Russian-Ukrainian naval incident

[Vanoi]

Be careful Axeodus. This a Russia-can-do-no-wrong thread. It's obviously the West's and Ukraine's fault this happened.

[paleologos]

I posted links for interviews with an expert and in addition links to his bona fides and you respond with sarcasm.

It's not a matter of who is right and who is wrong, you are not going to fix all the wrongs in the world to begin with, nor will everyone trust you to fix those wrongs equally if you could.

So, it's only a matter of what to do to avoid the worse.
Lawrence Wilkerson, an American expert says the West need to keep their hands off the Ukraine.
Do you think you are right and he is wrong?
Or are we simply going to throw sarcasm at each other along the lines: "Be careful Vanoi, this is a lambast Russia thread because the USA and their dupes can do no wrong".

[Vanoi]

So it's only a matter of what to do to avoid the worse. I wonder in the 1930s when the Allies continued to appease Hilter allowing him to take territory of other nations on the pretext that it was German land or Germans lived there if that was the same reasoning.

Of course you don't live in any Eastern European country that actually has to deal with Russia. You live somewhere else where there is no worry. Where you can advocate for these countries to give up their own territory for the sake of not making worse. Territory that isn't yours to give away.

And people wonder why countries like Poland are so anti-EU now.

[paleologos]

I find it extraordinarily malevolent or catastrophically naive to put Hitler and Putin in the same basket.
Hitler belongs in a basket alone.
And the nazis today are to be found among the Ukrainians, not the Russians.

And Russia did not try to annex Florida, it annexed Crimea, the population of which would rather be with Russia than the Ukraine.

Watch the interviews, don't be afraid to be more informed.

[Prodromos]

Lawrence Wilkerson is a blame-America-firster in the style of Ron Paul. "America First" is code for "America Alone, Weak and Isolated." Who benefits from this? Not America, that I can tell you.

[Vanoi]

I find it extraordinarily malevolent or catastrophically naive to put Hitler and Putin in the same basket.
Hitler belongs in a basket alone.
And the nazis today are to be found among the Ukrainians, not the Russians.

And Russia did not try to annex Florida, it annexed Crimea, the population of which would rather be with Russia than the Ukraine.

Watch the interviews, don't be afraid to be more informed.

Putin uee the same pretexts Hitler did to support insurgency against their land and annex their territory.

Russia invaded Crimea then came up rigged referendum under their control that didn't even include a status quo option to remain with Ukraine.

Invading a country's soverign terrtiory regardless is a violation on the UN Charter.

It's not your territory to give away.

[Sar1n]

I find it extraordinarily malevolent or catastrophically naive to put Hitler and Putin in the same basket.
Hitler belongs in a basket alone.
And the nazis today are to be found among the Ukrainians, not the Russians.

And Russia did not try to annex Florida, it annexed Crimea, the population of which would rather be with Russia than the Ukraine.

Watch the interviews, don't be afraid to be more informed.

Parallel with Hitler is entirely correct here. Just like him, Putin is riding a wave of aggressive nationalistic sentiment, treating the breakup of USSR the same way Hitler did with Treaty of Versailles. And for that reason, he cannot back off without losing his support and position, and after his demands are met he'll want more and be even more aggressive. I explained that several posts ago.

And maybe you should stop watching Russian propaganda. Unlike you, I had the opportunity to actually speak with some Ukrainians that came here after the war started, andit's different from what you think.

[Pavlik the Rus]

You should learn russian or ukrainean and experience on your own ukrainean propaganda, Sarin. If you live in country, wich can be named as civilized, you will be shoked. I have nothing to say more.
And do not counter me with russian one. Different levels and without human hatred at "our" side.

And here is a short video of first interigations of captured crews

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9HKcNBG37k

They told that they had direct order to create this provocation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2fCVWRSPiI

And here full version of radio talks in area. FSB ships asked, not ordered, just asked to wait, simply wait. But sailors had their own orders.
Go ahead, translate it.

Meantime martial law ordered in most anti-Poroshenko regions for a one month. What will happen within 30 days to make a continuation?

[athanaric]

I find it extraordinarily malevolent or catastrophically naive to put Hitler and Putin in the same basket.

It's not about Putin being "just as bad as Hitler" (hardly anybody would claim that), it's about him using similar or identical political tactics and strategies. The chief difference is that Putin's a better strategist and far less deluded, which arguably makes him more dangerous in some ways.

Hitler belongs in a basket alone.

Why? There's plenty of totalitarians and mass murderers around in history.

And the nazis today are to be found among the Ukrainians, not the Russians.

Putin's rule is de facto fascist, and his political opponents keep having unfortunate accidents, so I'd say there's enough totalitarianism and villainy to go around on both sides.

And Russia did not try to annex Florida, it annexed Crimea, the population of which would rather be with Russia than the Ukraine.

If Russian rule/overlordship is so beneficial to Ukraine, why didn't Russia bother to make a better offer to Ukrainians? Like guarantees that their territory will stay intact, that local languages and cultures will be allowed to thrive, that there will be something resembling free speech etc.

[Vanoi]

You got any proper sources other than YouTube?

[Pavlik the Rus]

Putin's rule is de facto fascist

And you can explain or proove it?
Everyone knows what is fasism and obviously you will do this very easilly.

[Sar1n]

You should learn russian or ukrainean and experience on your own ukrainean propaganda, Sarin. If you live in country, wich can be named as civilized, you will be shoked. I have nothing to say more.

And here is a short video of first interigations of captured crews

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9HKcNBG37k

They told that they had direct order to create this provocation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2fCVWRSPiI

And here full version of radio talks in area. FSB ships asked, not ordered, just asked wait, simply wait.
Go ahead, translate it

Thinking that the Russian interrogation was made without coersion is naive. We have way too much experience with this matter in my country.

..and when they did not wait, they were rammed and boarded.

But I wouldn't be surprised if they were sent to the strait hoping for aggressive action from Russia. Ukrainians are desperate, and rightly so. Putin is stalling for time here. He's hoping that western leaders will remain indecisive until elections, leaders change, and things slip into "status quo". Ukraine needs escalation rather than war of attrition to get public eye and with it, a support from the west.

[Vanoi]

Putin's rule is more like authoritarian than facist.

[paleologos]

Lawrence Wilkerson is a blame-America-firster in the style of Ron Paul. "America First" is code for "America Alone, Weak and Isolated." Who benefits from this? Not America, that I can tell you.

Acknowledging that it is far easier to adapt your own behavior than to force others to comply to your convenience is hardly blame-America-first.

And if you investigate his mindset a little more you will find not one, neither two or three, but several interviews of him explaining that it is a hallmark of empires in decline to squander their power in peripheral conflicts.
Maybe one needs to consider how beneficial it will (not) be for America to continue misplacing it's power.

The other fallacy in your post is the placement of a man who is an analyst, strategist, former soldier and current academician in the same basket with a politician who's always fishing for votes.

Putin uee the same pretexts Hitler did to support insurgency against their land and annex their territory.

Apart from you being conspicuously selective on the matter of which insurgencies warrant you to cry a river, how is it that you take it for granted that the Ukrainian insurgency required foreign provocateurs given the coup d'etat prior to that?
And what exactly were the pretexts?

Russia invaded Crimea then came up rigged referendum under their control that didn't even include a status quo option to remain with Ukraine.

How do you know the referendum was rigged?
I suppose the same way Trump would have known the 2016 elections would have been rigged had he lost.

Invading a country's sovereign territory regardless is a violation on the UN Charter.
It's not your territory to give away.

The only reason Crimea was a part of the Ukraine is an administrative action: 1954 transfer of Crimea.
So the Russians have grounds to claim it is theirs.

Parallel with Hitler is entirely correct here.

You are talking about someone who tried to conquer the world.
Only Hitler is Hitler.

Just like him, Putin is riding a wave of aggressive nationalistic sentiment, treating the breakup of USSR the same way Hitler did with Treaty of Versailles.
And for that reason, he cannot back off without losing his support and position, and after his demands are met he'll want more and be even more aggressive.
I explained that several posts ago.

Your explanations do not hold more water than the explanations of Lawrence Wilkerson.
How arrogant do you want your posts to read like?

And maybe you should stop watching Russian propaganda.

Nobody pressed a gun at the man's head and demanded that he read a statement someone else wrote.
I find it intellectually self delusional (not to mention self-defeating) to take for granted that anything that challenges your preconceptions is the propaganda of some evil people.

Unlike you, I had the opportunity to actually speak with some Ukrainians that came here after the war started, and it's different from what you think.

I am sure they are very traumatized people.
Maybe the best way to avoiding traumatizing more of them is for us westerners to let the Ukrainians know that they will be neutral for the next hundred years.

It's not about Putin being "just as bad as Hitler" (hardly anybody would claim that)

Some people in here are claiming just that.
Dishonest or delusional?

..it's about him using similar or identical political tactics and strategies.

Hitler did not invent those.

The chief difference is that Putin's a better strategist and far less deluded, which arguably makes him more dangerous in some ways.

No, the chief difference is that Putin is not trying to conquer the world.

Why? There's plenty of totalitarians and mass murderers around in history.

But only one who made genocide the reason for existing even when his country was loosing a total war.

Putin's rule is de facto fascist...

Not that you are correct but his ideologies are hardly relevant.

...and his political opponents keep having unfortunate accidents...

Not necessarily people of greater integrity than him.

If Russian rule/overlordship is so beneficial to Ukraine, why didn't Russia bother to make a better offer to Ukrainians? Like guarantees that their territory will stay intact, that local languages and cultures will be allowed to thrive, that there will be something resembling free speech etc.

Once more, Russia did not try to conquer the Ukraine.
They don't want to conquer the Ukraine.
If they did want to conquer the Ukraine they would have done it and there is nothing the USA could or would have done to deter, or reverse that

You got any proper sources other than YouTube?

I did not post links to vloggers, this is an academician's interviews.
I did post links to his credentials.
I trust deep down you can tell the difference between the rants of a professional youtuber and a professional political and strategic analyst.





I will conclude this post with the now famous words of Major General Smedley Butler, one of the most highly decorated American soldiers of all time:

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious.
It is the only one international in scope.
It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people.
Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about.
It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many.
Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

[Love Mountain]

It is comical to see the discussion here, to say the least. The entire existence of the bridge between Crimea and Russia is a provocation. Don't believe me? Even Russians know that, here's an article from Gazeta.ru that discusses international practices regarding international waters, their relation to the Black Sea, the Crimean bridge in question, and most importantly, the legal status of the Sea of Azov. It's in Russian of course, so I suppose you'll have to trust me to be the "unbiased" translator. It is rather lengthy so I'll note the most important information.

1. The legal status of the Sea of Azov is ambiguous. Sea of Azov was the possession of USSR, but post-1991 the question has remained unresolved

2. Despite the ambiguity, Alexander Nikolayevich, Ph.D of Case Law, vice-president of Russian Association of Maritime Law said this when asked, "Recently, the head of Crimea, Sergey Aksyanov, stated that the construction of the bridge that goes through the Kerch strait, requires an agreement from Ukraine. Why?" The professor answered, "Absolutely, and legally, it is a correct statement. The Kerch strait connects the Sea of Azov with the Black Sea. Ukraine is an Azov and Black Sea government. The are objective interests in maintaining the passage of Azov, in and out. Yes, the Kerch strait is not international waters, and it never was, but today it serves economic interests of two Azov governments. Any limits, even potential, are bad for the population living on the coast of the Azov sea."

Note, that I don't see any citation of law that would prevent Russia from building the bridge anyway, which they did. And specifically, the bridge is too low for any Panamex ships to pass through. Panamex, which is a regulation for ships to pass through the Panama canal. Nowdays ships are built even larger due to the expansion of the Panama canal, not that it's relevant since the bridge is too low anyhow. Anyway, the economic effects are evident.

[According to data compiled by the administration of the Mariupol sea port, in 2016 Panamax type ships accounted for 23% of all types of ships (144 vessels) that used this port and generated 43% of the volume of commodities transported in this port in that year. The necessity of renting several smaller ships instead of one larger ship has raised the cost of transportation, thereby reducing the attractiveness of Ukrainian ports and of their exports (due to a hike in the price of insurance of ships and their cargo, caused by the risk arising from operating in an unstable region threatened by military action). It should be noted that these limitations are of no particular importance for the operation of Russian ports located in the eastern part of the Sea of Azov. The average water depth in this part of the basin is 5 metres, which generates natural limitations for vessels operating there. The water depth in the ports of Berdiansk and Mariupol, on the other hand, is more than 8 metres, which enables ships with a much greater tonnage to use these ports.

Coincidence? Right.

Anyway, this is a Russian provocation aimed to elicit a military response from Russia. A decisive military defeat, like in Georgia, will result in yet another destabilization of the government. This means that buying out the Ukrainian government is either too slow for Kremlin's liking, or they simply can't. Most likely the former, rather than the latter. The thing is, Ukraine can't take this bait. They have to use this incident to make a symbolic gesture to mobilize their population, and to garner international support. They cannot, under any circumstance, resort to military escalation. If they do, Russia will crush them, and I'm not talking about the Russian army, I'm talking about their PMC forces, the Wagner Group. Regardless of whether they are really a part of the Russian army is irrelevant, they're an effective force that gives Russia deniability. Russia doesn't have to officially use their military to crush Ukraine, they will simply scale up what they did in Eastern Ukraine and continue doing, up to 11. Ukraine will lose regardless of how big of a response Russia gives them, so they cannot respond militarily. Nobody will go to war over Ukraine. Nobody. The only candidate is USA, where Trump will most likely be happy to use anything to garner support, and where anti-Russian sentiment is especially strong, not to mention we do not have the risk that Europe faces, a devastation from conventional warfare. However, any US response will take months to formulate and by that time, Russia can destroy the political regime in Kiev. For the sake of self-preservation, Ukraine cannot mis-step here. Angry words and symbolic gestures are fine, a substantive response isn't. We'll see what happens.

It's not about Putin being "just as bad as Hitler" (hardly anybody would claim that), it's about him using similar or identical political tactics and strategies. The chief difference is that Putin's a better strategist and far less deluded, which arguably makes him more dangerous in some ways.

Specifics please. It's a meme at this point.

[Sar1n]

And you can explain or proove it?
Everyone knows what is fasism and obviously you will do this very easilly.

Let's see about that....

In Press Freedom Index, Russia has dropped to 148th place in 2018, behind the likes of Myanmar or Venezuela. Quoting one opposition journalist, Yevgenia Albats, "Today the directors of the television channels and the newspapers are invited every Thursday into the Kremlin office of the deputy head of administration, Vladislav Surkov to learn what news should be presented, and where. Journalists are bought with enormous salaries." Many prominent journalists and politicians have been assassinated, including Yushenkov, Politkovskaya, Klebnikov, Nemtsov and many others, and yet more have been imprisoned after closed, unfair trials and in some cases died of abuse in prison...human rights situation is detiorating rapidly, and international organizations that monitor such things are being increasingly barred from operating in Russia.

OSCE has called at least one elections into Duma as completely unsatisactory in terms of freedom and transparency, and generally regards the situation as bad. There was no serious contender in last presidential elections, which were just a sham.

President's personal power has increased greatly during his reign, and during the presidency of Putin's pet Medvedev, term length has increased from 4 to 6 years, for example.

Putin's rhetoric, and actions during his leadership, have been aggressive and nationalistic, portraying some post-Soviet states as artifical constructs made by west against Russia. Just a few quotes: (about dissolution of Soviet Union)"greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the Twentieth Century." "Ukraine is not even a state!" "Crimea has always been and remains an inseparable part of Russia"(verifiably false, for most of the history of either Russia or Crimea, it wasn't Russian, and mind the fact that it's internationally recognized part of a different sovereign country).

Through his arrangement with the oligarchs, he controls most of Russia's industry too.

I think that checks all boxes.

[Love Mountain]

Let's see about that....

In Press Freedom Index, Russia has dropped to 148th place in 2018, behind the likes of Myanmar or Venezuela. Quoting one opposition journalist, Yevgenia Albats, "Today the directors of the television channels and the newspapers are invited every Thursday into the Kremlin office of the deputy head of administration, Vladislav Surkov to learn what news should be presented, and where. Journalists are bought with enormous salaries." Many prominent journalists and politicians have been assassinated, including Yushenkov, Politkovskaya, Klebnikov, Nemtsov and many others, and yet more have been imprisoned after closed, unfair trials and in some cases died of abuse in prison...human rights situation is detiorating rapidly, and international organizations that monitor such things are being increasingly barred from operating in Russia.

That's not unique to fascist governments. Or is China, Somalia, Vietnam, Syria fascist too now?

OSCE has called at least one elections into Duma as completely unsatisactory in terms of freedom and transparency, and generally regards the situation as bad. There was no serious contender in last presidential elections, which were just a sham.

So are elections in a lot of other countries, what does this have to do with fascism?

President's personal power has increased greatly during his reign, and during the presidency of Putin's pet Medvedev, term length has increased from 4 to 6 years, for example.

Increased centralization is not indicative of fascism whatsoever.

Putin's rhetoric, and actions during his leadership, have been aggressive and nationalistic, portraying some post-Soviet states as artifical constructs made by west against Russia. Just a few quotes: (about dissolution of Soviet Union)"greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the Twentieth Century." "Ukraine is not even a state!" "Crimea has always been and remains an inseparable part of Russia"(verifiably false, for most of the history of either Russia or Crimea, it wasn't Russian, and mind the fact that it's internationally recognized part of a different sovereign country).

Nationalism does share many common tropes with Fascism but it is not, by itself, Fascist. Otherwise we would have to call China fascist, India, the Arab Spring, South Africa, and Turkey. These are not fascist countries nor do they resemble fascist regimes.

Through his arrangement with the oligarchs, he controls most of Russia's industry too.

Except he doesn't control them. Read this book to gain a better understanding of Putin's complex web of alliance in Russia.

I think that checks all boxes.

None of this suggests Russia is a fascist country. There are better ways to do so, come on.

[Vanoi]

Apart from you being conspicuously selective on the matter of which insurgencies warrant you to cry a river, how is it that you take it for granted that the Ukrainian insurgency required foreign provocateurs given the coup d'etat prior to that?
And what exactly were the pretexts?

There was no coup in Ukraine. The pro-Russian president violated the EU agreement that kept him in power and was impeached by Ukraine's parliament unanimously including representatives from the Russian speaking regions.

I already explained the pretexts.

ow do you know the referendum was rigged?
I suppose the same way Trump would have known the 2016 elections would have been rigged had he lost.

You must have selective reading. What's fair about a referendum triggered after Russia invaded Crimea and purposely included no option to stay with Ukraine under it's current Constitution that governed Crimea.

The only reason Crimea was a part of the Ukraine is an administrative action: 1954 transfer of Crimea.
So the Russians have grounds to claim it is theirs.

Same logic as Hitler. A claim does not make it theirs.

[Pavlik the Rus]

No. It does not.

Albats have status of foreign agent and agree with that. It is not our invention, many countries have such thing.
"Ukraine is not even a state!" - can you provide a link to this? Video is a best option here. Two other quotes i know, and i see nothing wrong with that. Where is nationalism here? Do you know how many nationalities live in Russia?
And you should make more researches before such posting, especially about Paul Khlebnikov.

Seriously, you have not prooved that state system is a fasist one.
Huge number of sins - corruption, unprofessionalism, populism - yes. Fasism - no.

Meantime this fact gives no excuse to modern informational war against RF, and your sources, like those you mentioned, are nothing more but instrument in this war.

[Cookiegod]

Oh boy. This incident is barely a day old and you guys have already invoked Godwin's law. When losing an argument, start talking about Hitler. It's not like those comparisons are forced, uneducated, poorly thought-through at best, amirite?!

Now to the facts:
Russia and Ukraine have a 2003 agreement on that the Kerch strait connecting the Black sea to the sea of Azov is open to both sides.
That is correct. No one is disputing this. Not even Russia.
Some of you guys accuse the Russians of breaching this agreement. Again: Not correct. Freedom of passage does not mean freedom of regulations. Most straits have those regulations. It's the same as with airplanes having to check in towers so to avoid accidents. What applies e.g. to Dover strait also applies to the strait of Kerch.

Now with regards to Kerch there are two developments since 2014 that have to be kept in mind:
1) The bridge that has been built across the strait and various threats from various Ukrainian actors (both state officials and non-state organisations) to destroy that bridge, which forces Russia to implement additional security measures. So not only is there a much tighter bottleneck now, but Russia also has to search Ukrainian vessels.

2) The "Nord" incident and numerous since then. Ukraine seized a number of Russian ships in both its harbours and in the seas, violating both its maritime agreements with Russia with regards to the shared use of the Azov sea, and a number of both international laws and national laws with regards to the way it treated the crews. Of course, no one gives a about human rights in the west if an ally does it. Russia reacts in a remarkably efficient way to this, simply by forcing Ukrainian ships to wait for 1-5 days before they can pass the strait, thereby putting the Ukrainians under economical pressure to resolve this issue (every day wasted is a loss of money) and without stooping so low as the Ukrainians have and simply arrest innocent seamen.

Not only is it factually wrong to accuse the Russians of violating the treaty (they are in the grey area at best, but are still allowing free passage, though after some waiting), and not only is it hypocritical, given that the Ukraine has already violated either said or a related treaty, it's also idiotic given that Ukraine has a very easy way of ending this .


... Except of course it won't, especially with the elections not far off.

There are two simple reasons why Poroshenko wanted martial law: 1) It would've forced the elections to be put on hold; and 2) there's no better way to get a people to rally behind its leader than some external threat.

Sure, If one believes the russian pressure to keep Ukraine away from the EU didnt exist beforehand, Janukowytsch wasnt an unpopular SOB, and in general everything russian propaganda claims, then russia is just fighting back against the evil West.

Again with some bull claiming that Yanukovych was pro Russian. He was not. He wasn't interested in sacrificing his country's economic interests for the greater Western good. Which is the greatest crime of all.

You're 20 years behind events.

Under Yeltsin, Russia experimented with something closer to western democracy, but it did not work well as the government's position was weak after dissolution of Soviet Union and couldn't prevent the rise of Russian oligarchs. Despite the positive reception from the west, the years under Yeltsin are not remembered fondly in Russia.

Yeah, I wonder why:

"Democracy"
Also, neither he nor the West tried to do anything to prevent the rise of the oligarchs, they enabled it and were very much part of it. Yeltsins deal with Putin was for Putin to be a placeholder so that Yeltsins daughter would take over. Berezovskyi and Khodorkovskyi also wanted him as a mere figurehead.

And as someone living in the area, I guarantee you...the Finnish sentiment is prevalent in the entire area between Russian borders and where iron curtain used to be, and for good reason.

Three questions: 1) Does Russia hold any claims whatsoever on Finnish territory? As far as I'm aware, they do not.
2) What interests does Russia have in Finland? Afaik: They want that piece of land to be neutral and not a staging ground for an invasion. If the Russophobia in your country intends to ward off Russian interest in its country, it accomplishes the exact opposite thing: Join NATO and Finnish cities and military installations are guaranteed to become target coordinates for Russian nukes. So don't you think your hysteria there is more than a bit contraproductive?
3) And this is the important one: How can a Finnish patriot who's worth his salt be against the Crimean declaration of independence?!
ALL the circumstances are the same. Autonomous part of a larger entity? Check: Finland was part of the Russian empire. Preexisting governmental bodies declare independence due to revolutions in the main country and a differing national identity? Check: The Finnish senate declared independence as the Russian empire ceased to exist, and declared that Fins did not want to be ruled by another ethnicity. Were foreign troops present? Check: Germans. Referendum? Whoops, Finland never had one.

So are Crimeans a lesser species compared to Fins, so that the same logic does not apply? The Crimean republic and Sevastopol were bound to Ukraine through its constitution. A constitution that had been violated by the leaders of the coup. No one in Crimea or elsewhere had any constitutional obligation whatsoever to take orders from an unconstitutional government. Especially not after the Korsun pogrom on February 20th 2014, where Crimean antimaidan protestors were attacked on their way home from Kiev by Euromaidan activists, which riled the east and south of Ukraine up against Euromaidan.