentified. But if a note of protest came about a "dangerous approach", then the real distance of the picture was calculated from the photograph, and the pilot was mercilessly reprimanded and even removed from his post.
But the availability of modern reconnaissance technology does not require anything of the kind from pilots today. That is, in essence, all such overflights by Russian planes of NATO ships amount to recklessness, bravado and emotional overheating created by misunderstood ultrapatriotism. The pilots themselves do not understand where the line of "manifestation of aggression" is, and in our circumstances it is difficult to blame them for this. And if you trace the history of such tragic naval episodes since Soviet times, then they were all involved in something similar. And when this nervous atmosphere is also accelerated by the command, or simply by emotions, or by ultimatum demands for results at any cost, it only gets worse.
A very characteristic story happened in May 1968. A large group of American ships, led by the aircraft carrier Essex, entered the exercise. By tradition, all movements of large aircraft carrying ships were to be monitored by the aviation of the Northern Fleet. But the Essex group was in the Norwegian Sea, that is, far from the usual tracking areas. The destroyer "Guarding" came out to meet the American aircraft carrier group, which was to be guided by the aviation of the Northern Fleet. But on May 25, they lost an aircraft carrier group, that is, they did not fulfill the assigned combat mission, which threatened to get into trouble. The fleet aviation commander demanded to urgently find an aircraft carrier.
Not everyone could organize the search, since air refueling was required (the Norwegian Sea was not at all an operational zone for Soviet aviation, but the command demanded that an aircraft carrier be found even outside the zone of responsibility), and in the late 60s, piece crews were able to do this. The first of them returned with nothing, and the squadron commander, naval aviation lieutenant colonel Alexander Pliev, who was on vacation at that moment, but did not have time to leave Severomorsk for his homeland, undertook the task directly.
A native of the village of Vakhtana, South Ossetia, Alexander Zakharovich Pliev was famous for his risky maneuvers. First of all, flights at ultra-low altitudes, which was justified by avoiding enemy radars. Eyewitnesses reported that white streaks from salt water were often visible on his plane upon returning to base. In those days, radars were also low-power, and the tactics of ultra-small flights were not worked out. So Pliev's experiments were "innovation" and were secretly encouraged by the command of naval aviation, although they violated all instructions.
Pliev's crew (and the second Tu-16 under Popov's command) quickly spotted the Essex. According to the now vice-admiral, and then the commander of the "Guarding" destroyer Dymov, he received the coordinates of the aircraft carrier group in a few hours and went to the rapprochement. After that, nothing more was required from Pliev's "two". He was supposed to turn around and go to the base, but unexpectedly gave the order to Popov's slave crew to climb to a great height - and he himself began rapprochement with the Essex at an ultra-low altitude. Lieutenant Colonel Pliev decided to make his detection of the American aircraft carrier group demonstrative, although such a task was not assigned to him.
A huge 35-meter bomber sweeps over the deck of an aircraft carrier at a speed of 500 km / h at an altitude of about 15 meters (the Americans record this on videotape). Further, according to the American version, when exiting the maneuver, the Tu-16 touches the water with its wing and falls into the sea. Pliev's crew - seven people - are killed on the spot. Later, a version appeared that the bomber could have been shot down by the air defense of one of the Essex escort ships, which were either reinsured, or they lost their nerves. But the then commander of this reconnaissance aviation regiment of the Northern Fleet Dudarenko and his fellow soldiers testified: “A. Z. Pliev was undoubtedly a good, even a very good pilot. But, unfortunately, prone to recklessness … Flying at extremely low altitudes is a common thing for scouts. But Pliev had his own "style" - unjustifiably long flights at extremely low altitudes, requiring a lot of stress from the pilot. " “The most pernicious thing is that when changing course, the altitude did not change, although when the plane turns, it is necessary to gain a little altitude so as not to catch the water with the wing during the roll. Sooner or later, the slightest mistake could lead to death. And she brought. " The wreckage of the Tu-16 lies at an inaccessible depth, and it will not be possible to finally establish the truth.
The Americans behaved in an unusually gentlemanly manner. The bodies of the pilots were raised from the water and handed over to the Soviet side with all the honors. To the aircraft carrier "Essex" the destroyer "Conscious" - a unique case in the history of the confrontation between the Soviet and American navies, embarked side by side. Four American fighter jets flew in formation over the Conscious, and a salute was given. Lieutenant Colonel Pliev was first buried in Severomorsk, but then, at the request of his relatives, he was reburied at the Zguder cemetery near Tskhinval.
This case is far from being an isolated one, it is simply extremely indicative. In 1964 and 1980, two Tu-16s disappeared in the Sea of Japan immediately after they discovered an American aircraft carrier and a Japanese squadron. In 1973, another Tu-16 was damaged by an F-4 fighter taking off from the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy. It was only by a happy coincidence that the Soviet plane did not crash and returned to base.
If the Supreme Commander-in-Chief now really had to abruptly stop such maneuvers of the Russian Air Force, this does not mean some kind of “retreat” or the notorious Internet “putinslil”. Nobody canceled the usual common sense. Pilots strive to do what is best - or how they "better" understand it. There really are more questions to the fathers-commanders, who, by definition, must understand not only tactical schemes, but also the whole range of problems, including international law and the strategic situation. It is not for nothing that naval officers - and even more so naval aviation officers - have always been considered multidisciplinary specialists with a lot of humanitarian knowledge that goes beyond the traditionally narrow military education. And without fail, this understanding of the international situation should prevail over the emotional impulses inherent in the Internet communities rather than people on the first line of confrontation.
The new Cold War has come to a dangerous line. The supreme commander-in-chief just demands to stop. It is possible that a way out of the deadlock practice of international maritime law could be new negotiations on the concretization of agreements on the avoidance of incidents at sea. And the very process of these negotiations could serve as the basis for the resumption of interaction between the Russian Federation and the United States, at least on the issue of the law of the sea.
