The U.S. European Force Command (EUCOM) announced that two Russian Su-27 aircraft harassed the U.S. MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in the Black Sea, and that the MQ-9, which was hit by one of the aircraft, fell into international waters.
“One of the Russian Su-27s struck the propeller of the MQ-9 Reaper. U.S. forces were forced to bring the MQ-9 down in international waters over the Black Sea. Before the collision, the Su-27s dumped fuel on and flew in front of the MQ-9 in a reckless, environmentally unsound and unprofessional manner. This incident demonstrates a lack of competence in addition to being unsafe and unprofessional,” said the U.S. European Command in a public statement.
The video of the intercept shows a Su-27 approaching the MQ-9 from astern and beginning to dump fuel.
The Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement that the drone had been flying near the Crimean Peninsula and headed toward the Russian border with its identifying transponder off. Moscow also underlines that this is a violation of Russia’s instructions for the use of airspace, established for the purpose of conducting a special military operation in Ukraine.
Following the incident in the region, many experts draw attention to the effects of the war between Russia and Ukraine on the Black Sea. Retired Rear Admiral Deniz Kutluk, speaking to Harici on the subject, answered critical questions.
The downing of the drone was the first time that Russia and the United States had confronted each other in the context of the war in Ukraine. How will this affect U.S.-Russia relations in the future?
“The conditions under which the drone was forced down may seem normal under international law because the United States appears to have attempted to enter the battlefield unannounced. These areas are known as ADIZ (Air defense Identification Zone) or “prohibited/restricted airspace” and can be closed by announcement to protect third parties from harm. The last Balkan war is an example of this. There are other examples, of course…So, the U.S. must have known this risk when it sent an aircraft with its identifying transponder turned off into these airspaces. It would be very naïve for them not to know, which is unlikely. They sent it on purpose and at their own risk.
It clearly has a military meaning and mission. So, its fall should not be a surprise. The U.S. had previously revealed that it had provided intelligence to Ukraine’s coastal batteries that helped them sink the Moskva, Slava-class missile cruiser. Russia may have acted on the assumption that it was facing a similar situation. Since the United States is not a warring party, at the end of the day, this will be considered an act of Russian defense. Moreover, Russia claims that it did not open fire on this UAV, instead it crashed when Russia made an intercept flight. It is possible that the pilot maneuver may have helped it drift into the airspace and fall, this is the closest possibility that comes to mind.”
As you mentioned, the U.S. claims that the incident was the result of a collision due to a Russian pilot error. How should the incident be evaluated, regardless of whether it was intentional or unintentional, in accordance with the rules of military engagement?
“I have followed the U.S. and Russian allegations from open sources. In my opinion, Russia prevented a foreign aircraft from entering the airspace over which it has sovereign control as a warring party. Initially this may be a recognition-identification measure. However, an armed UAV with its identifying transponder turned off is not an acceptable object for Russia, with its presence in the risky recognition-identification area, and the maneuvers that led to its fall must have been carried out. There are claims such as that fuel was dumped on it, it flew at high speed and crashed into the air gap, causing its propeller to malfunction. On the other hand, UAVs are seen as vehicles that have not yet been defined in maritime law and whose rules have not been established. While the Chicago Convention for Aircraft has been in force since 1944 and the Convention on the Law of the Sea for warships since 1958-1982, there is not yet a legal order of governance for these flagless vehicles. In this respect, it is necessary to act according to whoever thinks they are right.”
Following the hot developments in the Black Sea, the U.S. Congress introduced the “Black Sea Security Act of 2023“. The bill is seen as critical for the U.S. to enhance NATO’s collective security assistance with Black Sea countries.
Referring to this issue, Kutluk responded to the question of what kind of geopolitical impact such an act would have on the Black Sea if it were to be implemented as follows:
“The Black Sea Security Resolution presented in the U.S. Congress should not be directly related to this incident. However, it is clear that the U.S. has been preparing for some time and a draft resolution has been submitted to Congress that would direct the U.S. State Department to provide budgetary and planning guidance to U.S. Federal Agencies. In this bill, which will take 1-3 years to implement, there are elements against Turkey, as well as some steps that will enable it to assume a provocative position in the Black Sea. There are also elements that are incompatible with the Montreux Convention. Some inconsistent or internally contradictory elements are also observed. It is important for Turkey to be careful in this regard and to start planning its counter-positions nowadays and not to allow the Black Sea balances to change with U.S. impositions.”
