Russia’s dangerously close flight maneuvers against a U.S. Navy destroyer in the Baltic Sea this week violate a deal signed in 1972, but analysts say there’s not much the U.S. can do to enforce the “rules-of-the-road”-type agreement.
The agreement between the U.S. and Russia on “the prevention of incidents on and over the high seas” was designed to stop incidents like the one this week that saw Russian Su-24 jets fly very close to the USS Donald Cook in the Baltic Sea.
It specifically prevents aircraft from both countries from “simulating attacks at, launching objects toward or illuminating the bridges of the other party’s [sic] ships” and requires “aircraft commanders to use the greatest caution and prudence in approaching aircraft and ships of the other party and not permitting simulated attacks against aircraft or ships, performing aerobatics over ships or dropping hazardous objects near them.”
Two Russian Su-24 jets made several close-range, low-altitude passes over the destroyer on Monday, according to a statement from U.S. European Command. The next day, a Russian Kamov Ka-27 helicopter made seven low-altitude circles around the ship. About 40 minutes later, two more Su-24s made 11 passes “in a simulated attack profile and failed to respond to repeated safety advisories.
“We have deep concerns about the unsafe and unprofessional Russian flight maneuvers. These actions have the potential to unnecessarily escalate tensions between countries, and could result in a miscalculation or accident that could cause serious injury or death,” the EUCOM release said.
Matthew Rojansky, the director of the Kennan Institute at the Wilson Center, said the repeated buzzes are a violation “of both the spirit and the letter” of the agreement.
But analysts said the deal doesn’t include any consequences or enforcement.
“There’s no mechanism for punishment. It’s really a rules-of-the-road document. One side is clearly not following the rules of the road,” said Boris Zilberman, the deputy director of congressional relations at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
In terms of U.S. response, analysts all said they expect the U.S. to lodge a formal complaint, which Russia will likely ignore as it has after past incidents.
“It’s stupid, it’s pointless, it’s a horrible gesture,” said Chris Harmer, a former pilot and analyst with the Institute for the Study of War. “If you do this enough times, sooner or later, someone will make a mistake, so Russia should tone it down.”
Zilberman said the White House should immediately call the Russian ambassador in for a meeting to indicate how seriously the administration is taking this incident and to try to prevent future close fly-bys.
“At some point, accidents happen. At 30 feet away, one wrong turn and you’re dealing with a lot more than just an agreement being broken,” he said.
The European Command release said U.S. officials are dealing with the incidents through “existing diplomatic channels.”
At the White House, spokesman Joshua Earnest had few details on the incident.
“This incident, as you won’t be surprised to hear, is entirely inconsistent with the professional norms of militaries operating in proximity to each other in international waters and international airspace,” he said. “Any peace-time military activity must be consistent with international law and norms and conducted with due regard for the rights of other nations and the safety of other aircraft and other vessels.”
He added that the administration would act on it, but that it was too early to say what they would do.
“Well, obviously, we have a variety of channels through which we can communicate with the Russians, but I don’t have any updates right now about any conversations that have occurred about this particular incident.”
But Rojansky said this week’s incidents can’t be dealt with in a vacuum, and are actually part of a much larger problem between the two countries that has been brewing for years.
“This is not just one incident, and how can we punish Russians and remind them what the law is. This is true Cold War thinking on both sides. But both sides are convinced that they’re right,” he said. “They’re so convinced that they’re not going to give anything up, and it’s just going to get worse and worse.”
The way the U.S. got Russia to sign the agreement to keep the skies and waters peaceful in the 1970s was probably made by giving up something as well, something he doesn’t see the U.S. as being willing to do today. He said the relationship between the two countries is in a “totally different place” from when the agreement was signed in 1972.
“The American position is we’re entitled to do everything that we’re doing. That may be right, but the problem is when you’re dealing with a big country that has its own interests and resources like Russia, typically you have to make a deal,” he said.
He went on to say it is “insane” that the U.S. is repeating the same “doomsday scenario” of the 1960s with regard to its relationship with Russia, appearing to have not learned any lessons from the past.
Any deal to prevent these types of incidents, he predicted, would involve the U.S. giving up its freedom to operate in areas close to Russia in exchange for the Kremlin promising not to behave unprofessionally outside of those areas.
“I don’t think anyone would even remotely accept that because our position is to operate anywhere we want,” Rojansky said.
Nicole Duran contributed to this report.
