Miscommunication is poison in international affairs. A state can send a signal to another, but it’s not the one intended. Given human nature, this is inevitable. But when military power is involved, the consequences can be dire.

This was the dynamic on show on Wednesday in the Black Sea. A British warship, the HMS Defender, transited through what Russia says are its territorial waters, near Crimea, sailing within 12 nautical miles of the peninsula’s coast.

This provoked a tough response from the Russian military. According to the BBC, “Moscow’s defence ministry said a patrol ship fired warning shots and a jet dropped bombs in the path of HMS Defender.” The British Ministry of Defence has denied this, however, insisting that, “no shots were directed at HMS Defender and we do not recognise the claim that bombs were dropped in her path.”

Jonathan Beale, a BBC journalist who was on HMS Defender, provided an account that lies somewhere between that of the British and Russian authorities. Beale failed to confirm Moscow’s claim that bombs had been dropped, but he did record Russian aircraft buzzing the warship, saying that at times there were “more than 20 aircraft” above the British ship, as well as “warnings from Russian coastguard vessels” and “shots fired,” albeit “out of range”.

The status of Crimea’s waters is disputed by a large number of states. Moscow maintains that they constitute Russian sovereign territory. The UK, on the other hand, continues to recognize Crimea as Ukrainian, and therefore rejects Moscow’s claims to control over the area.

Also on rt.com British destroyer violates Russia’s border in Black Sea, Russian ship & fighter jet respond with warning shots – Defense Ministry

Regardless of who is right, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea permits ships to transit through the territorial waters of other states, in what is known as the “right of innocent passage.” In terms of this right, it doesn’t actually matter whether the waters in question are Ukrainian or Russian. Ships of other countries still have a right of innocent passage.

The general consensus of Western legal scholars is that this right applies to warships as much as to civilian vessels – as long, of course, as the passage is truly “innocent.” The Russian understanding of the law, however, is a little less clear. Given that the HMS Defender went straight through the Crimean waters and then out again, without threatening Russia in any way in the process, it would be hard to say that its passage didn’t meet the criteria of “innocent.”

International law is, of course, a contentious matter. In the absence of a judicial decision, one can never definitively say who is right and who is not. But on the surface, the British have reasonable grounds for thinking that the law is on their side.

Moscow’s actions are somewhat more problematic. Given that the British ship had a right of passage, if Russian aircraft did indeed drop bombs in an effort to prevent that passage, they would appear to have acted in contravention of the law of the sea. If, however, all they did was buzz HMS Defender, then there was no direct use of force, and so no law was broken. Oddly enough, therefore, the British account of events is somewhat more favourable to Russia, legally speaking, than the Russian version.

But the law is one thing and political good sense something else. While the Brits may have had the former on their side, they were decidedly lacking when it comes to the latter.

HMS Defender didn’t sail through Crimean waters just for the sake of it. The act was clearly designed to send a signal to Russia.

Also on rt.com Russia demands US scrap ‘aggressive’ Black Sea naval war-games, warning drills fuel tensions & increase risk of deadly incidents

If anybody in the UK’s Ministry of Defence had had half a brain, however, they should have realized that the chances that Moscow would interpret that signal in the desired manner were somewhere close to zero.

The signal that London intended to send is somewhat unclear. On the surface, it appears to have been a sign that it does not recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea. Alternatively, Britain could have thought it was striking a blow for the importance of international law, particularly the law of the sea. Or, finally, it might have been trying to prove to the other side that it is armed and ready to confront it should it become embroiled in a conflict. In other words, the message may have been one of military deterrence.

From a British point of view, those messages might be obvious. The problem, however, is that from a Russian point of view they’re not. Russia already knows that the UK considers Crimea to be part of Ukraine. Britain didn’t have to send a warship to Crimea to make the point. Inevitably, therefore, Moscow will take the view that something else lies behind the action. (RT)