Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yes, it is. Ask the International Maritime Organization. Your historical excursions aren't relevant at all.No, it is not. Crimea is russian territory. Since 1783. Longer, then most of US territory, stolen from indians
We will see what happens next. In these days, the most gunshots were fired by your Foreign Ministry.-
Next time they can do that. Beware of what you are asking for
Your historical excursions aren't relevant at all.
Same as your view on this event.
Russia has to. Compared to the USSR, Russia is a rather poor and weak country now holding distant 3rd place in the world.They do. Pootins goal is to reconstitute the Soviet Union. They are still fighting in the Donbass region, they have taken the Crimea, they are starting to look hard at the Baltic States. Look for them to be annexed within the the next 4 years as the xiden admin allows it to happen.What I find fascinating in this, is that the Russians are claiming they not only fired shots at her, they also dropped bombs in front of her.
Every year, they are showing themselves to be even more unstable than even the Soviets were. It is almost like they want to provoke another war.
By GDP rates? It is the 6th based on PPP and 11th by nominal GDP.Russia has to. Compared to the USSR, Russia is a rather poor and weak country now holding distant 3rd place in the world
Hardly a surprise considering their population.And @Tommy Tainant's country Britain is now #8, BEHIND India, a country they once miserably occupied and controlled
No. If we consider, that Crymea is an "occupied", and Russia is an "occupation power", then we are going to the "right of war".And nonetheless it is Ukraine's waters. Russia is in no position to claim about some violation because it gained these territories by violation. The Brits didn't claim about their right on passage because of the right of innocent passage. This trend was pushed by Russian propaganda.Ha! If those waters are "Ukrainian", why Ukrainian fleet didn't protected them? De facto - Crymea is under Russian control. De facto - Russian fleet controls it's territorial waters. De facto - it was not an "innocent passage", it was a provocation
For short: does not really matters is Russia a "Coastal State" or an "Occupation Power". Ukraine don't control Crymea, and can't establish her own rules in the Crymean territorial waters.No, they had a right on passage because they considered it to be a Ukraine's territory. That was claimed on the first day.
The Russians can go fuck themselves with their bullshit of innocent passage. The ship wasn't going through the waters off Sochi or Novorossiysk.
Who knows? Their waters (and ships) - their rules, whatever they are "lawful owners" or "occupants". May be they will next time.Yeah? Why didn't they do that?The difference between Ukrainian and Russian claims is simple - the Russians can really sink the provocators
This is normal for fascist Ukraine. In 2014, when they bombed the cities of Donbass and the defenders of Donbass shot down the planes of Ukrainian bandits, Ukraine did not close its skies, allowing civilian aircraft to fly in an unsafe zone. The result is the downing of the Malaysian plane MH 17...And yes, is it really responsible (from Ukrainian side) to allow friendly, but technically neutral ship to go into occupied (and therefore unsafe) waters?
What are you talking about? What right of war and occupation rights? There aren't such things in principle.No. If we consider, that Crymea is an "occupied", and Russia is an "occupation power", then we are going to the "right of war".And nonetheless it is Ukraine's waters. Russia is in no position to claim about some violation because it gained these territories by violation. The Brits didn't claim about their right on passage because of the right of innocent passage. This trend was pushed by Russian propaganda.Ha! If those waters are "Ukrainian", why Ukrainian fleet didn't protected them? De facto - Crymea is under Russian control. De facto - Russian fleet controls it's territorial waters. De facto - it was not an "innocent passage", it was a provocation
Occupation also extends to the occupied State’s territorial waters (internal waters and territorial sea) to the extent that effective control is established over the adjacent land territory. Under the law of armed conflict, the occupant may take measures to ensure “public order and safety” in the occupied territory, including its territorial waters. In particular, the occupying Power may take measures “to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them.” Under the laws of armed conflict, the occupying power has the right to suspend in all or in parts of the territorial sea of the occupied territory the innocent passage of foreign ships, if it considers it necessary for imperative reasons of security.
State practice shows that belligerent occupants may suspend innocent passage of foreign ships in the territorial sea of the occupied territory. For example, on 2 May 2004, the United States, acting as an occupying Power in Iraq, issued a notice to mariners establishing with immediate effect a 2,000-metre exclusion zone around the Khawr Al’Amaya and Al Basra oil terminals in the Persian Gulf and temporarily suspended “the right of innocent passage […] in accordance with international law around [these] oil terminals within Iraqi territorial waters.”
The question is thus not whether the Russian Federation is the “coastal State” with regard to the Crymean Peninsula but whether it is the “occupying Power” there. During the ongoing armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine the law of the sea is at least partly supplanted by the law of armed conflict and, in particular, the law of occupation. Ukraine and other States cannot consider Russia to be an occupying Power in Crymea and, at the same time, deny it the rights that come with that status.
For short: does not really matters is Russia a "Coastal State" or an "Occupation Power". Ukraine don't control Crymea, and can't establish her own rules in the Crymean territorial waters.No, they had a right on passage because they considered it to be a Ukraine's territory. That was claimed on the first day.
The Russians can go fuck themselves with their bullshit of innocent passage. The ship wasn't going through the waters off Sochi or Novorossiysk.
Who knows? Their waters (and ships) - their rules, whatever they are "lawful owners" or "occupants". May be they will next time.Yeah? Why didn't they do that?The difference between Ukrainian and Russian claims is simple - the Russians can really sink the provocators
What are you talking about? What right of war and occupation rights? There aren't such things in principleNo. If we consider, that Crymea is an "occupied", and Russia is an "occupation power", then we are going to the "right of war".And nonetheless it is Ukraine's waters. Russia is in no position to claim about some violation because it gained these territories by violation. The Brits didn't claim about their right on passage because of the right of innocent passage. This trend was pushed by Russian propaganda.Ha! If those waters are "Ukrainian", why Ukrainian fleet didn't protected them? De facto - Crymea is under Russian control. De facto - Russian fleet controls it's territorial waters. De facto - it was not an "innocent passage", it was a provocation
Occupation also extends to the occupied State’s territorial waters (internal waters and territorial sea) to the extent that effective control is established over the adjacent land territory. Under the law of armed conflict, the occupant may take measures to ensure “public order and safety” in the occupied territory, including its territorial waters. In particular, the occupying Power may take measures “to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them.” Under the laws of armed conflict, the occupying power has the right to suspend in all or in parts of the territorial sea of the occupied territory the innocent passage of foreign ships, if it considers it necessary for imperative reasons of security.
State practice shows that belligerent occupants may suspend innocent passage of foreign ships in the territorial sea of the occupied territory. For example, on 2 May 2004, the United States, acting as an occupying Power in Iraq, issued a notice to mariners establishing with immediate effect a 2,000-metre exclusion zone around the Khawr Al’Amaya and Al Basra oil terminals in the Persian Gulf and temporarily suspended “the right of innocent passage […] in accordance with international law around [these] oil terminals within Iraqi territorial waters.”
The question is thus not whether the Russian Federation is the “coastal State” with regard to the Crymean Peninsula but whether it is the “occupying Power” there. During the ongoing armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine the law of the sea is at least partly supplanted by the law of armed conflict and, in particular, the law of occupation. Ukraine and other States cannot consider Russia to be an occupying Power in Crymea and, at the same time, deny it the rights that come with that status.
For short: does not really matters is Russia a "Coastal State" or an "Occupation Power". Ukraine don't control Crymea, and can't establish her own rules in the Crymean territorial waters.No, they had a right on passage because they considered it to be a Ukraine's territory. That was claimed on the first day.
The Russians can go fuck themselves with their bullshit of innocent passage. The ship wasn't going through the waters off Sochi or Novorossiysk.
Who knows? Their waters (and ships) - their rules, whatever they are "lawful owners" or "occupants". May be they will next time.Yeah? Why didn't they do that?The difference between Ukrainian and Russian claims is simple - the Russians can really sink the provocators
Sure, you may not believe that Crymea is under Russian control, you may even try to attack them, but you must understand consequences of your actions. So, if the next British ship is sunk by Russians, will Ukraine attack Russia? Right now it doesn't looks like Ukraine or Britain are ready to fight against real Russian forces without American nuclear umbrella.Of course, some country can say that another country directly threats its security and military action can be taken. Some territories can be occupied as a result of that. But that doesn't change the fact that other countries can dismiss the claims of the aggressor, condemn it and not recognize its territorial gains.
Cool story, bro. And now tell me how your Russia followed these rules in two Chechen campaigns.The Banderlogs may think that war is a Bacchanalia of unlimited and unrestricted violence, but it's just not true. There are laws and rules, and there are pretty good reasons for such laws and rules
Ukraine's role in international relations is too insignificant to take it in consideration.Sure, you may not believe that Crymea is under Russian control, you may even try to attack them, but you must understand consequences of your actions. So, if the next British ship is sunk by Russians, will Ukraine attack Russia? Right now it doesn't looks like Ukraine or Britain are ready to fight against real Russian forces without American nuclear umbrella
BTW, British documents about this 'innocent passage' were 'found at a bus station'.
Cool story, bro. And now tell me how your Russia followed these rules in two Chechen campaigns.The Banderlogs may think that war is a Bacchanalia of unlimited and unrestricted violence, but it's just not true. There are laws and rules, and there are pretty good reasons for such laws and rules
What is even more important, they fully understand and may be even overestimate possible consequences of the lack of action. And consider that even "escalation" is much better than allowing anybody to doubt in their control over Crymea or any other part of Russia.Ukraine's role in international relations is too insignificant to take it in consideration.Sure, you may not believe that Crymea is under Russian control, you may even try to attack them, but you must understand consequences of your actions. So, if the next British ship is sunk by Russians, will Ukraine attack Russia? Right now it doesn't looks like Ukraine or Britain are ready to fight against real Russian forces without American nuclear umbrella
Russia (or more properly Putin's clique) fully understands the consequences of such action. And I am not talking about military response (though, I don't exclude that some form of it may happen).
I said it before - you oversimplify international relations. Everyone understands that neither the Brits nor the US nor somebody else will fight against Russia over Crimea. Likewise, Putin's clique will be doing their best to avoid direct conflict with the West.What is even more important, they fully understand and may be even overestimate possible consequences of the lack of action. And consider that even "escalation" is much better than allowing anybody to doubt in their control over Crymea or any other part of Russia
I said it before - you oversimplify international relations. Everyone understands that neither the Brits nor the US nor somebody else will fight against Russia over Crimea. Likewise, Putin's clique will be doing their best to avoid direct conflict with the West.What is even more important, they fully understand and may be even overestimate possible consequences of the lack of action. And consider that even "escalation" is much better than allowing anybody to doubt in their control over Crymea or any other part of Russia
I said it before - you oversimplify international relations. Everyone understands that neither the Brits nor the US nor somebody else will fight against Russia over Crimea. Likewise, Putin's clique will be doing their best to avoid direct conflict with the West.What is even more important, they fully understand and may be even overestimate possible consequences of the lack of action. And consider that even "escalation" is much better than allowing anybody to doubt in their control over Crymea or any other part of Russia
Yes. How it was right before WWI? 'Nobody wanted war, war was inevitable'?
Postbrexit Britain hardly can be less provocative, and the Russians just can't ignore the provocations.
www.usmessageboard.com
As Putin just said: "even if we had sunk this destroyer it would not have brought the world to the brink of the world war"."The US Secretary of State called Germany a friend of America, there is no better one"
What about your Middle Eastern friends? And the island clown, ready to ignite a new world war for the sake of "Atlantic solidarity"?
Or is this a signal to Boris that no help should be expected in new provocations against Russia?
PootyPoot should have responded by sinking a couple of the arrogant fuckers
UK denies Moscow fired warning shots at Royal Navy ship off ...
https://www.theguardian.com › world › jun › russian-sh...
2 hours ago — The UK has rejected claims from Moscow that warning shots were fired at the British warship HMS Defender in the Black Sea on Wednesday
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/IUXXCXLKWVKJND3VVOAHPLOPMU.jpg)
Russia says it chases British destroyer out of Crimea waters with warning shots, bombs
Russia said on Wednesday it had fired warning shots and dropped bombs in the path of a British warship to chase it out of waters Moscow claims in the Black Sea off the coast of the Crimea peninsula.www.reuters.com
1) British state ´ll always have our support , 2) still did Putin fire at the British warship HMS Defender in the Black Sea? or its just Moscow propaganda.RU ?
Russia says it chases British destroyer out of Crimea waters with warning shots, bombs
Russia said on Wednesday it had fired warning shots and dropped bombs in the path of a British warship to chase it out of waters Moscow claims in the Black Sea off the coast of the Crimea peninsula.
