By Nat South for The Saker Blog
I am interested in the way that narratives that shape individual events are crafted, curated and disseminated, because ultimately there is a tendency to focus mostly on specific events and ignore the wider context. Ultimately, we end up with being presented with a series of disjointed events, not really understanding the history or the detailed framing of these events. One such example would be “Russian ships are prowling around undersea cables”, in the tenor of overstating the Russian threat. Often, the complexity and background of the issue is left completely blank and important facets are blurred. At worst, we are simply presented with a series of ‘soundbites’ such as this stark example: “Russia invaded Crimea”.
The starting point for this naval oriented briefing is the widely reported incident between a U.S. Navy destroyer and a lightly armed Russian navy intelligence reconnaissance ship somewhere in “northern Arabian Sea”. The U.S. Fifth Fleet alleged that on January 9, a Russian Navy ship ‘Ivan Khurs’ (AGI),“aggressively approached” USS Farragut, an Arleigh Burke DDG (guided missile destroyer), “conducting routine operations in the North Arabian Sea”, (in the words of the U.S. Navy press release). Subsequently, Moscow dismissed Washington’s claims.
Note the tone of stating “aggressively approached”, not really a nuanced interpretation of events. What wasn’t mentioned the likelihood that this took place not far from the carrier, ‘USS Harry S. Truman’. No context whatsoever was provided by authorities on this incident. A classic example of a specific event being framed without any further details as to why and how it happened. Nothing mentioned on what took place before the video snippets that don’t make much sense. What is the wider context to this incident? (More on this specific incident later on in this article).
Without getting into details on the well-publicised Iran / U.S. tensions and U.S. naval deployment to the region, I would like to turn to other broader aspects touching upon the Russian naval presence in the region. In January, a series of articles appeared on the geopolitical aspects of the Indian Ocean, such as this on China’s increased presence , “the Russians are coming”, and this that gives an all-round Indian focused overview. Taking an excerpt from the latter:
“During the unipolar moment from 1991 till 2010s, Washington still felt comfortable in its position; however, over the last few years, the situation has changed dramatically.”
The most recent element in the turning point that shows the dramatic change would certainly be the late December trilateral naval exercise between Russia, Iran & China. The high-profile, three-day naval exercise took place in the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Oman and Arabian Sea. Although not a major strategic exercise, the naval drills conveyed a slight political undertone, particularly with the presence of the Chinese Navy. China’s regional policy remains the same, to engage with all countries in a cautious and balanced manner. This is reflected by the fact the PLAN also held joint naval exercises with Saudi Arabia in November 2019, with the practically the same theme of enhancing maritime security.
The Pentagon’s plan for continued domination of the sea lanes of the Indian Ocean as per Mahan Doctrine in a unipolar world, is started to be eroded by the presence of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy, (PLAN). On paper, the numbers involved is very small compared to the overall U.S. Navy presence in the region. Yet, Chinese encroachment into a space seen by Washington as their turf is already enough of an issue to warrant increased attention in recent years. So far, this has resulted in the creation of dedicated military structures, namely the Indo-Pacific Command, (USINDOPACOM) in 2018 and the release in June 2019 of a US military strategy report specifically on the region.
On top of all of Washington’s angst, is also the presence of the Russian Navy in the region. So, are the Russians just coming to the region now? No. The only noticeable change of recent is the taking part in multi-national exercises, (in Iran and South Africa) jointly with the Chinese.
The Russian Navy has been an occasional visitor for two decades, limited to one combat ship with two support deploying to either bilateral exercises or simply showing the flag as part of naval diplomacy. Take for example the annual bilateral exercises between Russia with India since 2003, (INDRA), with Pakistan since 2014, (Exercise Arabian Monsoon). Both of which are aimed at: “increasing inter-operability amongst the two navies, developing common understanding and procedures for maritime security operations.” Both activities clearly underline the “naval diplomacy” being used by Russia, striking a balance between two significant opposing countries.
What is changing is the nature and format of other newer joint or multilateral exercises. A glimpse of this is the Army International Games “Depth-2019”, competition in July 2017 in Iran. The Black Sea Fleet based rescue tug “Professor Nikolai Muru”, (Project 22870), made a first-ever passage to the Gulf to participate in the event. Insignificant, in the greater scheme of things, probably yes, but interesting the Russian Navy did this.
Lastly let’s not forget that the Russian Navy had infrequently participated in the Horn of Africa anti-piracy missions, probably best remembered by an epic video of the Russian Navy dealing with a pirate boat. Conversely, the PLAN has been a more consistent participant of these types of missions for almost two decades. Nevertheless, as I write this, the Baltic Fleet based ‘Yaroslav Mudry’ is out in the region having recently called in to the Omani port of Salalah. It is in the Gulf of Aden as part of the latest Russian anti-piracy deployment to the Indian Ocean.
A first in the Southern Hemisphere took place in late November 2019 in Cape Town, when Russia and China held their first trilateral naval exercise with South Africa. Exercise ‘Mosi’ was the first time that three countries belonging to BRICS exercised together. Participants included a type 054A frigate Weifang (550) and Slava-class Project 1164 cruiser Marshal Ustinov (055) and the South African Valour class frigate ‘Amatola’.
9th January 2020
Back to the 9th January incident, reminiscent of the era of the Soviet Navy, when there were numerous ‘interactions’ of this kind on and below the waves. Any naval Cold War veteran is able to attest to this. An example of maybe hundreds of incidents and accidents is when the Soviet destroyer ‘Bravyy’ on 9th November 1970, while observing a NATO exercise, collided with the British aircraft-carrier HMS Ark Royal. Other notable incidents were the Black Sea “bumping incidents”, although the context for this was slightly different, taking place in home waters, involving both the USS Caron and the ‘USS Yorktown’, under the activity of “innocent passage and freedom of navigation”. An issue that still provokes intense debate and U.S. FONOP activities, (notably in the South China Sea) as mentioned in a previous article on the Arctic. A snapshot of this rationale for carrying out freedom of navigation voyages can be found in the introduction of a paper presented here.
I had a deja-vu feeling when I heard about this incident. It seems to me practically a re-run of the ‘USS Chancellorsville’ & ‘Admiral Vinogradrov’ incident back in June 2019. I see that many instant experts on Rule 15 have suddenly popped up on social media, hence this specific commentary. Essentially several things could have done been done to avert this close call situation. The U.S. ship could have speeded up considerably to give the Russian ship more sea room to cross astern with plenty of space. There’s a lot more to this incident than just the videos extracts released by the U.S. Navy. However, this and the June 2019 incident needed to be contrasted with the shenanigans done in 60, 70s and also the 1988 Black Sea bumping incidents. Personally, this is pretty tame stuff in comparison.
The question is why this happens in this manner, (maybe due to saving face or not backing down). The carefully selected excerpts of videos, showing a fraction of the incident in question don’t help to understand the length, context or extent of the incident. The tetchy moments on who had ‘right of way’ (the nautical version of the Road Code – known as COLREGS) regarding the ‘Ivan Khurs’ close encounter with ‘USS Farragut’ can be regarded as just a “braggadocio” event aimed at media sensationalism. Well, not quite. There’s more the story than what it first seems.
As with the June 2019 incident, the U.S. ship was on the port side of the Russian vessel, considered to be a “Constant bearing, decreasing range” (CBDR) situation. Many arguments happened over whether the Ivan Khurs was in crossing situation or overtaking one, (was it 22.5 / 30 degrees angle? Essentially that’s a redundant point given the closeness and the continued CBDR situation, running out of safe sea space). A grey area well-known to mariners, hence the need to be quite clear in intentions from the outset. The video excerpts are equally unhelpful in determining the situation since some time must have passed between the video snippets.
The question that no one asked was why did both sides act early enough to avoid such close approach in the first place. It seems to me, in general one side was blatantly ignoring the CBDR situation and the finer points of Rule 15 or 17 COLREG, while the other won’t try or consider slowing down or bearing away from US ship. Essentially, a total farce where both sides seem to wind each up until the last minute, when finally, the U.S. destroyer actually opens up a bit the throttle. Given that it is a DDG, I’m sure that the USS Farragut has a higher speed than the ‘Ivan Khurs’, so the Russian ship can cross astern safely. Seemingly, neither budged and importantly both sides were basically ignoring parts of Rule 8 which sets out good seamanship practice, well before the Rule 15/17 situation arose, as both had each other on radar and visually for many nautical miles.
The other question is why did this incident occur? Essentially, eyeing each other for intel gathering. Scenario 1: I suspect it is the U.S. ship taking a keen interest, given the ‘Ivan Khurs’ is a probable newcomer to the waters, but was this was close to the area of the U.S. carrier operations. Scenario 2: Possibility of the USS Farragut either wanting to keep the Russian ship away from the U.S. carrier or maybe possibly deploying ASW array.
Of interest to note is the ad hoc presence of Russian AGIs and intelligence reconnaissance ships in the vicinity of U.S. carrier groups. This has been the case elsewhere, in the Eastern Mediterranean particularly, but seemingly a first for the Arabian Sea, (in many decades).
Summary
The Russian Navy is not the Soviet Navy in scope or numbers. As such the remaining current cold war era CCGs & DDGs that visit the region will gradually fade away, to be replaced by a smaller fleet of FFGs & corvettes; yet it will continue to visit the Indian Ocean. Although many pundits see this as a growing Russia’s return to the Indian Ocean as being relatively recent, when in fact it isn’t. So, the muted outcry by Washington of “the Russians are coming” is rather feeble and reveals a deep level of geopolitical insecurity. To paraphrase the Chinese delegate’s question at the Munich Security Conference recently, (see here):
“Do you really think the U.S. Navy presence in the Indian Ocean is so fragile it could be threatened by the occasional visit of Russian and Chinese warships?”
Seemingly yes.
Russia has a new limited strategic presence in the Middle East and Africa and the naval visits are part of the bigger picture. Russian presence will continue given the backdrop of the U.S. public wish for an expansion of a NATO footprint into Gulf & Iraq, adding to the ongoing presence in Afghanistan since 2001.
Russia also has defence-cooperation agreements with about 15 African countries. This is somewhat reflected in the port call make by the ‘Marshal Ustinov’, (en route to South Africa, including Egypt & Algeria, Equatorial Guinea and Cape Verde.
NB:The ‘Marshal Ustinov’ also called into Greece, Cyprus, Turkey (some are NATO countries).
By looking at the Russian Navy’s timid visits, the Indian Ocean is not a high priority regarding Russian maritime presence. Nevertheless, Russia has certainly stepped up its naval diplomacy in the region in different ways, making infrequent regular yearly visits to ports in the region, such as Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka and high-level working visits by heads of navies. Russia is also attentive to maintaining special relationships that it already has with countries like India and Pakistan.
Lastly, I cannot compare the minuscule presence of Russian Navy in region with that of the PLAN which is quickly building a larger force projection capability than the Russian VMF can realistically hope for these days. Let’s be frank, the Chinese PLAN is expanding considerably each year. 2019 alone saw another: 1 aircraft carrier, 1 LDP, 1 LHD & eight 7000t & two 13000t destroyers commissioned) plus 17 corvettes in one year!) The new tonnage must eye watering hard for the West to contemplate.
Further Reading
See this detailed article below I entirely agree with the author, as a civilian ex-mariner.
Who provokes whom and with which goal? https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/us-russian-navy-near-miss-incident-gunter-sch%C3%BCtze
Extra information on the geopolitics of the Indian Ocean:
Indian Ocean: strategic hub or zone of competition? https://uwidata.com/7211-indian-ocean-strategic-hub-or-zone-of-competition/
An visual overview of both recent Chinese and Russian naval port visits in the Indian Ocean is presented on the blog Warvspeace.org
Nat South’s sideline is occasionally commenting on maritime & naval related subjects ,with a special interest in the polar regions.
Of course, the beast empire would get into a flap at the appearance of a Russian or Chinese ship or two regardless of where they appear. After all, they think the entire planet is their backyard! It reminds me of the occasional time Russia sends a ship or two through the English Channel. The Brits, like little children who lost their blanky, get all up in defense mode, sending out ships to ‘escort’ the Russian vessels, lest they may attack the island, I suppose.
The west in their arrogance places a lot of trust in their carrier fleets as if it makes them invincible. Those fleets represent their diplomacy. When the Philistines wanted to intimidate ancient Israel, they wheeled out Goliath, the giant. Much bigger and well-armed than the little shepherd boy, David. We all know how that story ended. Proving the point that ‘pride goeth before a crash’.
Actually, David did not slay Goliath. The Tribe had archers hidden behind some rocks, and when they had felled the giant, little David rushed forward to claim victory. Mossad has a very long history, you know,
A minor point, but in regard to the statement ” Russian presence will continue given the backdrop of the U.S. public wish for an expansion of a NATO footprint into Gulf & Iraq . . .” Sorry, there is no “US public wish” to expand US/NATO forces in the the Middle East. That may be the party line coming out of Washington, parroted by the corporate controlled media, but I assure you, a large majority of the US public is sick of endless war. But it doesn’t matter who you vote for, the wars are never going to stop in this democracy theme park.
Correct, it ought to read
The U.S. publicly announced wish. Thank you for spotting my mistake.
Most Americans are not opposed to endless wars.
Most Americans are opposed to endless wars that the USA does not profit from, win, or succeed in advancing America’s global dictatorship … I mean global leadership.
In short, most Americans are like Barack “Predator Drone” Obama who opposed “dumb wars”–by which he meant unsuccessful American wars of aggression.
Smart, successful American wars of aggression, which don’t cost the USA too much in blood and treasure, on the other hand?
The large majority of Americans will support them.
The idea that Americans are a “peace-loving” people is an Orwellian deception and fundamentally belied by the fact that America has been at war for most of its 200+year bloodstained history since its founding genocidal “Indian Wars” against the Native Indians, whose land the Americans stole and now occupy.
That is not the behavior of a peace-loving people but of a war-loving people, who will only “oppose” war when they face the prospect of getting a taste of their own medicine.
America Has Been at War 93% of the Time – 222 out of 239 Years – Since 1776
https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/5565946
I had never heard of COLREG, but I know from my youth when I sailed regularly (in a real sailing boat, you know with a sail that catches wind) that the rule was that the port side ship has to give way.
The most striking thing imho is, that the USN actually released the video for the whole world to see their unprofessionality.
Add to that the frequent collisions of USN ships with a container ship, an oil tanker, and even a ship that was docked. A collision happpened in the Strait of Malacca, where it is obliged to have sailors outside observing.
The ‘screaming out loud’ is just another sign that they definitely think that ‘Oprah-style’ communication will work.
When the Russian Admiral Kuznetsov sailed in international waters along the UK on its way to the Mediterranean, the MSM reactions in the UK were even worse (‘The Russians are coming! They sent an armed ship!’ – while a British Navy ship sailing in the Black Sea in the neighbourhoud of Crimea was described as a signal towards ‘Russian agression’).
I find it rather amusing when then a home Navy ship is ‘following’ the passing foreign Navy ship. What is the use of that, in these modern times where we have things like ‘satellites’ and ‘radar’?
Let me add an anecdote to that, though I couldn’t find the article back. When a USN ship sailed through the South Chinese sea (sensitive area, just imagine a Chinese Navy ship sailing through the Gulf of Mexico, the USA would get hysterical) it was also followed by a Chinese Navy ship.
Those two ships were in frequent contact with each other. Completely reverse to the severe governmental threats, the sailors have chatted with each other about anything but the mission. They talked happily with each other about their families, sport matches, what was for dinner that evening, what movie they were about to see – like converation stuff between colleagues in their lunch break ;-)
Cheers, Rob
(Removed by mod.)
Starboard tack has right of way in sailboat.
In shipping,bigger (less manoeuvrable) has the right of way.
Also
Both parties are equally responsible for avoiding a collision.
Fair winds,sailor
Ah, it’s good that you mention the equal responsibility to avoid a collision, I forgot to mention (‘with good shipping skills’ if I remember correctly). Therefore a legal combat in such cases mostly ends in a 60-40%, perhaps 70-30% distribution in chances to get your right, as I’ve heard once from a lawyer. But I’m talking about lakes, rivers and such, not particularly seas with tankers, container ships and such.
Let’s be fair: how much has the USN ship done to avoid a collision?
Cheers, Rob
The angle in this image can’t be 30 degrees, they appear to be perpendicular and therefore 90 degrees.
https://media-exp1.licdn.com/dms/image/C5112AQFeXT0uVVzXHg/article-inline_image-shrink_1000_1488/0?e=1587600000&v=beta&t=f-EGGwOyoukwcCQzIAVVFJ8G7wt8Gk2yIpKITE40sYA
The relative bearing between ships maybe 90, which seemed to be constant. However it is the angle of the bow that is the determining factor. If a ship was at 90 degrees to you, head on, that’s a problem.
In this instance, (as explained in article), there was constant bearing, decreasing range.
Not something as a bridge watchkeeper I would like to be in, as both ships are on collision course. At this stage I’d get on the radio to ask intentions of other ship.
But then I am civilian mariner, so my rule is give my ship space, make manoeuvres clearly and in good time so the other can see on ECDIS, especially on the high seas.
As suggested in article, the first linked article (further reading) may interest those in the peculiarities of COLREG, written by ex navy officer.
Thanks Nat South for the interesting article.
“Other notable incidents were the Black Sea “bumping incidents”
Read an article some years back and looked into that. The usn had been provoking Russia by entering their coastal zones for some time. It was part of the reagan regime’s aggressive policies against the USSR, which continuously provoked the Russians. After the Soviets rammed the 2 usn ships, the usn stopped overtly entering Russian territorial waters.
The usn had been running these provocations repeatedly, and ignored Soviet demands to cease. Ramming was the logical tactic to use. Firing on the intruders would be more likely to actually start something more serious.
There are some videos on line showing the rammings. In one, I forget which, the filmer or somebdy close starts shouting hysterically when the Russian ship rams. It quite funny.
Thanks Vot tak for the details. I too have seen the videos (agree quite funny) and know the background to the event. I just didn’t want to delve into this, but the icing on the cake is that UNCLOS codified sea law rights & duties. Now the US cannot replicate this and it is the one that is still dragging its knuckles over UNCLOS.