Thread by @MarkGaleotti

I must confess I'm depressed how much UK/Western coverage of the Black Sea spat is so keen to poke (minor, and subjective) holes in HMG's account and find fault with its response. A thread 1/

‘MOD said no warning shots were fired, but they were.’ We have footage of one Okhotnik patrol cutter firing its 30mm gun when Defender is almost on the horizon. This was more an act of impotent rage, not a meaningful warning 2/

‘The BBC report undermines MOD.’ Really? HMG clearly wanted to downplay drama, journo understandably to hype it. But in essence they say the same. 3/

‘MOD lied about planes.’ Sure, Defender’s radar pinged some 20 all told in range, and some buzzed the ship – but the MOD’s point was about the alleged bombing 4/

‘It was a set up, hence the journalists.’ This is one of the biggest Royal Navy deployments for years – of course journalists would want - clamour - to be on board 5/

Perversely, ‘MOD incompetent for not controlling narrative/predicting vehemence of RU response.’ Would we rather censorship and equal levels of toxic propaganda? 6/

Isn’t it a good thing to try and play things down? (And if this had all been a carefully-staged provocation, why have independent journalists on board to give their own perceptions?) 7/

‘That Defender went to Action Stations as soon as it left Odesa shows it knew it was staging a provocation.’ Every other time a NATO ships enters waters Moscow illegally claims, it gets hassled, so of course it was ready 8/

‘This was framed as “Innocent Passage” not a Freedom of Navigation Op, so it doesn’t help Ukraine’s case.” In strictly legal terms, maybe. But this is about politics. The way Russia acted so disproportionately shows at least they understand that 9/

But the basic point is this
1) RUSSIA HAS NO CLAIMS TO THOSE WATERS
2) DEFENDER WAS OPERATING WITHIN MARITIME LAW
3) IF THOSE WERE ‘WARNING SHOTS’ THEY WERE ILLEGAL.
That’s it. /end