Military historian Miroslav Morozov — on whether Russia has begun a naval blockade of Ukraine
The "Ukrainian conflict", which has been going on for more than a year, is fertile ground for various kinds of fakes and manipulations of public opinion. For example, after the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation declared areas in the northwestern and southeastern parts of the international waters of the Black Sea temporarily dangerous for navigation and announced the withdrawal of safety guarantees for navigation in these areas, a number of media hastened to announce that Russia had declared a naval blockade of Ukraine. But is it so?
Before answering the question, it is necessary to understand the very essence of the naval blockade. This form of war was already used in the conflicts of the ancient world, although it was not called that then — one of the parties sought to stop the enemy's sea communications, isolate him from the outside world, weaken and force him to accept the winner's demands.
For the first time, the term "naval blockade" was used in relation to the actions that in 1584 the Dutch fleet carried out against the Spaniards who occupied Flanders.
In 1630, the declaration of the States-General of Holland enshrined the principles borrowed from the siege of land fortresses and transformed into the principles of "siege from the sea", that is, a naval blockade.
With the advent of Modern times and the development of maritime trade, the concept of a naval blockade has also become more complicated. It could be both military and commercial. The military was undertaken for the sake of seizing a port or a coastal area. While the commercial one was aimed at forcing the enemy to surrender or come to an agreement by stopping all its maritime trade, which caused unacceptable economic and financial damage to some coastal countries.
The zones within which the ships of the blocking party received the right to stop and inspect not only enemy, but also neutral vessels, and in case of detection of military contraband to seize them as prizes, were established by governments or naval commanders and announced by relevant decrees. Neutral States in such a situation were obliged to comply with the rules established by the blocking party, including decisions on the confiscation of ships and cargo of blockade violators.
Subsequently, the issues of the naval blockade were addressed in the Paris Declaration on the Law of the Sea of 1856 and were finally settled in the London "Declaration on the Law of Naval Warfare" of 1909. The Declaration was signed by representatives of most countries, but not ratified by their Governments. Nevertheless, it still retains its significance as a document that formulates a number of generally recognized international legal norms, and is part of International Maritime Law.
In particular, it states (Article 9) that "the announcement of the blockade is made either by the blocking Power or by the maritime authorities acting on its behalf", it must indicate the day of the beginning of the blockade, the geographical boundaries of the blocked area and the time given to neutral vessels to exit it.
Article 2 clearly defined that "the blockade, in order to be mandatory, must be valid, that is, supported by a force sufficient to actually prevent access to the enemy coast." Otherwise, it is considered terminated, and neutral vessels are free from fulfilling the requirements of the blocking party.
What does all this give us to understand the current situation?
Firstly, the Russian Federation has not announced a naval blockade of Ukrainian ports, and nothing is known about its allocation of any forces and means of the Black Sea Fleet to support this event. What exactly will pose a danger to navigation in the declared areas of the sea, we will probably find out soon.
Secondly, in the context of massive supplies of weapons and military equipment by the West for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, considering ships going to Ukrainian ports as participants in the conflict with all the consequences that follow from this looks quite logical, although we must admit that this supply route is not the most optimal and safe and therefore hardly acceptable to the enemy. But he will clearly lose the screen behind which it was possible to mask the actions of naval special forces and underwater vehicles of various, including sabotage, purposes.
Thirdly, the termination of the Black Sea Initiative can certainly be seen as a way of forcing peace talks and economic pressure on Ukraine, which has earned more than $9 billion in grain sales during the existence of the humanitarian corridor, some of which undoubtedly went to the maintenance of the Armed Forces.
Nevertheless, the non-renewal of the grain deal does not automatically mean that Ukrainian grain is doomed to rot in elevators. Nothing prevents the EU from organizing the export of cereals through its territory in order to further transport them to third world countries through the ports of Poland and Germany. Flights from Ukrainian river ports on the Danube to Istanbul can be carried out by river-sea vessels, while all their movement will be carried out in the territorial waters of NATO countries, without the risk of defeat by the forces of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
However, instead of implementing these methods, the Ukrainian partners from the EU introduced a ban on the export of Ukrainian grain in June, which they are going to extend after September 15 this year. This seems all the more strange if we recall that according to official UN data, only 3% of deliveries fell on low-income countries (Ethiopia, Yemen, Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia), the remaining 97% — with medium and high. About 18% of the grain was received by Spain, 9.7% by Turkey, 6% each by Italy and the Netherlands, etc.
It turns out that it is not the Russian Federation that uses food as a weapon, but the European Commission and EU governments use it to please their own mercantile interests, which have nothing to do with caring for the poor population of developing countries or with the support of ordinary Ukrainian farmers.
At the same time, the sanctions imposed against the maritime trade of the Russian Federation, although they are not a naval blockade in their form, are hardly inferior to it in their purpose and effectiveness. Does the "Western civilized world" have the right to demand and expect a different attitude in this case? Or does the already traditional "policy of double standards" prevent someone from fairly assessing the situation?
The editorial board's position may not coincide with the author's opinion
