Guerra Fría: 25 años del incidente del Mar negro entre EUA y URSS
Nuestra armada repelió agresión imperialista contra la Ukraina sovietica
 |
| WV, 1988 / 2 / 26 |
WORKERS VANGUARD:
Another Imperialist Provocation in the Black Sea
Soviet Navy Sends U.S. Warships Packing
On February 12, two U.S. Navy warships invaded Soviet territorial waters in the Black Sea. In fact, these were the same two ships --the destroyer Caron and the guided missile cruiser Yorktown-- which had penetrated the exact same region off the Crimean coast in March 1986. This time the ships penetrated the Soviets' 12-mile coastal limit up to about seven miles from shore, just off Soviet Black Sea Fleet headquarters at Sevastopol. This was no accident: officers noted it "was approved by the White House" (UPI, 13 February). Wars have been started for far less. And this time the U.S. Navy got more than a mere protest note.
"Soviet ships have orders to prevent violations of territorial waters. I am authorized to strike your ship with one of ours." That was the warning issued by the Soviet commander on the spot, as Soviet Badger planes and Hind helicopters closely monitored the intruder ships, whose crews went to "a high state of readiness" during the two-hour provocation (New York Times, I3 February). As Soviet spokesman Gennadi Gerasimov explained later, the American ships did not react to the warning and continued their "dangerous maneuvering." So the 7,800-ton Caron was bumped on the side by a 1, 150-ton Mirka-class frigate, and three minutes later the 9,600-ton cruiser Yorktown was struck by the 3,900-ton Krivak-class frigate Bezzavetny. The Soviet military response was a carefully measured but firm defense of home waters.
In 1986 and again this time, the U.S. claimed it was merely asserting the so-called right of "innocent passage" according to an international treaty (which the U.S. has not signed!). But the Soviets have repeatedly noted that such rights apply only to recognized sea lanes, as in the Baltic Sea, not to the sensitive Crimean region. If the Soviets wanted to turn the tables and hold the U.S. to its supposed three-mile coastal waters claim, they could sail their fleet up the Chesapeake Bay --but you can imagine the screams or worse which would emanate from U.S.-Navy headquarters at Norfolk. So now the Americans have been served notice that they cannot commit these outrages with impunity. "This is what Soviet captains will do," warned Soviet Admiral Markov.
The Soviet peoples are particularly sensitive about Sevastopol. They remember that in 1942 the Soviet garrison of over 100,000 heroically fought to the death against the German onslaught before the Nazis finally destroyed the HQ of the Black Sea Fleet.
Make no mistake, the American action is a war provocation literally. It is part of a whole strategy of provocation during the Reagan years-playing "chicken of the sea" ramming Soviet ships and submarines, running massive "exercises" off sensitive [soviet] Russian naval bases-from Vladivostok to Murmansk, and so on. Last May these "periodic" exercises included sending the nuclear-powered guided missile cruiser USS Arkansas right into the home waters of the Soviet strategic submarine fleet at Petropavlovsk on the Kamchatka Peninsula (see "Kamchatka Provocation: U.S. Missile Ship in Soviet Waters," Spartacist No. 41-42, Winter 1987-88). The 1986 Black Sea incident was a prelude to the massive confrontation/ attack on Libya. Who are they going to attack this time?
Anonymous Pentagon officials openly bragged that the mission was "to collect intelligence on Soviet defenses," and the Yorktown is equipped with the computerized Aegis missile-firing system, while the Caron is well known to be equipped with special electronic gear to probe shore defenses. So what kind of defenses are they probing just off Soviet fleet headquarters? This is a blatant threat of a Pearl Harbor-style sneak attack. And that is U.S. naval doctrine. Even the (now ex-) Secretary of the Navy, James Webb, felt compelled to criticize the "forward strategy" laid down by his super-Reaganaut predecessor John Lehman: "Driving the carrier groups down the throat of the Soviets [is] not a strategy," he said. The Navy Times (4 May 1987) noted "some critics" call it "suicidal." But the policy of provocations continues.
The Reagan administration felt compelled to play down the incident in order to avoid another "U-2 incident," when the American spy plane shot down by the Soviets wrecked the planned 1960 "peace" summit. But Congressmen on both sides of the aisle immediately displayed their Tonkin Gulf knee-jerk reflex, blaming the Soviets for a provocation planned by the White House. Senate majority leader Democrat Robert Byrd had the gall to attack the Soviets for defending their coastline, saying the ship collisions contribute to "skepticism" about the "Soviet leadership" and suggesting that ratification of the INF missile treaty was in jeopardy. It's clear that despite tactical differences both parties are committed to nuclear brinkmanship against the homeland of the October Revolution. Only international workers revolution can thwart World War III.•
- http://www.icl-fi.org/
- http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/workersvanguard/1988/0447_26_02_1988.pdf
Etsaiak filmatutako irudiak
