NATO destroyers near Crimea - to sink or not to sink?

The Russian Defense Ministry gave its assessment to the crisis that took place in the Black Sea to HMS Defender of the British Navy, which violated the Russian state border. According to Major-General Igor Konashenkov, the official representative for the Defence Ministry, the British destroyer suffered an "epic fiasco."

Konashenkov's statement came as a response to the recent remarks from Pentagon spokesman John Kirby, who claimed that, according to the British Ministry of Defence, the information about the warning shots for the British destroyer was nothing but "Russian disinformation."

"The epic fiasco of the provocation conducted by the British destroyer Defender in the Black Sea, which abruptly changed her course from the Russian territorial waters after the warning shots were fired by the patrol ship, will remain a fragrant stain on the reputation of the Royal Navy for a long time," Konashenkov said.

Konashenkov also called on the Pentagon and the command of the British Navy that send their warships to the Black Sea, "not to tempt fate in vain being guided by admirals of the Ukrainian mosquito fleet."

The British Ministry of Defence previously stated that HMS Defender made an innocent passage through the territorial waters of Ukraine in accordance with international law. The ministry also denied information that warning shots were fired by the Russian side.

On June 23, the British destroyer crossed the Russian border in the Black Sea and entered territorial waters three kilometers deep in the area of Crimea's Cape Fiolent. A Russian border patrol ship fired warning shots twice, and a bomber aircraft dropped bombs in the path of the British destroyer, thus forcing her to leave the Russian waters.

The invasion raised a reasonable question — to sink or not to sink? Every ship constitutes sovereign property of its state, and any attack on any ship means war, whether we like it or not.

NATO destroyers near Crimea — to sink or let them passthrough?

Russia and the West are currently much closer to war than they were during the times of the Cuban missile crisis, when it seemed that the war was inevitable. The Soviets were ordered to stop in time, whereas the Americans were ordered not to provoke. The world could live on those agreements for 60 years.

When HMS Defender of the Royal Navy of the UK traveled from Ukraine to Georgia through the Russian territorial waters near Sevastopol, Great Britain deliberately invaded the Russian territory.

The Russians sent warning messages to the British crew, and when they remained unanswered, they opened warning shots on the ship. Obviously, the British did not want to start a fight with Type 45 destroyer with a displacement of more than 8,000 tons.

It also seems obvious that the Brits did not even assume that the Russians would dare to sink them. No matter what the motives of the British ship were, the crew of the British naval destroyer entered the Russian territorial waters being fully prepared for real combat action.

How will Russia need to act in the future if such incidents repeat again? Former chief of the coastal forces of the Black Sea Fleet, Major General Vladimir Romanenko, is confident that the coastal missile groups of the Black Sea Fleet were put on full alert.

Indeed, no one will start a war. It appears curious, though, that practically all the latest provocations against Russia came from the UK. The former British Empire has clearly jumped out from the back of the States to play the game its own way.

Good old London often comes across Russia as an obstacle when it comes to British initiatives. The USSR does not exist for many decades now, but the West still mistakenly believes that Russia as an opponent can be counted out.