Risky Venture In Black Sea

[Shining-one]

Hard to believe what I read. A British warship tries to sale through a course that passes a few miles from Crimea. This in order to take a particular side in the dispute between Russia and Ukraine. Crimea was a huge naval base of the Soviet Union but was contested when the USSR collapsed. Given Ukraine drifted from Moscow's sphere of influence, together with Poland, Baltic States and much of Eastern Europe, it was hoped in the U.S. NATO would eventually gain control of Crimea. As we know, Crimea was integrated into the Russian Federation some years ago, after a spat with Ukraine. Neither the E.U or U.S. accepted Crimea as part of the R.F. so the recent naval confrontation took place amongst a pretty tense area of sea. Russia sent about 20 aircraft into the skies and claimed to have fired warning shots in front of the British warship.
This rift between Moscow and Ukraine appears to be a ticking time-bomb. Add that to a huge rift between Russia and the E.U. I get the impression Boris Johnson was used as a patsy to "test the waters". Very dangerous, however. Once someone loses their nerve, you get real clashes with possible casualties.

[Shining-one]

I would definitely side with Russia here. Krushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine in the 1960s but the decision was not popular. Therefore, Krushchev became the only Soviet leader to be deposed and removed from office - apart from Gorbachev. Given Krushchev never imagined the USSR would fragment, making a gift of Crimea wasn't an issue then. And although the taking of Crimea by force strained international law, promises made to Gorbachev over NATO expansion had likewise been clearly broken. We should recall Germany was reunified under the assurance NATO wouldn't expand Eastward. And lastly, Crimeans are mostly ethnic Russians and speak Russian. Far as I'm aware they supported integration with the RF.

[Guest Gone Fishing...]

16 hours ago, Shining-one said:

I would definitely side with Russia here

 

Yep, poking the Bear (again)

Craig Murray - ex-FCO Ambassador - (with dealings in Maritime Law) has written 2 pieces explaining this situation;

 

Black Ops in the Black Sea
June 23, 2021  by craig
Sometimes it is worth stating the obvious. The United Kingdom does not have a coast in the Black Sea. British warships are not infesting the Black Sea out of a peaceful intent, and there is no cause for them to be entering disputed waters close to anybody’s coast. This is not a question of freedom of navigation under the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea. There is nowhere that a British warship can be heading from the UK under the right of innocent passage that would require it to pass through coastal waters by Crimea. The Black Sea is famously a cul-de-sac. 
 

There is certainly a right to pass to the Ukrainian port of Odessa – but that in now way requires passing close to Crimea. This is therefore not “innocent passage”. There is a right of passage through the Kerch strait, which Russia has to date respected. Russia has not just a right but a duty to enforce sea lanes for safe navigation through the strait, exactly as the UK does off Dover. 
 

I expect we will now be in for a mad frenzy of Russophobia, yet again. I shall comment further once I have more details of why and exactly where Russia was firing warning shots. But just remember this, it was not Russian warships near the British coast, it was British warships in an area where they had no business other than ludicrous, British nationalist, sabre-rattling. 

 

The UK needs to lose its imperial delusions. Sending gunboats to the Crimea is as mad as – well, sailing an aircraft carrier expressly to threaten the Chinese. There are those who see this activity as evidence of the UK’s continued great power status. I see it as evidence of lunacy. 

 

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/06/black-ops-in-the-black-sea/ 

And a more recent and more detailed piece;

 

Warmongering British Actions in the Black Sea
June 24, 2021 by craig
The pre-positioning of the BBC correspondent on HMS Defender shatters the pretence that the BBC is something different to a state propaganda broadcaster. It also makes plain that this propaganda exercise to provoke the Russian military was calculated and deliberate. Indeed that was confirmed by that BBC correspondent’s TV news report last night when he broadcast that the Defender’s route “had been approved at the very highest levels of the British government.” 

 

The Prime Minister does not normally look at the precise positions of British ships. This was a deliberate act of dangerous belligerence. 

 

The presence of a BBC correspondent is more than a political point. In fact it has important legal consequences. One thing that is plain is that the Defender cannot possible claim it was engaged in “innocent passage” through territorial waters, between Odessa and Georgia. Let me for now leave aside the fact that there is absolutely no necessity to pass within 12 miles of Cape Fiolent on such passage, and the designated sea lane (originally designated by Ukraine) stays just out of the territorial sea. Look at the definition of innocent passage in Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: 
 

Very plainly this was not innocent passage. It was certainly 2 (d) an act of propaganda, and equally certainly 2 (c), an exercise in collecting information on military defences. I would argue it is also 2 (a), a threat of force. 
 

So far as I can establish, the British are not claiming they were engaged in innocent passage, which is plainly nonsense, but that they were entering territorial waters off Crimea at the invitation of the government of Ukraine, and that they regard Crimea as the territory of Ukraine and Crimean territorial waters as Ukrainian territorial waters. 
 

I want to impress on you how mad this is. The whole point of “territorial sea” is that, legally, it is an integral part of the state and that the state’s full domestic law applies within the territorial sea. That is not the case with the much larger 200 mile exclusive economic zone or sometimes even larger continental shelf, where the coastal state’s legal jurisdiction only applies to specific marine or mineral resources rights. 
 

Let me put it this way. If somebody is murdered on a ship within twelve nautical miles of the coast, the coastal state has jurisdiction and its law applies. If somebody is murdered on a ship more than twelve miles off the coast, the jurisdiction and law of the flag state of the ship applies, not the law of any coastal state in whose exclusive economic zone the ship is. 
 

In international law, the twelve mile territorial sea is as much part of the state as its land. So to sail a warship into Crimean territorial seas is exactly the same act as to land a regiment of paratroops in the Crimea and declare you are doing so at the invitation of the Government of Ukraine. 
 

There is no dispute that Russia is in de facto control of the Crimea, irrespective of British support for the government of Ukraine’s claim to the region. It is also true that Russian annexation of the Crimea was not carried out in an accordance with international law. However, it is not, in practice, likely to be reversed and the situation needs to be resolved by treaty or by the International Court of Justice. In the interim, the UK government legal position can only be that Russia is an “occupying power”. It is impossible that the UK government legal position is that Ukraine is in “effective control” of the territory.

We need to see the legal advice provided by FCO legal advisers. It is simply not the practice in international law to ignore the existence of an occupying power which is a recognised state, and act with armed forces on the authority of a government not in effective control. The difference in British attitude towards Russia as an occupying power and towards Israel is tellingly different. 
 

The legality of the British action is, at very best, moot. In realpolitik, it is an act of brinkmanship with a nuclear power and further effort to ramp up the new Cold War with Russia, to the benefit of the military, security services and armaments companies and the disbenefit of those who need more socially useful government spending. It is further an act of jingoist populism for the neo-liberal elite to distract the masses, as the billionaires’ incredible wealth continues to boom. 

 

NATO will shortly commence a naval exercise in the Black Sea. As not all the member states of NATO are quite as unhinged as Johnson, it is to be hoped it will refrain from this kind of extra layer of provocation. There is a large part of me that says they cannot possibly be mad enough to attempt to intervene in Ukraine with military force, or at least its threat. But then I look at Johnson and Biden, and worry. This can all go horribly wrong.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/06/warmongering-british-actions-in-the-black-sea/ 

 

 

[Guest Gone Fishing...]

Big boys playing silly games with their big toys  :O)
 

 

[Shining-one]

Russia should have been integrated after the reunification of Germany and not isolated. The thought was Russia would decline into insignificance so NATO could occupy Crimea as a naval base. That hasn't happened. The fact is the U.S. has also declined, so essentially neither Putin or Biden lead superpowers any more. In my view Russia is kind of weak economically and politically. The U.S is weak culturally and in education. Yet the U.S. still aspires to topple China and Russia as it sees itself still as a superpower state. Meantime, Russia reformed its once degraded military and is determined to regain at least some of its former status. The Crimea is now its main naval base and that was secured by the approval of ethnic Russians who live there. From their view, being governed by the EU isn't what they would want at this time.
Bottom line is Russia can defend Crimea and would act if it felt overy threatened by other countries in the Black Sea. Whether Boris understands that reality is anyone's guess. The alternative is to try and build a stable post Soviet Europe with Russia included and hopefully democratic over time.

[Mr H]

Wasn't there a big who ha in Washington just couple of weeks ago because an Iranian ship sailed in the Atlantic?

 

One rule for some I guess....

[Strummer101]

4 hours ago, Shining-one said:

Russia should have been integrated after the reunification of Germany and not isolated. The thought was Russia would decline into insignificance so NATO could occupy Crimea as a naval base. That hasn't happened. The fact is the U.S. has also declined, so essentially neither Putin or Biden lead superpowers any more. In my view Russia is kind of weak economically and politically. The U.S is weak culturally and in education. Yet the U.S. still aspires to topple China and Russia as it sees itself still as a superpower state. Meantime, Russia reformed its once degraded military and is determined to regain at least some of its former status. The Crimea is now its main naval base and that was secured by the approval of ethnic Russians who live there. From their view, being governed by the EU isn't what they would want at this time.
Bottom line is Russia can defend Crimea and would act if it felt overy threatened by other countries in the Black Sea. Whether Boris understands that reality is anyone's guess. The alternative is to try and build a stable post Soviet Europe with Russia included and hopefully democratic over time.

Your previous summary of the recent history of Crimea is correct indeed. But the US is streets ahead in terms of military spending.

 

The rise is the US annual defence budget under Trump, was more than the total Russian annual military spend. Let me repeat that - the US spending rise was more than the total Russian spend.

 

Having said that, it is clear that Crimea will not be 'liberated', and eastern Ukraine is essentially at the mercy of Russian invasion, should they so choose. As we saw recently, it proves a handy tool for Putin to use, to gain proper attention, if he is feeling side-lined. Move a number of troops and some hardware around, you have Biden on the phone, a summit booked, ambassadors reinstated - overall not a bad outcome from a spot of sabre-rattling. 

 

Quite what the Royal Navy was up to is beyond me. At the time of the recent Russian troop build-up, the US intended to sail a ship into the Black Sea, but then cancelled. Were the plucky Brits seen as a useful proxy? Possibly less provocative. Well, that went well 

[Shining-one]

For me, the main argument in defence of Russia is Crimea's ethnic Russian population. Ukraine only has ethnic Russians in the mining East, and these were treated pretty badly. That's because anti Russian sentiment spread after the fall of the USSR. Russia was blamed for the Stalin work camps and deportations. Most of all, the reality of economic growth under Communism lead many ex block countries to blame Russia and Stalin. Yet, Gorbachev reformed the USSR and sought democracy with global integration. All of that turned very sour with the end result of Putinism going back to isolation and repression. The bottom line now is this is very much a war. Russia has subs all over the British coast and has moved into the Middle East. Meantime, attempts continue to weaken Putin's grip and arm Ukraine, as well as encourage more rift.
The question is the same as Gorbachev stated. One incident could spark a real war with only losers. I think Kennedy and Krushchev were a lot smarter and respectful to each other than leaders today. More aware through Afghanistan and Vietnam of the risks.

[Shining-one]

Also I suppose the Russian subs on the UK coast would have angered NATO. These have been very aggressive over the months. Given Russia is at a huge disadvantage geographically, the subs offer an avenue to strike anywhere. Hypersonic missiles also eliminate the defence shield strategy because it's so difficult to shoot them down. Looking from the point of being surrounded by Poland, Ukraine, Baltic bases, Russia will feel far safer with hypersonic strike capacity.

[Shining-one]

None of it any good for me. I went to study Russian at uni in 1989. These days I use it for psychology research of my own. Ironically any trip to Russia would be impossible due to visa cost and vaccine. At least so far as the grant goes, it was a waste of taxpayers money. Neither would I like modern Russia where they now drink beer and wear masks.

[Grumpy Owl]

Classified Ministry of Defence documents found at bus stop

Quote

Classified Ministry of Defence documents containing details about HMS Defender and the British military have been found at a bus stop in Kent.

One set of documents discusses the likely Russian reaction to the ship's passage through Ukrainian waters off the Crimea coast on Wednesday.

Another details plans for a possible UK military presence in Afghanistan after the US-led Nato operation there ends.

The government said an investigation had been launched.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it is investigating "an incident in which sensitive defence papers were recovered by a member of the public". The MoD employee concerned reported the loss at the time, it said.

• Russian jets and ships shadow British warship
• What will be the fallout from Black Sea incident?
• UK confirms 'drawdown' of Afghan troops

The documents, almost 50 pages in all, were found in a soggy heap behind a bus stop in Kent early on Tuesday morning.

A member of the public, who wishes to remain anonymous, contacted the BBC when he realised the sensitive nature of the contents.

The BBC believes the documents, which include emails and PowerPoint presentations, originated in the office of a senior official at the MoD.

The documents relating to the Royal Navy's Type 45 destroyer, HMS Defender, show that a mission described by the MoD as an "innocent passage through Ukrainian territorial waters", with guns covered and the ship's helicopter stowed in its hangar, was conducted in the expectation that Russia might respond aggressively.

From: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57624942

 

You can't make this kind of stuff up. So you're telling me that someone within the MOD 'carelessly' printed off a load of emails and 'PowerPoint presentations' and then dumped them behind some bus stop in Kent, which some 'unsuspecting' member of the public then 'found' and reported to the BBC?

 

I suppose it makes a change from a USB stick being 'carelessly left behind on a train'.

[Strummer101]

On 6/25/2021 at 10:23 PM, Shining-one said:

Also I suppose the Russian subs on the UK coast would have angered NATO. These have been very aggressive over the months. Given Russia is at a huge disadvantage geographically, the subs offer an avenue to strike anywhere. Hypersonic missiles also eliminate the defence shield strategy because it's so difficult to shoot them down. Looking from the point of being surrounded by Poland, Ukraine, Baltic bases, Russia will feel far safer with hypersonic strike capacity.

The journalist Peter Hitchens, a confirmed Russophile having lived in Russia for a while, always suggests a common sense approach in my view - imagine that this was happening to USA, if the USSR came out on top after the Cold War; Russian bases in Canada, Mexico, er....Cuba plus across South America. You might feel a sense of the walls closing in.

 

James Baker's quote about NATO 'not moving an inch further to the east' was quickly erased from history.    

 

No fan of Putin though, I read an intriguing book recently, 'Putin's People' that sets out the KGB plan for continuity following the inevitable fall of the USSR. It is a serious work, that contains a section on one Donald Trump, whose property empire has benefited greatly from Russian largesse..... 

 

I have visited both Moscow and St Petersburg, both fascinating cities. Moscow retains a bit of the Soviet austere grey I thought, but St Petersburg was a revelation.    

 

[Strummer101]

13 hours ago, Grumpy Owl said:

Classified Ministry of Defence documents found at bus stop

From: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57624942

 

You can't make this kind of stuff up. So you're telling me that someone within the MOD 'carelessly' printed off a load of emails and 'PowerPoint presentations' and then dumped them behind some bus stop in Kent, which some 'unsuspecting' member of the public then 'found' and reported to the BBC?

 

I suppose it makes a change from a USB stick being 'carelessly left behind on a train'.

Yes, seems it details a variety of routes for the Defender to take....and they were instructed to take the one mostly likely to provoke the response from Russia.

 

I don't understand this, frankly. To provide support to a country whose citizens regularly hold rallies to 'honour' their past Nazi collaborators. ( I know some here will think this is a positive, I am not one of them). 

 

 

[Shining-one]

Gorbachev already warned of the possibility of a war. He was still General Secretary of the USSR when I started to learn Russian in 1989. Having read a lot of Soviet history, the Crimea problem was created when Krushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine. The eventual placing of short range ICBMs in Cuba, together with the overall crisis, led to Krushchev's forced retirement. Brezhnev then took over. Given Krushchev was very rash and impulsive.
I read NATO is planning to confront Russia in the Black Sea close to Crimea. That is, move a lot of naval forces to the area. Probably they imagine the Russian military won't react but my guess is that is a miscalculation. The main problem today is the U.S. really lacks the kind of intelligence and in-depth knowledge that existed in the Reagan era. Possibly Russia is judged on its conventional military that is restricted by budget and economy. However, I think the hypersonic missile capability has changed everything. Should actual war develop, the hypersonic missiles can avoid anti ballistic defences, placed in Europe. Use of subs that slip by radar can use the seas as a launching platform. Russia has an advantage of high technology developed on a low budget. Other countries don't need hypersonic missiles as there's no threat of a missile shield. Russia needs them to bypass any shield so the missiles can go into space and re-enter.

[Shining-one]

Well, Russian historians tend to blame a lot of this on Stalin. It's said Stalin repressed racial and cultural identity to make one whole USSR. However, the Estonians, Georgians, Bulgarians and Ukrainians all had a culture and language. When the USSR fell, there was a huge rise in nationalism. Somehow it grew. So now Ukraine is divided between ethnic Russians and Ukrainians. I was never sure why Russia was blamed per se since Lenin was Armenian/Jewish and Stalin Georgian. Brezhnev was Ukrainian. Today people want to find an identity and flag while some short-sighted politicians hope to destabilise a volatile situation. The seeds were set decades ago, of course.
As to Stalin, I came to see he was nowhere near as bad as history portrayed him. He was a very typical revolutionary of the era, brought into a war zone for most of his life. When he died, Krushchev attacked Stalinism mostly to remove the old figures who were in Stalin's circle. Yet Krushchev a decade before was giving pro Stalin speeches and part of the inner circle. I doubt Stalin would have placed missiles in Cuba as he was really pretty cautious.

[Strummer101]

I am sure that the experience of the Yeltsin years also plays a part of where Russia finds itself today,for those that lived and lost during the period of dermokratiya, the 'shitocracy' as it was known. 

 

Not sure about a large Black Sea build-up of NATO ships - as I understand it, Turkey has to approve any warships to sail through the Bosphorus and having just had the Defender fiasco, would they approve many more transits just now?  

[Shining-one]

Putin's well past his sell by date now but initially he's done a good job rebuilding the Russian Federation. Economy lags China, of course, but oil and gas sales have enabled military investment. Despite being surrounded by many hostile neighbours Russia could defend itself if a war came about. Normal Russians however are paying the price of this new war, at the coat of a one party state and corruption. In fact they're in the same boat as we are where democracy pretty much died out.

[Shining-one]

I was typing this outside after shopping and found I'd been sitting on an ant's nest. Had to brush them all off. One night I was outside typing and felt something on my leg. I looked down and saw a rat so jumped upright. Another night a fox approached and sat next to me.

[TetraG]

14 hours ago, Shining-one said:

I was typing this outside after shopping and found I'd been sitting on an ant's nest. Had to brush them all off. One night I was outside typing and felt something on my leg. I looked down and saw a rat so jumped upright. Another night a fox approached and sat next to me.

 

And now a hedgehog!... 

[Strummer101]

22 hours ago, Shining-one said:

Putin's well past his sell by date now but initially he's done a good job rebuilding the Russian Federation. Economy lags China, of course, but oil and gas sales have enabled military investment. Despite being surrounded by many hostile neighbours Russia could defend itself if a war came about. Normal Russians however are paying the price of this new war, at the coat of a one party state and corruption. In fact they're in the same boat as we are where democracy pretty much died out.

Yes, no winners in any outright aggression that is for sure. I see today that Putin said something like 'even if we sank the UK ship, it is not WW3'.....!! For him to even to mention WW3 has gravitas.  

 

Has Putin ever looked beyond the 'old school' view of the west? I doubt it personally. I think he shares the Krushchev long-term view, that the West will be 'buried' eventually, Russia, will outlast their adversaries, as they have done in the past. 

 

I remember I think a Gorbachev/Reagan summit, Iceland I think, when they went for a walk on their own, and nearly shook hands on scrapping half of their missiles...I think it was Reagan not ruling out his 'Star Wars' thing that scuppered that.

 

Where are the leaders of vision?   

[Shining-one]

Putin appeared to hint all of this was meant to provoke an incident that could be used to axe the Russian pipeline, supported by Germany. Make Russia seem to be a threat. Putin seemed not to worried. That is, NATO would struggle to outgun Russia on its own territory. This may well be true. Russia has masses of strike power from Kaliningrad alone. What was intended was mainly to bait the Russians and have an excuse to pull the oil line. I imagine they would only ram or damage a vessel if all warnings were ignored. 

[Shining-one]

9 hours ago, TetraG said:

 

And now a hedgehog!... 

Today was one of manic sneezing fits. Pollen very high. Worst for a long time. I keep cactus too. One sneezing fit included 20 or so repetitions. It was like Columbo but worse.