War with Russia

[AreOut]

under international law Turkey doesn't have right to close Bosphorus unless in special circumstances which these clearly are not

[hidetheelephants]

AreOut said:

under international law Turkey doesn't have right to close Bosphorus unless in special circumstances which these clearly are not

They do however have the right to stop every ship transiting the straits, inspect for MARPOL and SOLAS violations, and if any are found impound them until the violations are rectified; given the state of even UK-flagged vessels(nothing dangerous, but often technical violations are ignored or fixes postponed until convenient), they could easily prevent anything going in and out purely by strict interpretation of IMO rules.

[skyrover]

It was only a matter of time. Turkey has questioned the movement of some Russian "cargo" ships after an investigation last year inferred that Russia had been shipping weapons from its bases in Crimea to the Syrian government (and several others) through the Straits for at least two years in direct contravention of the Montreux Convention of 1936.

Also...

Putin Angry at Turkey Over Terror Assistance

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/11/10/330276/

veteranstoday said:

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan who stepped up his customary belligerent rhetoric against the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad, told his Russian counterpart that Turkey has allegedly reached a threshold where it cannot remain indifferent toward the “human carnage” in the Arab war-torn country, but to Erdogan’s surprise, Putin was infuriated and vehemently warned Turkish President from further interfering in Syrian internal affairs otherwise Russia is ready to thwart Turkey from triggering a catastrophic war in the region.

The Turkish flabbergasted president then asked Putin whether his fiery remarks meant a direct threat against Turkey and Putin replied:” Mr. President, You may construe whatever interpretations you wish from my words.”

[egor110]

hidetheelephants said:

AreOut said:

under international law Turkey doesn't have right to close Bosphorus unless in special circumstances which these clearly are not

They do however have the right to stop every ship transiting the straits, inspect for MARPOL and SOLAS violations, and if any are found impound them until the violations are rectified; given the state of even UK-flagged vessels(nothing dangerous, but often technical violations are ignored or fixes postponed until convenient), they could easily prevent anything going in and out purely by strict interpretation of IMO rules.

and you think Russia will let the Turks board there ships?

[hidetheelephants]

egor110 said:

hidetheelephants said:

AreOut said:

under international law Turkey doesn't have right to close Bosphorus unless in special circumstances which these clearly are not

They do however have the right to stop every ship transiting the straits, inspect for MARPOL and SOLAS violations, and if any are found impound them until the violations are rectified; given the state of even UK-flagged vessels(nothing dangerous, but often technical violations are ignored or fixes postponed until convenient), they could easily prevent anything going in and out purely by strict interpretation of IMO rules.

and you think Russia will let the Turks board there ships?

Yes, if they know what's good for them; starting a war over Turkey's administration of its own territorial water seems like a bad idea to me.

[Transmitter Man]

Octoposse said:

here was clearly a substantial neo-Nazi element to the coup that overthrew the elected government of Viktor Yanukovych. A government whose election owed much to support in the East of the country and Crimea - an electorate whose dis-enfrachisement was apparently an objective of EU and US policy.

The first images that came out of the East were unarmed villagers forming human barricades and pushing back Ukrainian armour with their bare hands - it was Kiev (with presumably the nod from the US) that ratcheted up the levels of violence. They go with airstrikes, Moscow slips in air defence systems, etc.

The fear that neo-Nazi element engendered in those more pro-Russian areas was palpable. I'm not claiming that Moscow's motives are altruistic, but Russia is the country that has ended up on the right side of the principle of self determination of peoples.

I'd like to pickup on your point of a 'substantial' neo-Nazi element.

From research I have carried out regarding the makeup of the new, democratically elected government' only six members were 'former' members of Svoboda (The party was founded in 1991 as the Social-National Party of Ukraine (Ukrainian: ??????-??????????? ?????? ???????) and acts as a populist proponent of nationalism and anti-communism.)

What do you consider substantial and what are your sources for this information in relation to the overthrow of Yanukovych? I should also like to remind you that there were many within his own party that wanted him gone as was clearly shown on the TV footage of his final days in the top job - I wonder why?

A question for you.

Was there any reason his security detail did not return from Russia to their day job?

Phil

Edited by Transmitter Man on Friday 14th November 05:07

[Octoposse]

Transmitter Man said:

I should also like to remind you that there were many within his own party that wanted him gone

Quite possibly - but our normal line in the West is that we prefer people to abide by pesky details such as constitutions and elections.

Transmitter Man said:

A question for you.

Was there any reason his security detail did not return from Russia to their day job?

Well, I believe that only a few of them accompanied him, and it was individual decisions based on personal circumstance, family, dependants, where their homes were, how sucessfully they could melt into obscurity rather than facing lynching or show trials.

[jmorgan]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I am reading too much into it but a deal for the gas, disputed sea, G20 summit, chance for a bit of show boating in disputed waters with their chums, who knows.

[Octoposse]

BIANCO said:

How would Russia stop them with force? They are full members of NATO.

You don't really need to use force to stop someone boarding a ship, but you need to use force to board a ship in the absence of cooperation . . .

Dear Turkey, I am extremely happy to go to war with your near neighbour Russia if you want to pick a fight to them (especially as you'll need to keep the bulk of your forces intact to polish off the Kurds if ISIS aren't up to the job.)

I still have my old '58 webbing and boots DMS, and have kept pretty fit. Keep it going a few years and my toddler will be old enough to join in. The last two wars I went to were quite a hoot, and I cannot see any downside or risks at all to starting World War Three, compared with dangerous alternatives such as dialogue, engagement and negotiation.

Regards

[hidetheelephants]

It would be a little difficult to force their way through the Bosphorus if the Turks wanted to stop them, and they have the legal right to do so for inspection.

[Bluebarge]

[quote=Octoposse but Russia is the country that has ended up on the right side of the principle of self determination of peoples.

[/quote]


You are one funny guy.

So, invade a country, starve many of its inhabitants to death, ship in your own people, see new borders established as your little empire based on coercion falls apart, then re-invade to "rescue" the people you left behind from living in a democracy seeking entry into the EU, hold bogus elections to give your strategy an unconvincing veneer of justification, and keep invading until you can re-integrate into Russia any parts of Ukraine that any ethnic Russian ever visited on his holidays. Sure, that's a high-minded principle I'm sure we can all live by

Apparently a tiger has escaped from a circus near Disneyland Paris. Looks like they lost one of their clowns as well. Who'd have thought he'd end up on PH?

[Mr Whippy]

Bluebarge said:

the people you left behind from living in a democracy seeking entry into the EU

Yes, living in a democracy, but having to choose between the neo-socialist EU and/or oligarchy USA, or whatever the Russians are, for fear of one or the other.

I'm sure they'd probably rather BE their own little democracy, but stuck between power hungry Russia or 'The West" then they were gonna have to swing one way or the other by choice or force eventually.


Neither side has any morality or dignity left in this episode.

Dave

[QuantumTokoloshi]

Bluebarge said:

Octoposse said:

but Russia is the country that has ended up on the right side of the principle of self determination of peoples.

You are one funny guy.

So, invade a country, starve many of its inhabitants to death, ship in your own people, see new borders established as your little empire based on coercion falls apart, then re-invade to "rescue" the people you left behind from living in a democracy seeking entry into the EU, hold bogus elections to give your strategy an unconvincing veneer of justification, and keep invading until you can re-integrate into Russia any parts of Ukraine that any ethnic Russian ever visited on his holidays. Sure, that's a high-minded principle I'm sure we can all live by

Apparently a tiger has escaped from a circus near Disneyland Paris. Looks like they lost one of their clowns as well. Who'd have thought he'd end up on PH?

You are so right, how dare a country invade another on a false premise with no enthic connections whatsoever, kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, decimate vital infrastructure, destabilise an entire region for decades, impose a comedic version of democracy, leave the country so weakened and divided that it can be invaded by a terrorist force...

Sorry are we talking about Iraq right ?

[AreOut]

BIANCO said:

How would Russia stop them with force? They are full members of NATO.

US would likely help them but only logistically and do you really think Spain Portugal or Germany will jump there to help? Yes I know it's all written on paper but reality is very often something else and aforementioned countries would rather get out of NATO than risk getting nuked.

[superkartracer]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cam...

GO DAVE, get us nuked

[DMN]

Wait a second, I thought the Tinfoil Hat Brigade told us there was no Submarine:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/14/swede...

[Bluebarge]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

You are so right, how dare a country invade another on a false premise with no enthic connections whatsoever, kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, decimate vital infrastructure, destabilise an entire region for decades, impose a comedic version of democracy, leave the country so weakened and divided that it can be invaded by a terrorist force...

Sorry are we talking about Iraq right ?

Even if you are right (and you are not) how does that justify invading Ukraine? And what do "ethnic connections" have to do with anything?

For the record - Iraq represents a massive failure for US policy, but let us not forget:
1. Saddam was a brutal dictator
2. He invaded Kuwait (so much for your regional stability)
3. he gassed the Kurds
4. he gassed the Iranians
5. Iraq did have a nuclear and biological weapons programme even if it had been dismantled by the time of the 2nd Gulf War
6. Iraq frequently obstructed UN inspection programmes
7. It's not the US that has killed hundreds of thousands of civilians - that is the insurgency
8. ditto for the infrastructure.

What did the US do that was wrong?
1. declared war on the basis of shaky intelligence whilst the UN inspection programme was finally making progress
2. failed to make any credible plans for running the country after the war ended
3. failed to include the Sunnis in any post-war settlement
4. failed to set up a credible post-war government.

So, an almighty clusterf**k, but your attempt to equate Ukraine with Iraq is just ludicrous - Ukraine is a democracy; it has never used WMD (it gave those up in exchange for Russia guaranteeing its sovereignty ), it has not and does not conduct any campaigns of aggression against parts of its own population, it abides by international law. So, the justification for invading it and waging war on its territory is???

[skyrover]

DMN said:

Wait a second, I thought the Tinfoil Hat Brigade told us there was no Submarine:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/14/swede...

10 meter long minisub apparently... left "footprints" where it settled on the bottom





Will never be enough to convince Putin's apologist's though.

[Octoposse]

Bluebarge said:

Ukraine is a democracy; it has never used WMD (it gave those up in exchange for Russia guaranteeing its sovereignty ), it has not and does not conduct any campaigns of aggression against parts of its own population, it abides by international law. So, the justification for invading it and waging war on its territory is???

Democracy that we were quite happy to see usurped by force when it came up with the 'wrong' answer.

Crimea was part of Russia since roughly the time the US consisted of 13 states, up to the 1950s. Fluke of history that it was ever anything else.

But, more relevantly, the majority of the population wish to be Russian. I think there was one fatality in the re-unification - the whole tragedy since is mainly the responsibility of those who believe that Moscow must 'pay a price' for its temerity in applying the Kosovo precedent/principle, let alone Article 1, Chapter 1, of the Charter of the United Nations.

As for your assertion that Ukraine . . . has not and does not conduct any campaigns of aggression against parts of its own population . . I was going to post pictures of the results of Ukrainian airstrikes in the East but they're too graphic.

[Octoposse]

skyrover said:

DMN said:

Wait a second, I thought the Tinfoil Hat Brigade told us there was no Submarine:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/14/swede...

10 meter long minisub apparently... left "footprints" where it settled on the bottom





Will never be enough to convince Putin's apologists though.

I would classify myself as neither an apologist nor - for that matter - an expert on corrugated seafloor mud. So I won't claim to be able to differentiate between the marks left by Bond villain mini-subs, rutting scampi, ocean currents or beam trawling . . .