Page 1 of 8
1
2
3
... LastLast
  1. #1

  2. #2
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Saber rattling for internal consumption.

  3. #3
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    32,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Logwyn View Post
    Or is this just saber rattling?
    Russia's not going to fire live ammo at a UK military ship with intent to kill/injure without an actual reason. Nobody wants WWIII over the international waters equivalent of road rage.

  4. #4
    Russia is not going to so anything mean to the UK. Where else are all the oligarchs going to park their money if they do that?

  5. #5
    Pure posturing.

    The Russians were conducting a live fire exercise nearby, as they have done before, and even let the Brits know it was happening. The Brits sailed nearby and the Russians then tried to claim the live fire exercise was warning shots. Brits went nope,, didn't happen.

    It was all for internal consumption, of Putin trying to look tough.

  6. #6
    You got it other way around. Its UK threatening Russia.

    Facts: UK ship sails far from UK, deliberately enters Russian waters claiming that they don't recognise those waters as Russian waters, though de-facto they are.

    Conclusion: Media claims Russia is threatening UK.

    Conclusion doesn't match facts. UK is the aggressor here, trying to stir shit up.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Corvus View Post
    It was all for internal consumption, of Putin trying to look tough.
    Indeed, it is for internal consumption. UK is trying to look tough, pretending that they can do something about Crimea.
    Last edited by MechanoDruid; 2021-06-25 at 07:38 AM.
    "Those who can convince you to believe absurdities can convince you to commit atrocities." ~Voltaire
    I feel the above truly reflect what is happening in the US and its allies, or has been happening for some time.

  7. #7
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Quote Originally Posted by MechanoDruid View Post
    You got it other way around. Its UK threatening Russia.

    Facts: UK ship sails far from UK, deliberately enters Russian waters claiming that they don't recognise those waters as Russian waters, though de-facto they are.

    Conclusion: Media claims Russia is threatening UK.

    Conclusion doesn't match facts. UK is the aggressor here, trying to stir shit up.

    - - - Updated - - -


    Indeed, it is for internal consumption. UK is trying to look tough, pretending that they can do something about Crimea.
    They entered Ukrainian waters, in a normal shipping lane, conducting internationally recognized innocent passage. The treat of force against a warship operating under innocent passage is absolutely Russia being the major aggressor.

    Just remember, the RN doesn't have to deploy a fleet tug with their carrier, unlike Russia....

  8. #8
    It's UK saber rattling for internal consumption. Got to prop up their own self-importance. Denials that shots were fired and bombs were dropped on their path by UK MoD despite having BBC reporter on board with clear intent to capture details of this provocation are extremely weird.

    Yes, sure, Russia always announces counter-exercises to NATO. Exercises aimed at preventing exact behavior UK is exhibiting.

    I disagree that they'll not get actually fired upon though - if they'll keep repeating it they will get the bullet.

    It will not escalate to war from that, however.

  9. #9
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    It's UK saber rattling for internal consumption. Got to prop up their own self-importance. Denials that shots were fired and bombs were dropped on their path by UK MoD despite having BBC reporter on board with clear intent to capture details of this provocation is extremely weird.

    I disagree that they'll not get actually fired upon though - if they'll keep repeating it they will get the bullet.

    It will not escalate to war from that, however.
    If Russia fires on a NATO warship in violation of international law, it will not end well for Russia.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by MechanoDruid View Post
    You got it other way around. Its UK threatening Russia.

    Facts: UK ship sails far from UK, deliberately enters Russian waters claiming that they don't recognise those waters as Russian waters, though de-facto they are.

    Conclusion: Media claims Russia is threatening UK.

    Conclusion doesn't match facts. UK is the aggressor here, trying to stir shit up.

    - - - Updated - - -


    Indeed, it is for internal consumption. UK is trying to look tough, pretending that they can do something about Crimea.
    Fact, the UK sailed through Ukranian waters. The fact that Russia is occupying Crimea, does not change that.

    Add that it was Russia that felt they need to announce, that they bravely stood up against the major invading force. Pathetic.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    If Russia fires on a NATO warship in violation of international law, it will not end well for Russia.
    NATO countries arent firing at Russian airplanes violating NATO airspace repeadetly on purpose.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ce-2021-06-11/

    It's as you say, for internal russian consumption. I didn't see any british "WE PISS ON RUSSIAS CRIMEA CLAIM RULE BRITANNIA" news, but a reaction to Russias lies about dropping bombs in the ships path.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    If Russia fires on a NATO warship in violation of international law, it will not end well for Russia.
    Russia will be within it's rights in international law - it can block passage of any ship through it's territorial waters for any reason.

    International law doesn't resolve territorial disputes. If you declare some territory your own and strike anyone trying to challenge it then international law is not a solution against it.

    If NATO would want to go to war over Crimea they had plenty of opportunities to do so.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispin View Post
    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ce-2021-06-11/

    It's as you say, for internal russian consumption. I didn't see any british "WE PISS ON RUSSIAS CRIMEA CLAIM RULE BRITANNIA" news, but a reaction to Russias lies about dropping bombs in the ships path.
    What news are you watching? Because that's exactly what they are doing - in British way, of course.

    https://www.dw.com/en/uk-pm-johnson-...ent/a-58031947
    Johnson said Britain would defy the Kremlin, insisting that it was "entirely right" to "pursue freedom of navigation in the way that we did."

    "I think it was wholly appropriate to use international waters, and, by the way, the important point is that we don’t recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea," he said in televised remarks.


    And bombs were dropped. It's UK MoD who lied.

    From same article:
    "We may appeal to reason and demand to respect international law,'' Ryabkov said, the Russian Interfax news agency reported. "If it doesn't help, we may drop bombs and not just in the path but right on target if colleagues don't get it otherwise."

    Russia has said that NATO warships sailing near Crimea are destabilizing to the region. In April, it unilaterally declared a broader area of Crimea closed to foreign naval ships.


    Clear and premeditated provocation by UK is all that is.
    Last edited by Shalcker; 2021-06-25 at 09:15 AM.

  12. #12
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Russia will be within it's rights in international law - it can block passage of any ship through it's territorial waters for any reason.

    International law doesn't resolve territorial disputes. If you declare some territory your own and strike anyone trying to challenge it then international law is not a solution against it.

    If NATO would want to go to war over Crimea they had plenty of opportunities to do so.

    - - - Updated - - -

    What news are you watching? Because that's exactly what they are doing - in British way, of course.

    https://www.dw.com/en/uk-pm-johnson-...ent/a-58031947
    Johnson said Britain would defy the Kremlin, insisting that it was "entirely right" to "pursue freedom of navigation in the way that we did."

    "I think it was wholly appropriate to use international waters, and, by the way, the important point is that we don’t recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea," he said in televised remarks.


    And bombs were dropped. It's UK MoD who lied.

    From same article:
    "We may appeal to reason and demand to respect international law,'' Ryabkov said, the Russian Interfax news agency reported. "If it doesn't help, we may drop bombs and not just in the path but right on target if colleagues don't get it otherwise."

    Russia has said that NATO warships sailing near Crimea are destabilizing to the region. In April, it unilaterally declared a broader area of Crimea closed to foreign naval ships.
    Sorry, not actually true. Under Article 17 of UNCLOS, innocent passage is the right to proceed through another country’s territorial waters without interference.

    It doesn't resolve them when one party (Russia) ignores the law.

    NATO does not want war, it does however want Russia to obey the law.

    The bombs were dropped as part of an ongoing exercise well away from the ship.

    That is funny, Russia is in Crimea in violation of international law, it harassed a ship in violation of international law, and the most destabilizing thing in the entire region is Russia's occupation of Ukrainian territory.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    Sorry, not actually true. Under Article 17 of UNCLOS, innocent passage is the right to proceed through another country’s territorial waters without interference.
    We already declared area closed to foreign warships back in April.

    This right isn't unlimited, you know... and going through area of active exercises, as UK MoD claims, is just asking to be shot at.

    The bombs were dropped as part of an ongoing exercise well away from the ship.
    No shit they weren't dropped on ship itself - those were warnings, given in tandem with clear instructions to leave Russian waters.

    If it was exercises then it was exercise at defending Russian maritime borders.
    Last edited by Shalcker; 2021-06-25 at 09:27 AM.

  14. #14
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    We already declared area closed to foreign warships back in April.

    This right isn't unlimited, you know... and going through area of active exercises, as UK MoD claims, is just asking to be shot at.
    It was in a normal transit sea lane, so it had every legal right to be there. It did not require Russia's permission. The exercises were not in the direct area.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    We already declared area closed to foreign warships back in April.

    This right isn't unlimited, you know... and going through area of active exercises, as UK MoD claims, is just asking to be shot at.


    No shit they weren't dropped on ship itself - those were warnings, given in tandem with clear instructions to leave Russian waters.

    If it was exercises then it was exercise at defending Russian maritime borders.
    Well away, as in not anywhere near close enough to be considered a warning. Russia has not presented any legal argument I have seen justifying any of their actions.

    FYI, an Su-24 dropping bombs is not really a threat to an AAW destroyer, so it would not be very good training (unless they are training to die).

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Russia will be within it's rights in international law - it can block passage of any ship through it's territorial waters for any reason.

    International law doesn't resolve territorial disputes. If you declare some territory your own and strike anyone trying to challenge it then international law is not a solution against it.

    If NATO would want to go to war over Crimea they had plenty of opportunities to do so.

    - - - Updated - - -

    What news are you watching? Because that's exactly what they are doing - in British way, of course.

    https://www.dw.com/en/uk-pm-johnson-...ent/a-58031947
    Johnson said Britain would defy the Kremlin, insisting that it was "entirely right" to "pursue freedom of navigation in the way that we did."

    "I think it was wholly appropriate to use international waters, and, by the way, the important point is that we don’t recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea," he said in televised remarks.


    And bombs were dropped. It's UK MoD who lied.

    From same article:
    "We may appeal to reason and demand to respect international law,'' Ryabkov said, the Russian Interfax news agency reported. "If it doesn't help, we may drop bombs and not just in the path but right on target if colleagues don't get it otherwise."

    Russia has said that NATO warships sailing near Crimea are destabilizing to the region. In April, it unilaterally declared a broader area of Crimea closed to foreign naval ships.


    Clear and premeditated provocation by UK is all that is.
    Britains response was a REACTION to Kremlins "stronk russia!" news. There's a major difference in explaining why they did as they did, to proclaiming that we have sailed to what Russia thinks is their waters, the minute they left ukranian waters

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    Well away, as in not anywhere near close enough to be considered a warning. Russia has not presented any legal argument I have seen justifying any of their actions.
    Where would you consider "close enough"?

    "Threat to security" is the usual argument; it doesn't have to be argued as noone but state itself can decide what kind of security it needs.

    FYI, an Su-24 dropping bombs is not really a threat to an AAW destroyer, so it would not be very good training (unless they are training to die).
    As you see from BBC footage British were preparing in case they would actually get shot at (or bombed).

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispin View Post
    Britains response was a REACTION to Kremlins "stronk russia!" news. There's a major difference in explaining why they did as they did, to proclaiming that we have sailed to what Russia thinks is their waters, the minute they left ukranian waters
    No, it's exact same "UK stronk!" made in different words.

    How exactly do you see "I think it was wholly appropriate to use international waters, and, by the way, the important point is that we don’t recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea" any differently? :/

    Why would that be important if it wasn't for UK provocation?
    What could "passage" be but provocative action to support such position?

    Just look at their footage:

    - - - Updated - - -

    Some top comments from BBC video:

    • British warships dont often sail in russian waters, but when they do there is a bbc journalist onboard...
    • British warship armament: -ammunition -large guns -a bbc journalist -sailors
    • This is the military equivalent of filming yourself putting your hand on a hot surface for 5 seconds in order to show everyone how tough you are.
    • Luckily the Royal Navy carries a bbc reporter on every ship otherwise no one would know.
    • Britain just wanted attention. Imagine having a bbc journalist onboard and everything is recorded. What a stage
    • Commander Owen - as you should know - "international shipping lanes" are for cargo and passenger ships. And you are not captain of RMS "Titanic". Warships are not allowed to enter territorial waters without permission of that country.
    Last edited by Shalcker; 2021-06-25 at 09:50 AM.

  17. #17
    Even though UK ship was thousand miles away from her own shores, it still Russia that threatens UK and NATO.


  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Where would you consider "close enough"?

    "Threat to security" is the usual argument; it doesn't have to be argued as noone but state itself can decide what kind of security it needs.

    As you see from BBC footage British were preparing in case they would actually get shot at (or bombed).

    - - - Updated - - -

    No, it's exact same "UK stronk!" made in different words.

    How exactly do you see "I think it was wholly appropriate to use international waters, and, by the way, the important point is that we don’t recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea" any differently? :/

    Why would that be important if it wasn't for UK provocation?
    What could "passage" be but provocative action to support such position?

    Just look at their footage:

    - - - Updated - - -

    Some top comments from BBC video:

    • British warships dont often sail in russian waters, but when they do there is a bbc journalist onboard...
    • British warship armament: -ammunition -large guns -a bbc journalist -sailors
    • This is the military equivalent of filming yourself putting your hand on a hot surface for 5 seconds in order to show everyone how tough you are.
    • Luckily the Royal Navy carries a bbc reporter on every ship otherwise no one would know.
    • Britain just wanted attention. Imagine having a bbc journalist onboard and everything is recorded. What a stage
    • Commander Owen - as you should know - "international shipping lanes" are for cargo and passenger ships. And you are not captain of RMS "Titanic". Warships are not allowed to enter territorial waters without permission of that country.
    Since when waters around crimea are russian ?

  19. #19
    The Lightbringer dribbles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    The Sunny Uplands
    Posts
    3,212
    It wasn't just the UK there but a multinational flotilla, the US and Dutch had warships very close by too. Russia are probably just upset the UK will sell warships to Ukraine.

    The message from Nato to Russia and China who would also be watching this closely, is we will sail in what we regard international waters and there is nothing you will do, or can do about it.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Since when waters around crimea are russian ?
    Since the moment Crimea joined Russia, duh.

    If you want to add war for Crimea to C19 then you don't need to arrange provocations around it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •