The Black Sea incident is a sign of British belligerence towards Russia, but if it’s not careful, this bulldog will end up barking on its own…

While the Putin-Biden summit raised hopes of a fresh start for the West’s relations with Russia, it seems the UK didn’t get the memo. On the day when even Macron and Merkel were discussing a possible EU-summit, a British Defender was charging through Russian territorial waters 12km from Sevastopol, Crimea, provoking what has developed into an international incident.

The British position on what happened in the Black Sea on 23rd June has not quite added up. The Ministry of Defence responded quickly regarding the incident and tweeted on Wednesday: “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 recognize the claim that bombs were dropped in her path.”

The statement is carefully worded to obfuscate what really happened, as we know from a report by a BBC journalist on board on the warship that shots were indeed fired. The fact that no shots were fired ‘at’ the ship therefore is strictly correct, as warning shots as a rule are not fired directly at the target. ‘We do not recognize the claim’ regarding bombs being dropped is odd, considering the Russians insist charges were dropped by an Su-24 attack aircraft onto the path of the ship, causing it to change course 4 minutes later.

The initial impression given by the MOD is that the British ship simply got in the way of military exercises taking place in the area, in which case one would still have to ask why it was the UK decided to take that path. But clearly that story wasn’t thought through properly as there were British journalists on board recording the incident as it happened. Indeed the very fact that Jonathon Beale from the BBC (plus cameraman) and Mark Nicol from the Daily Mail were invited on board the British vessel signifies that this was a planned exercise to provoke the Russians. In addition, the presence of a US spy plane overhead at the time suggests it was a planned provocation.

When you watch the BBC footage and read the dramatic report by Mark Nicol you can appreciate just how hot things got: ‘Russian jets thunder overhead. The angry thud of cannon fire rings out. Our crew readies Sea Viper missiles. Wars have started over less.’ Yet despite this, Boris Johnson and his government maintain a belligerent tone of defiance. Defence Minister Ben Wallace repeatedly said that the warship was conducting ‘innocent passage through Ukrainian territorial waters’ en route to Georgia from Odessa and that Britain would not accept ‘unlawful interference’ in this regard. Boris Johnson for his part, has said it was ‘wholly appropriate to use international waters’ and that the ‘important point is that we don’t recognise the Russian annexation of Crimea’.  He denied that the move was risky, and that it was about ‘sticking up for our values’.  It’s almost as if there is no real appreciation in government of just how heightened tensions are, how little it would take for this cold war to hot up, and what the consequences of that would be for the UK.

This foolhardy approach ties in, however, with Johnson’s new vision of ‘Global Britain’, which was outlined in its ‘Integrated Review’ earlier this year. The 114 page document signified a new desire for Britain to ‘project its power’ as a ‘force for good’ – basically a fancy way of saying it will throw its weight around as it sees fit. It provided an excuse for this behavior by saying a change in approach is justified by a new geopolitical landscape which has evolved in recent years which is ‘more fragmented, characterised by intensifying competition between states over interests, norms and values’. In summary, it suggests that the traditional post-Cold war ‘international order’ has now been replaced by the ‘multipolar world’.

Although it was reported that the Americans broadly welcomed the new UK security review, one can’t help but think a few eyebrows were raised over the Atlantic. After all, the British wrote down in black and white that western hegemony was not as important as it once was; and although Britain considered America its closest partner, it was still going to pursue its own geopolitical path.

Indeed, after the backdrop of what turned out to be a surprisingly successful Russian-US summit – with a ‘good’ tone according to Biden – and in the context of Merkel’s words on Thursday that the EU should seek ‘direct contact’ with Putin, it seems that Britain is alone in its aggressive Russia policy. The pugnacious rhetoric coming from government quarters at the moment just isn’t up to speed with that of Britain’s allies. Boris Johnson may speak of the UK’s ‘values’ that it wants to promote, but the reality is that future relations between Russia and the West can only be based on pragmatism. Merkel has long understood this because of Europe’s dependency on Russian gas, and Biden seems to have grasped this also when he said at the summit that relations with Russia were about ‘practical, straightforward, no-nonsense decisions’ and not about trust but ‘self-interest.’ Significantly, there have been no words of support of Britain’s actions from US or EU representatives since the Black Sea incident took place.

As much as Boris Johnson wants an assertive ‘Global Britain’ post-Brexit, the UK would be well advised to rethink its policy towards Russia. The danger is, that if it doesn’t, the British bulldog will be left barking on its own.

 

Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland. You can follow the author on Twitter.