Russian seizure of Ukranian Warships

[Special Aromas]

Well, let's start by looking at the whole quote:

Noting the bolded part, I can't possibly understand what you mean by this if not to suggest that the tanker could have moved out of the way had the Russians decided to let the Ukrainians through. Unfortunately, the the relevant international treaty, which both of Ukraine and Russia are a party to, states that Russia is not at liberty to decide whether the Ukrainians are allowed to pass through those waters. A simple definition of a blockade is the act of preventing entry and egress from a place, is it not?

No offence, but I feel you've gone way over the top in being offended about this.

The bolded part was part of a larger quote. In said quote, I very clearly stated that blocking a merchant marine vessels responding to hails is not cool, irrespective of whether the tanker was moved or not: "If the tanker was actually blocking merchant marine, that was appropriately responding to signals, that'd be wrong."

Even if I was to take your insane interpretation of a blatantly obvious black and white quote, that still doesn't explain how you imagined that I claimed that moving a ship would justify a blockade, because that I specifically stated that blocking merchant marine responding to border patrol's hails was wrong, irrespective of whether the ship could move. I even stated - that'd be wrong.

Thus, reading that quote, in context, would mean that if Russia's border patrol saw warships, the border patrol could leave the tanker in place, or not, and if Russia saw merchant marine - move tanker. At no point was there a justification of a blockade against merchant marine, irrespective of whether the tanker could be moved or not, and you were absolutely wrong, dead wrong, to pretend otherwise, Special Aromas.

And now, after being caught, in front of the entire forum, while attempting to put words into my mouth, you're whining about how I'm being offended. Perhaps that might be the case in your imagination. In reality, I'm not offended. I'm calling you out on putting words into a fellow poster's mouth, and on attempting to get a fellow poster to defend a claim that was never made.

Now, I know that's what you might be here to do, I'll watch out for that, perhaps even when it comes to your responses to other posters. And after being caught, you're not apologizing; you're trying to pretend that I'm somehow offended, in an attempt to justify your behavior. As President Trump would say: "Sad!"

Why would I apologise? You've claimed that I'm implying things on two occaisions, here and here, along with a litany of other, gratuitous crap which one would hardly consider polite and good-faith discussion. You clearly don't think this is grosssly unacceptable behaviour, otherwise you wouldn't be doing it yourself. Sorry, not sorry.

I've also never mentioned merchant marine throughout this topic, I don't know why you keep bringing it up in your defence. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth lest I have a meltdown on level with your own.

Now, if you want to continue to argue semantics rather than debate the topic, please save yourself the effort and just don't reply to this post. I don't particularly care for your claims of maltreatment.

[Flawless Walruses]

How about the recordings of the incident, audio and visual?

I’m not saying I belive Ukraine, but Russia has the worse reputation.

Technically, in regards to corruption, Ukraine ranks worse.

Ukraine has been a corrupt shithole since the Soviet Union. Only now I can be sure that the fault lies with the Ukrainians themselves.

Dude, that's harsh.

I make all kinds of excuses for the Ukrainians.
- The Tartars, Mongols and Turks slave-raiding them for centuries.
- My Polish ancestors colonising the hell out of them for centuries
- The Russians colonising the hell out of them for slightly fewer centuries
- Soviet dictators of assorted ethnicities killing them in large numbers
- Post-independence, the FSB and NED/CIA pouring in "aid" and elevating "agents of influence", based on how much blackmail material the agency had on them rather than merit, integrity or even talent.

But yeah, Ukrainian society is corrupted from the pettiest clerk to the office of President. The depth and breadth of the problem cannot be principally the work of outsiders. At some point they need to take responsibility...

[Petrolheadia]

Technically, in regards to corruption, Ukraine ranks worse.

Ukraine has been a corrupt shithole since the Soviet Union. Only now I can be sure that the fault lies with the Ukrainians themselves.

Dude, that's harsh.

Truth hurts.

Even Ukrainians I know blame the Ukrainian government and nation, not other entities.

[Novus America]

No, Russia cannot steamroll Poland. The only part of Russia that borders Poland is Kalingrad/East Prussia. The Polish military is quite capable and stronger than the Russian garrison there.

You've failed to notice the pretty-much-guaranteed passage through Belarus.

Sure the enterity of Russia’s military is stronger than Poland’s is alone. But Russia cannot deploy all of it against Poland and Poland has many allies.

That's what they said in 1939.

Besides Russia is not going to attack you, so long as you have allies and a strong military.

It's hard to outmatch a powerful nuclear-capable army.

Kowtowing to your fossil fuel pusher is horrible policy. They will just use and abuse you.

Or, y'know, have good trade relations.

Instead convert your gas plants to nuclear and diversify your suppliers.

Do you have any clue about the gas situation in Poland?

Gas is mainly used for heating and automotive propulsion. In both it's used as a cheap option.
Electricity is mainly generated using coal. Quite a good thing, considering the existing vast coal-fired infrastructure and domestic supplies.
Gas supplier diversification was found unviable by the free market, and the government-funded initiatives are a total clusterfuck.

The passage through Belarus is not guaranteed at all. Belarus and Russia have a complicated relationship. Belarus is perfectly aware that if that happened Belarus would cease to exist as an independent entity and it would be absorbed by Russia. Belarus has nothing to gain and everything to lose from a war with NATO.

Plus even so running supply lines across it would still result in a loss of Russian strength and still Russia cannot deploy everything they have. They still need to keep forces in their South, Crimea, Central Asia, the Pacific area and Siberia, etc.

1939 was different. Namely because Germany was the main threat, and had you isolated from your allies. Your allies had no way to get to you quickly.
There are American forces in Poland now. So a Russian attack on Polandcwould require Russia attacking US forces.

Plus I am obviously NOT proposing you attack Russia or something. Supporting Ukraine politically will not cause Russia to suddenly attack you.

And if Ukraine falls to Russia your strategic situation will be much worse. Keeping Ukraine alive as a well armed buffer state between you in Russia greatly increases your security.

Poland alone will not outmatch Russia true, but you do not need to. You have allies and those allies have nukes to.

Russia uses a cost benefit analysis when determining who to attack. You just have to make sure the cost to Russia stays higher than anything Russia would gain, and that Russia knows it.

Having good trade relations is one thing, but again it should not override security concerns.
Trade is a double edged sword. It is not necessarily bad, but NOT necessarily good either.
It is often a bit of both. Be careful with trade. It can harm more than help you if the otherside abuses it.
Russia can and will use it as a political and economic weapon against you.

Electricity can be used for heating and vehicle propulsion. Oil derivatives, not natural gas are generally used for vehicle propulsion, and are easier to transport.
Oil and gas are different.

Sure gas is the hardest to transport, which is why you should use electricity for heating instead.
And yes you might have to pay more for independence and security.

[Novus America]

Dude, that's harsh.

Truth hurts.

Even Ukrainians I know blame the Ukrainian government and nation, not other entities.

Certainly Ukraine is largely to blame for its corruption and economic problems.
But certainly Russian actions are not helping.
Russia has a vested interest in Ukraine remaining poor and corrupt.

[Sokolovra]

Truth hurts.

Even Ukrainians I know blame the Ukrainian government and nation, not other entities.

Certainly Ukraine is largely to blame for its corruption and economic problems.
But certainly Russian actions are not helping.
Russia has a vested interest in Ukraine remaining poor and corrupt.

The US and Russia need to leave Ukraine alone and let it decide its own destiny. The Ukrainian people certainly do not want to be a vassal of Russia nor do they want to be some homosexual-degenerate wasteland like the US.

[Petrolheadia]

nor do they want to be some homosexual-degenerate wasteland like the US.

I think they'd prefer a bunch of homophobes to poverty and corruption.

[Sokolovra]

nor do they want to be some homosexual-degenerate wasteland like the US.

I think they'd prefer a bunch of homophobes to poverty and corruption.

I agree

[Petrolheadia]

Truth hurts.

Even Ukrainians I know blame the Ukrainian government and nation, not other entities.

Certainly Ukraine is largely to blame for its corruption and economic problems.
But certainly Russian actions are not helping.
Russia has a vested interest in Ukraine remaining poor and corrupt.

Which should be cancelled out by Ukrainian interest of the country being neither poor nor corrupt.

[Novus Wrepland]

Certainly Ukraine is largely to blame for its corruption and economic problems.
But certainly Russian actions are not helping.
Russia has a vested interest in Ukraine remaining poor and corrupt.

The US and Russia need to leave Ukraine alone and let it decide its own destiny. The Ukrainian people certainly do not want to be a vassal of Russia nor do they want to be some homosexual-degenerate wasteland like the US.

“Homosexual degenerate wasteland” is a caricature championed by Russophilic grifters, like the Georgian Orthodox Church, who bring it up to distract from their own stupidity and parasite-status. The real dichotomy is between Ukraine being a shithole and Ukraine being a modern country.

[The South Falls]

Certainly Ukraine is largely to blame for its corruption and economic problems.
But certainly Russian actions are not helping.
Russia has a vested interest in Ukraine remaining poor and corrupt.

The US and Russia need to leave Ukraine alone and let it decide its own destiny. The Ukrainian people certainly do not want to be a vassal of Russia nor do they want to be some homosexual-degenerate wasteland like the US.

I take it you live here? And you're benefitting from our freedom?

[Novus America]

Certainly Ukraine is largely to blame for its corruption and economic problems.
But certainly Russian actions are not helping.
Russia has a vested interest in Ukraine remaining poor and corrupt.

Which should be cancelled out by Ukrainian interest of the country being neither poor nor corrupt.

I agree, but Russia does not see things that way, which is why Russia will continue to cause problems for Ukraine.

[Novus America]

nor do they want to be some homosexual-degenerate wasteland like the US.

I think they'd prefer a bunch of homophobes to poverty and corruption.

But that is not the choice.
And homosexuality has nothing to do with anything here.
It is about economic reform and the rule of law.

If Ukraine ever gets its economy and legal situation together I suppose they can debate some of that stuff.
But until then they have much bigger concerns to deal with.

[Far Easter Republic]

Tbh, it might in our best interest to let Russia have Ukraine and then pursue a detente.

Like do most Westerners really give a shit about Ukraine to the point where they want to start a war over it?

Yeah, let's give Ukraine to Russia. And Estonia. And Latvia. Oh and Belarus and Hungary, sure why not?

Sadly, it looks clearer by the day Ukraine is going to be the bear's(Russia)dinner.
However, The line should be drawn there. While Belarus looks like they want to be absorbed into Russia, The Baltics would be the trigger for WW3.
On that note, Putin is not just a mad man. But the question will be, will he get greedy?
Here's an metaphor to note: Two money bags fall out a bank truck and the person following said truck picks them up. That dude then Uses it all at once, and the police find out about the incident and the person who got the money bags is in prison. If Putin tries to get more then Belarus & Ukraine, Russia or the world(depending on nukes are used) go down in a total wave of destruction.
That's the case. What Putin does will go down a path that can't backtracked probably will end ugly for one or both parties, those being Russia and their friends, and NATO.

[Novus America]

Certainly Ukraine is largely to blame for its corruption and economic problems.
But certainly Russian actions are not helping.
Russia has a vested interest in Ukraine remaining poor and corrupt.

The US and Russia need to leave Ukraine alone and let it decide its own destiny. The Ukrainian people certainly do not want to be a vassal of Russia nor do they want to be some homosexual-degenerate wasteland like the US.

The US is however not the one invading Ukraine nor blockading its ports.
And if the US completely and unilaterally stepped out it would be giving Russia the advantage.
Russia would not respond in kind.

And homosexuality is not a problem in the US.
Did homosexuals use economic warfare to destroy US manufacturing and dump opioids across the US?

No. Last I checked the Chinese government and their American collaborators are for the most part heterosexual.

Seriously homosexuality is not important at all.

[Phoenicaea]

it is easy days for tyrants, after what has been done in Syria and Middle East, and the Lybian desolation, and Lebanon crisis; Southern countries don t wish to do things about.

as Kasparov has said, it is a war to 'use banks, not tanks'. mafia tyrants stay because they can take care of local tycoon's deposits, which they do thanks to high class friendships

[Auze]

Or use renewables and not have that whole suppliers problem be as much of an issue

Wind and solar are intermittent and take up far more space.
Plus Poland is not great for solar, it is too far north.

Wind is pretty good offshore, and you can still do stuff around the turbines. Reminder that there are these magical inventions known as “capacitors” and “batteries”. Also, that was mostly a set up for the Bill Wurtz joke.

[Novus America]

Wind and solar are intermittent and take up far more space.
Plus Poland is not great for solar, it is too far north.

Wind is pretty good offshore, and you can still do stuff around the turbines. Reminder that there are these magical inventions known as “capacitors” and “batteries”. Also, that was mostly a set up for the Bill Wurtz joke.

Batteries are expensive, resource intensive, and have to be continually replaced. And the number needed would be truly massive.

And why go through all that when you have a better alternative?

[Far Easter Republic]

You've failed to notice the pretty-much-guaranteed passage through Belarus.


That's what they said in 1939.


It's hard to outmatch a powerful nuclear-capable army.


Or, y'know, have good trade relations.


Do you have any clue about the gas situation in Poland?

Gas is mainly used for heating and automotive propulsion. In both it's used as a cheap option.
Electricity is mainly generated using coal. Quite a good thing, considering the existing vast coal-fired infrastructure and domestic supplies.
Gas supplier diversification was found unviable by the free market, and the government-funded initiatives are a total clusterfuck.

The passage through Belarus is not guaranteed at all. Belarus and Russia have a complicated relationship. Belarus is perfectly aware that if that happened Belarus would cease to exist as an independent entity and it would be absorbed by Russia. Belarus has nothing to gain and everything to lose from a war with NATO.

Plus even so running supply lines across it would still result in a loss of Russian strength and still Russia cannot deploy everything they have. They still need to keep forces in their South, Crimea, Central Asia, the Pacific area and Siberia, etc.

1939 was different. Namely because Germany was the main threat, and had you isolated from your allies. Your allies had no way to get to you quickly.
There are American forces in Poland now. So a Russian attack on Polandcwould require Russia attacking US forces.

Plus I am obviously NOT proposing you attack Russia or something. Supporting Ukraine politically will not cause Russia to suddenly attack you.

And if Ukraine falls to Russia your strategic situation will be much worse. Keeping Ukraine alive as a well armed buffer state between you in Russia greatly increases your security.

Poland alone will not outmatch Russia true, but you do not need to. You have allies and those allies have nukes to.

Russia uses a cost benefit analysis when determining who to attack. You just have to make sure the cost to Russia stays higher than anything Russia would gain, and that Russia knows it.

Having good trade relations is one thing, but again it should not override security concerns.
Trade is a double edged sword. It is not necessarily bad, but NOT necessarily good either.
It is often a bit of both. Be careful with trade. It can harm more than help you if the otherside abuses it.
Russia can and will use it as a political and economic weapon against you.

Electricity can be used for heating and vehicle production. Oil derivatives, not natural gas are generally used for vehicle propulsion, and are easier to transport.
Oil and gas are different.

Sure gas is the hardest to transport, which is why you should use electricity for heating instead.
And yes you might have to pay more for independence and security.

Yep. Russia attacking Poland and/or Baltics=WW3

[Far Easter Republic]

LMAO how can you lose naval vessels to the fucking coast guard?

To be fair the budget of Russia's coastguard is probably the budget of the Ukrainian navy's considering that its Russia and the other is heccin Urkaine.

Totally right. That's why Ukraine wants to join NATO.

[Shofercia]

The bolded part was part of a larger quote. In said quote, I very clearly stated that blocking a merchant marine vessels responding to hails is not cool, irrespective of whether the tanker was moved or not: "If the tanker was actually blocking merchant marine, that was appropriately responding to signals, that'd be wrong."

Even if I was to take your insane interpretation of a blatantly obvious black and white quote, that still doesn't explain how you imagined that I claimed that moving a ship would justify a blockade, because that I specifically stated that blocking merchant marine responding to border patrol's hails was wrong, irrespective of whether the ship could move. I even stated - that'd be wrong.

Thus, reading that quote, in context, would mean that if Russia's border patrol saw warships, the border patrol could leave the tanker in place, or not, and if Russia saw merchant marine - move tanker. At no point was there a justification of a blockade against merchant marine, irrespective of whether the tanker could be moved or not, and you were absolutely wrong, dead wrong, to pretend otherwise, Special Aromas.

And now, after being caught, in front of the entire forum, while attempting to put words into my mouth, you're whining about how I'm being offended. Perhaps that might be the case in your imagination. In reality, I'm not offended. I'm calling you out on putting words into a fellow poster's mouth, and on attempting to get a fellow poster to defend a claim that was never made.

Now, I know that's what you might be here to do, I'll watch out for that, perhaps even when it comes to your responses to other posters. And after being caught, you're not apologizing; you're trying to pretend that I'm somehow offended, in an attempt to justify your behavior. As President Trump would say: "Sad!"

Why would I apologise? You've claimed that I'm implying things on two occaisions, here and here, along with a litany of other, gratuitous crap which one would hardly consider polite and good-faith discussion. You clearly don't think this is grosssly unacceptable behaviour, otherwise you wouldn't be doing it yourself. Sorry, not sorry.

I've also never mentioned merchant marine throughout this topic, I don't know why you keep bringing it up in your defence. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth lest I have a meltdown on level with your own.

Now, if you want to continue to argue semantics rather than debate the topic, please save yourself the effort and just don't reply to this post. I don't particularly care for your claims of maltreatment.

There's a difference between polite debating, impolite debating, and putting words into a fellow poster's mouth. You seem to be specializing in the latter. As was pointed out to me by a fellow poster, this isn't even your first pathetic attempt at doing so; in a thread where I pointed out that using chemical weapons would be bad, partly because it would hurt reconstruction efforts, (since most reconstruction contracts in Syria are SCO or SCO-allied,) your response was the my entire objection to what [you] wrote is based on the premise that Russia cares about what the western media writes about them even though that had nothing to do with the SCO, which was specifically mentioned in the quote. Maybe you thought that SCO was code for Santa Clause Operation, rather than the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

So, if you are going to specialize in setting up strawmen, placing words into the mouths of fellow posters, and so on, you are going to find out that people here won't like you. Therm and I got into a heated debate in this very thread, but neither one of us sank the level of pretending that we said something we didn't. That's the pathetic level. Also, the reason that I'm bringing up merchant marine/civilian shipping, is because when I said that ships can move, I also said that merchant marine/civilian shipping should not be blocked under almost any circumstances. Thus, claiming that I said that moving ships would justify a blockade against merchant marine/civilian shipping, when I said the exact opposite, would be moronic.

Furthermore, even if international law states that one is required to allow nonresponsive warships to be near a structure that they can blow up from close range, said law is idiotic, and should be ignored. Thankfully, that's not what the law actually said, unless you'd care to find the exact quote, which I doubt you'll be able to find, since it doesn't exist. Wow, I can certainly see why you didn't want me to respond to that post.

[The New California Republic]

nor do they want to be some homosexual-degenerate wasteland like the US.

Fucking lol.

---

I provided a bit of History, implying that you support Communism, but only when it suits your geopolitical needs.

You know what? In normal circumstances this kind of rebuttal would be devastatingly effective, but you made one catastrophically fatal error: my nation doesn't represent my political ideals at all, I only RP blind support for Western democracy. My ideals are actually very Socialist in many respects, my shelves are filled with the works of Marx et al. So using "you support Communism!!!1111" as a stick with which to beat me is ineffective as fuck, and actually just turns comically pathetic. Sorry. A major miscalculation on your part. Better luck next time though!

[Jakker]

The Ukrainian people certainly do not want to be a vassal of Russia nor do they want to be some homosexual-degenerate wasteland like the US.

Referring to a country as a "homosexual-degenerate wasteland" is trolling. *** Warned for Trolling *** You just received a warning for trolling for another post you made earlier today. If you continue with this behavior, your punishments will get more severe. I would encourage you to read and understand our forum rules asap.

[Senkaku]

Conveniently ignoring the mysterious soldiers without insignia on their uniforms...

You do know that soldiers can be present in an area where people vote, and not affect the vote, right? Are you able to comprehend that? Because there were Ukrainian military bases in Crimea, so those mysterious soldiers were probably somewhat busy protecting the native Crimeans against Ukraine's military, most of whom were loyal to Ukraine, rather than their own province. Once again, just to make sure you're able to grasp this: the voters, as polled by the Western Polling Agencies, did not seem to think that the mysterious soldiers affected the vote. "But muh soldiers" is not a valid rebuttal, when the people voting in the Referendum, do not think that mattered.

If I made this argument after the US sent unmarked tanks into Coahuila or Cuba or British Columbia and held a "referendum" on whether they wanted to become the 51st state, I'm guessing you'd suddenly have a different opinion on the validity of referendums held while occupying foreign troops are marching around.

[Flawless Walruses]

If I made this argument after the US sent unmarked tanks into Coahuila or Cuba or British Columbia and held a "referendum" on whether they wanted to become the 51st state, I'm guessing you'd suddenly have a different opinion on the validity of referendums held while occupying foreign troops are marching around.

Ukraine isn't British Columbia.

Ukraine is more like Haiti. Where the USMC roll into Port-au-Prince about once every twenty years to remove a dictator who courted the wrong faction in DC.

Is this a desirable state of affairs? No.

Is this always a bad thing? Well, it depends how bad the overthrown government was.

Poroshenko in Ukraine "controls" a government so unpopular, unrepresentative, economically illiterate and corrupt that a Russian occupation of Kiev could only improve it.

Sadly, perhaps, for the Ukrainians, Putin limited his efforts to taking back Crimea (the Puerto Rico in our analogy) and offering some half-hearted assistance to anti-Coup protestors-turned-rebels in the Donbass. Not enough for them to win, but enough to prevent them from losing.

I think there should be elections all round, and after the landslide "Leave" vote they can all break for vodka. No credit to Putin, but who would vote to remain in Ukraine (or Haiti) if there was another option?