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.•
Etsaiak filmatutako irudiak
