Taking one step back in the Sea of Azov

Sharing my short (and slightly updated) commentary from Tuesday on the current escalations in the Sea of Azov.

While we are still in the process of drawing a full picture of what precisely happened yesterday in the Kerch Strait, it is crucial to also try to understand why did such an accident happen in the first place and what could be the underlying reasons behind these escalations.

Without going too much in-depth into the legal discussions of who had what right to do and/or to act during this confrontation, it is suggestive to me that the consequences of a possible escalation were pre-calculated by both sides. Even though, the Ukrainian navy has the de jure right to pass through the Kerch Strait, they most likely knew well enough that such course of action would cause a possibly aggressive reaction on Russia's side. Not only that, the Ukrainian ships seem to had the capacity to retaliate against the adversary, yet they choose to refrain from striking back, hence possibly implying that it was a deliberately chosen to avoid any greater escalations, and thus possibly aiming to present Ukraine as a victim in a public discourse, and intending to remind the West about their state of affairs and about the Crimean situation. Additionally, the fact that Ukraine has previously chosen to transports via the land route raises more doubts whether there were intentions to provoke a Russian reaction.

And of course, this is not intended to downplay the actions taken by they Russian forces --> the incident still must be treated as an act of aggression against a sovereign state. Let's not forget that despite the factual reality, the annexation of Crimea was by no means legal. And the Ukrainian forces still have the right to passage. We should just not forget a wider context.

Moreover, as it has been also concluded by the experts from Centre for Eastern Studies - OSW, Russia has already taken consistent steps to increase their control over the Sea of Azov and prepare for a possible collision with the Ukrainian navy. The decision to open fire can also be considered as a clear (or even premeditated) intention to provoke an armed reaction from Ukraine. If true, this could definitely be seen as a very risky game played by Russia. Not only that, it is worth noting that two months ago, the Russian coast guards peacefully escorted two Ukrainian warships peacefully, while underlining that the right of passage was assured under the premises of the Sea of Azov bilateral agreement. Which makes us question why was this time different and why was the fire opened during this crossing, since the current evidence suggests that Russians were the one escalating the incident.

Thus, at the moment, I am leaning towards the conclusion that both sides were possibly intending to provoked each other, yet Russia seems to have 'lost' this round, as they were, in the end, the ones ending up undertaking illegal and aggressive acts. The rationale and the logic behind getting engaged (deliberately or not) into such an incident is far more interesting and potentially more important than the factual chain of events or the legal fallout of this collision. Yet, it is still remains to be seen how everything plays out, especially in the context of a declared martial law in Ukraine. And while Poroshenko will definitely use this opportunity to increase his approval ratings, it is more than obvious that Russia's propaganda machine will turn on a maximum speed attempting to present the current Ukrainian leadership as being weak and incompetent, with a wish to divert the public towards supporting a more pro-Russian candidate in the upcoming presidential elections.

#RussiaAttacksUkraine