An alarming encounter between Russian and British military aircraft brought flashbacks of what could have been a trigger-happy incident between two global powers last week. If this had taken a different turn, it could have spilled over into a full-scale World War III.
On September 29, 2020, a Russian Su-27 fighter jet was about to shoot down a UK surveillance plane in international airspace over the Black Sea, near Russian-occupied Crimea. However, an unforeseen technical malfunction in the missile ended up saving the British plane.
An anonymous source who spoke to The New York Times later revealed that the Russian pilot had heard incorrect ground communications. Fortunately, he believed he had permission to fire but the malfunctioning missile stopped his attempt. The importance of the incident was solidified when leaks of Pentagon documents surfaced, referring to the incident as a “near shoot-down.”
This incident made onlookers ponder the response that would have followed if the attempt had succeeded. As a member of NATO, the UK has an unwritten commitment to collective defense, which is expressed through Article 5. This implies that an attack on one member nation should be seen as an attack on all.
In order to better understand how international authorities handle a situation such as this, Insider spoke to William Alberque – Director of Strategy, Technology and Arms Control at the International Institute for Strategic Studies and a former NATO officer.
Contrary to commonly held beliefs, activating NATO Article 5 can be viewed as a voluntary and rare choice, which representatives of nations take in order to protect their own interests. It was only activated after September 11th 2001, when the US chose to take action alone, though. Additionally, since the end of the Cold War, several incidents of planes being shot down by either side have occurred and still, Article 5 has not been invoked. An example of this is a stray Ukrainian missile that landed in Poland just last year, yet the Polish government decided to settle for a regular NATO consultation without involving Article 5.
Furthermore, Alberque mentions how Russia considers some areas within its borders to be a no-go zone for other countries and thus, referees them by tailing their aircraft when they get close to these regions. Frequently, this is done on the instructions of the Kremlin, which has become increasingly aggressive since 2013.
When it comes to the UK and Russia, both countries signed a treaty known as INCSEA (Incidents at Sea Treaty). This document outlines a series of regulations with the objective of avoiding incidents at sea and in the airspace. In such a contentious situation, authorities would do well to remind both countries of the pact and the consequential risk of starting a war.
In conclusion, Alberque believes that if the attempted shoot-down had been successful, the UK would have taken appropriate caution and paused before raising the alarm with the rest of the NATO members. Wise leaders would have mitigated any political gain and reminded the general public of the incident specific circumstances, preventing World War III.
