Russian jets and ships target British warship

> > deliberate move to make a point to Russia

> > only seeking safe passage

> So... which one was it really?

Both; it is a FONOP (“Freedom of Navigation Operation”) in which explicit claims and implicit practices contrary (in the perception of the acting party) international maritime law are deliberately and pointedly challenged by naval forces exercising the rights the claim or practice threatens or interferes with.

These aren't always mutually exclusive. An example would be the English Channel between the UK & France. It's impossible to transit it without entering someone's territorial waters, but freedom of navigation / UNCLOS allows Russian warships (well, anyone, but a specifically relevant example) the right of "innocent passage".

If you expect that seeking safe passage through those waters with that ship will make a point to Russia, both can be true simultaneously.

What even happened? The ship wasn't in Russian water, so Russia claiming to have fired on it would be admitting to a Crime(a).

If you insist "reading between the lines" well, you might as well use your imagination...

Military ships are also allowed "innocent passage". There are a lot of things they aren't allowed to do while on such a passage (e.g. launch planes, leave on certain radars, do weapons drills), and have to go as quickly as possible. Some countries (Romania, Lithuania) have declared that the mere presence of nuclear weapons on ships violates innocent passage in their eyes, and in general adding nuclear propulsion creates more paperwork.

It doesn't matter if that's the case though. The British were explicitly conducting gunnery drills violating a condition of innocent passage. They did it to violate innocent passage. Because the point was to assert that Crimea (and it's surrounding territorial waters) do not belong to Russia and therefore they can do what they want (subject to Ukraine's approval). This is similar to what US warships do near the fake islands built by China in the South China Sea. Constantly objecting prevents annexations from becoming fiat accompli.

The downside is there are often missile locks between the armed forces of two countries, and, since firing on a warship is casus belli, may cause a war between nuclear powers.

It is customary for a nation to ask diplomatic permission before entering territorial waters with a warship. OTOH maritime law is fairly clear:

---

According to Article 19 (2) of UNCLOS, passage of a foreign ship shall be considered prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state and thus in non-innocent passage if, in the territorial sea (less than 12 nautical miles from shore), it engages in any of the following activities:

(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;

(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;

(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;

(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;

(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;

(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;

(h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;

(i) any fishing activities;

(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;

(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;

(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.

---

Just sailing through is usually not a problem even with a warship. In this case of course, both parties were making a statement. The British that they don't recognize the annexation of Crimea, the Russians that they don't care what the British think about it.

8500 tons?! Damn, destroyers have gotten fat.

Wikipedias

Ah, OK, we call cruisers destroyers now. Weird.

Why did this get downvoted? It looks like a simple statement of fact. Is it inaccurate? Voting is not a substitute for debate.

Quod licet Beari...

> park of the UK

Scotland is beautiful indeed!

Sevastopol Naval Base is Russian since 1783 if I understand correctly.