radio free europe is a us government propaganda agency, you should not take anything published on there to be true. At the very least, question why it is being presented to you
radio free europe is a us government propaganda agency, you should not take anything published on there to be true. At the very least, question why it is being presented to you
Copied and pasted because the original was downvoted and flagged.
Russia's opinion on others' borders is relevant only to Russia.
I think Moscow is part of my estate and that I'm entitled to take as much money as I can from any Russian national I encounter as compensation for Russia's illegal occupation of my house. I don't think that's a crime, so it's not a crime. Is that how this works?
No, under your hypothetical it's still a crime, but it's not admitting to a crime. You haven't pled guilty, you are still asserting a defence to the accusation (that you own Moscow).
If you had a sufficiently powerful military to back up your opinion on the ownership of Moscow, then that would indeed be how it works. International law does not have courts with the same amount of power as "normal" law. If countries are at odds the options are basically a sternly worded letter, economic sanctions or military action. And, of course, the target of such action can strike back in much the same ways.
Understandably, not many countries are willing to enter hostilities with Russia.
Russia does not really need to sanction anyone at the moment, they already have Crimea under their control and no country with a strong enough military cares enough to take it away from them and give it back to the Ukraine.
>Waters extending to 12 nautical miles from the shore of a coastal state. The territorial sea is under the sovereignty of the state, although foreign ships (civilian) are allowed innocent passage.
It is customary for a nation to ask diplomatic permission before entering territorial waters with a warship. OTOH maritime law is fairly clear:
---
According to Article 19 (2) of UNCLOS, passage of a foreign ship shall be considered prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state and thus in non-innocent passage if, in the territorial sea (less than 12 nautical miles from shore), it engages in any of the following activities:
(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;
(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;
(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;
(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;
(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;
(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;
(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;
(h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;
(i) any fishing activities;
(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;
(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;
(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.
---
Just sailing through is usually not a problem even with a warship. In this case of course, both parties were making a statement. The British that they don't recognize the annexation of Crimea, the Russians that they don't care what the British think about it.
> (c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State
This could have an extremely broad interpretation. Any military ship sailing through territorial waters with some passive wireless sensors, sonar, and temperature/salinity gauges could fall under this. Civilian ships as well if that info is later forwarded to the military.
Military ships are also allowed "innocent passage". There are a lot of things they aren't allowed to do while on such a passage (e.g. launch planes, leave on certain radars, do weapons drills), and have to go as quickly as possible. Some countries (Romania, Lithuania) have declared that the mere presence of nuclear weapons on ships violates innocent passage in their eyes, and in general adding nuclear propulsion creates more paperwork.
It doesn't matter if that's the case though. The British were explicitly conducting gunnery drills violating a condition of innocent passage. They did it to violate innocent passage. Because the point was to assert that Crimea (and it's surrounding territorial waters) do not belong to Russia and therefore they can do what they want (subject to Ukraine's approval). This is similar to what US warships do near the fake islands built by China in the South China Sea. Constantly objecting prevents annexations from becoming fiat accompli.
The downside is there are often missile locks between the armed forces of two countries, and, since firing on a warship is casus belli, may cause a war between nuclear powers.
from article: "Jonathan Beale, Defence Correspondent
I am on board the warship, in the Black Sea.
The crew were already at action stations as they approached the southern tip of Russian occupied Crimea. Weapons systems on board the Royal Navy destroyer had already been loaded.
This would be a deliberate move to make a point to Russia. HMS Defender was going to sail within the 12 mile (19km) limit of Crimea's territorial waters. The captain insisted he was only seeking safe passage thorough an internationally recognised shipping lane."
Both; it is a FONOP (“Freedom of Navigation Operation”) in which explicit claims and implicit practices contrary (in the perception of the acting party) international maritime law are deliberately and pointedly challenged by naval forces exercising the rights the claim or practice threatens or interferes with.
These aren't always mutually exclusive. An example would be the English Channel between the UK & France. It's impossible to transit it without entering someone's territorial waters, but freedom of navigation / UNCLOS allows Russian warships (well, anyone, but a specifically relevant example) the right of "innocent passage".
So if someone sails a loaded warship within the line of sight of a foreign nation military base without their OK... They should just be cool? Asking for a friend.
I don't want to play tit-for-tat but it's "in Ukraine" just like Guantanamo Bay is "in Cuba". So it's complicated and not explained with a naive "I just wanted to sail my warship through, gee why do u bully ME?"
Crimea de facto belongs to Russia now and that isn't going to change to no matter how many warships cruise past it.
Realistically it's difficult to imagine any scenario where Crimea ends up belonging to Ukraine again.
Now that Biden has waived the sanctions against the Nordstream 2 project, Ukraine will lose it's strategic importance as a gas transit country. At the same time Russia's importance as an energy supplier to Europe will increase. It won't be much longer before no one cares about Ukraine or Crimea anymore.
I’ll leave the semantic arguments to the Latin majors. Russia may see some legitimacy to its claim to Crimean territory, but it’s a self-asserted claim and it should be treated with as much respect as any other self-asserted claim.
I’m not talking about semantics nor about the international legality of it.
The difference between your assertion and this situation Is that in addition to asserting that Crimea is now a part of Russia they also control and govern it. I don’t think there is a lot anyone can do about that.
I don’t think that’s a contentious claim to make, it’s simply just the reality of it.
What will be more interesting will be to see how far Western/NATO countries will go to change that reality and how far Russia will go to prevent that.
I mean, yes. You don't get to claim territory around your military bases in foreign countries, that's just not how that works. If country A doesn't like country B sailing near their military bases in country C, they need to ask country C to stop it...
I think there’s an assumption in there that one shouldn’t condone bombing a nation for invading and illegally occupying one of its neighbors. I’m for that 100%.
Seems like brinkmanship from the Royal Navy, trying to test Russian resolve on this. I mean what is the point in further flaring up international tensions at this juncture.
Don't Russia play this game themselves with Bears (as in Tupolov, not hairy) flying close to [insert relevant territory, e.g Scotland] fairly frequently?
Sorry, I realise you were riffing that phrase, more cleverly than I appreciated!
</ed>
I had to Google that as I'm not Roman and my last latin lesson was as a 9 year old many decades ago, but having Googled, should that have been "quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi"[1]?
If so, I love it - thanks!
And, you're not wrong, but I feel I'm within my rights to be bemused at any irritation the Russian government might express.
78 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 166 ms ] threadIt's an obvious ruse
April 15, 2003 00:00 GMT - Iraq: Finding Weapons Of Mass Destruction Takes On Political Urgency
Media deconstruction with a touch of conspiracy theories sprinkled on top.
3hrs no commercials
Value for value profit modeling.
Thursdays and Sundays 12noon EST
Copied and pasted because the original was downvoted and flagged.
https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/140767081226251878...
I think Moscow is part of my estate and that I'm entitled to take as much money as I can from any Russian national I encounter as compensation for Russia's illegal occupation of my house. I don't think that's a crime, so it's not a crime. Is that how this works?
(Yes, there's an international court. It's not exactly having a lot of teeth)
Understandably, not many countries are willing to enter hostilities with Russia.
What is Vlad gonna do, form a coalition with Belarus and Iran to…inconvenience Europe?
Depends on the meaning of the word 'within', I guess...
Right of innocent passage
Subject to this Convention, ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.
There is more to if something is a good comment than if it is literally true.
>Waters extending to 12 nautical miles from the shore of a coastal state. The territorial sea is under the sovereignty of the state, although foreign ships (civilian) are allowed innocent passage.
Is an 8500 ton destroyer a "civilian" ship?
---
According to Article 19 (2) of UNCLOS, passage of a foreign ship shall be considered prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state and thus in non-innocent passage if, in the territorial sea (less than 12 nautical miles from shore), it engages in any of the following activities:
(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;
(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;
(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;
(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;
(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;
(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;
(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;
(h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;
(i) any fishing activities;
(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;
(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;
(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.
---
Just sailing through is usually not a problem even with a warship. In this case of course, both parties were making a statement. The British that they don't recognize the annexation of Crimea, the Russians that they don't care what the British think about it.
This could have an extremely broad interpretation. Any military ship sailing through territorial waters with some passive wireless sensors, sonar, and temperature/salinity gauges could fall under this. Civilian ships as well if that info is later forwarded to the military.
It doesn't matter if that's the case though. The British were explicitly conducting gunnery drills violating a condition of innocent passage. They did it to violate innocent passage. Because the point was to assert that Crimea (and it's surrounding territorial waters) do not belong to Russia and therefore they can do what they want (subject to Ukraine's approval). This is similar to what US warships do near the fake islands built by China in the South China Sea. Constantly objecting prevents annexations from becoming fiat accompli.
The downside is there are often missile locks between the armed forces of two countries, and, since firing on a warship is casus belli, may cause a war between nuclear powers.
Wikipedias
Ah, OK, we call cruisers destroyers now. Weird.
I am on board the warship, in the Black Sea.
The crew were already at action stations as they approached the southern tip of Russian occupied Crimea. Weapons systems on board the Royal Navy destroyer had already been loaded.
This would be a deliberate move to make a point to Russia. HMS Defender was going to sail within the 12 mile (19km) limit of Crimea's territorial waters. The captain insisted he was only seeking safe passage thorough an internationally recognised shipping lane."
> only seeking safe passage
So... which one was it really?
> > only seeking safe passage
> So... which one was it really?
Both; it is a FONOP (“Freedom of Navigation Operation”) in which explicit claims and implicit practices contrary (in the perception of the acting party) international maritime law are deliberately and pointedly challenged by naval forces exercising the rights the claim or practice threatens or interferes with.
Realistically it's difficult to imagine any scenario where Crimea ends up belonging to Ukraine again.
Now that Biden has waived the sanctions against the Nordstream 2 project, Ukraine will lose it's strategic importance as a gas transit country. At the same time Russia's importance as an energy supplier to Europe will increase. It won't be much longer before no one cares about Ukraine or Crimea anymore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_jure
Again, I assert that I am mayor of Moscow.
The difference between your assertion and this situation Is that in addition to asserting that Crimea is now a part of Russia they also control and govern it. I don’t think there is a lot anyone can do about that.
I don’t think that’s a contentious claim to make, it’s simply just the reality of it.
What will be more interesting will be to see how far Western/NATO countries will go to change that reality and how far Russia will go to prevent that.
You should fail them on the open radio channel, maybe via airhorns/flags/Morse etc. Warning shots after that?
All that said, it seems that russians did all of that and its nothing but brits flexing and doing political dance
> Russia claims the illegally-annexed peninsula and its waters are its territory, but Britain says its ship was passing through Ukrainian waters.
They even put a journalist on the deck
Since Country C is Ukraine... good luck?
[0] https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a361788...
Sorry, I realise you were riffing that phrase, more cleverly than I appreciated!
</ed>
I had to Google that as I'm not Roman and my last latin lesson was as a 9 year old many decades ago, but having Googled, should that have been "quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi"[1]?
If so, I love it - thanks!
And, you're not wrong, but I feel I'm within my rights to be bemused at any irritation the Russian government might express.
[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:List_of_Latin_phrase...
Scotland is beautiful indeed!