Russian seizure of Ukranian Warships

[Dooom35796821595]

Nuclear is the ultimate renewable!

If Poland wants to improve their military, solar is their best bet. After all, the Sun is a deadly lazer.

The suns not a laser, it’s omnidirectional! Now a solar mirror, that’s a sun laser! Wining wars Bond villain style!

[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.

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.

Besides Russia is not going to attack you, so long as you have allies and a strong military.
Russia only preys on the weak.

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

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

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.

[Merther]

Ukraine is bitching and has always been bitching with everybody since its independance. NATO sent camo vests (From Britain) and boots (From the US)to the Ukrainian army and it magically disappeared from their stockpile, showing that

1) They don't give a fuck about NATO except when they want the west to save their arses,

and 2) They fucking sold what we gave them because they're so corrupted that even the army is left alone by the government.

I don't wanna pay more taxes to fund Ukraine's petty proxy war on Russia. They have the industrial capacity to produce their own equipment, which they already do with their tank variants, so if you can produce tanks, you can produce boots and vests, and given a bit of exercise you can even produce ships, especially artillery-ships which aren't even used anymore, now it's only missile frigates and carriers that rule the waves, let alone submarines which aren't surface ships, obviously.

Someone already said that Crimea have been illegally given to Ukraine, which might be true, but Crimea was, indeed, legally given to Russia once it obtained its independance. So Ukraine has to respect the Russian waters, wether they claim the area or not.

[Shofercia]

Countries are not required to allow military ships to pass through their territorial waters, last time I checked. According to Russia, Crimea and Taman are a part of Russia, making the Kerch Strait part of Russia's territorial waters. Let's say that your neighbor put up an electric fence on disputed land, (that most of your neighbors agree is your own, but that the locals living on the land think is your neighbor's,) to protect the locals, and you ran right into the fence yelling "I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO!" Most of us would be laughing at you; not with you, at you.

Actually they are, under international law.

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) sets out various scenarios that give a state freedom of passage, irrespective of a state's territorial waters.
All ships, including foreign warships, enjoy the right of "innocent passage" within another state's territorial sea under international law.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-46345317

Innocent passage probably includes responding to an inquiry from the border guards.

Russia has pointed to a section of this UN convention that requires a warship to leave its territorial waters if it fails to comply with the laws of that country. Under international law, a country would have the right to seize another warship only if the warship was acting in a hostile manner, says Valentin Schatz, a research associate in public international law at Germany's University of Hamburg... The Kremlin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, says: "Foreign military ships entered Russia's territorial waters without responding to any requests made by our border guards. Therefore, all actions were taken in strict compliance with the law."

If the Ukrainian ships responded to the border guards, why not simply provide a transcript? Something tells me that warships, approaching the border, and not responding to the border patrol, aren't there for "innocent" passage.

Countries are not required to allow military ships to pass through their territorial waters, last time I checked. According to Russia, Crimea and Taman are a part of Russia, making the Kerch Strait part of Russia's territorial waters.

This is literally fake news lol, I'm actually slightly surprised you're THIS uninformed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement ... t_of_Kerch

Now if you'd like to shift your goalposts to Lavrov's equally terrible but slightly different argument then feel free, but the Russians have no right to block Ukrainian transits on the ground that it's their territorial waters or some shit lmao

Did you misread my post deliberately, or by accident? The reason for that agreement, was that, when it was signed, Ukraine de facto controlled Crimea. Ukraine no longer de facto controls Crimea, ergo the argument is void.

Because you're incapable of doing so

"You"? I thought you lived in the States too, Shof

Also NATO could probs stomp the Russians in a conventional war, though the Russians'd definitely get some good licks in on their way out I imagine

I do live in the States, but I'm not as war hungry as you are, Sen

You say it's a little unstable how many years after this civil war started?

And sure the Ukrainian government is a mess.
But of course as you point out Russia’s warfare and destabilizing operations makes stabilizing the country far more difficult.

Because Ukraine's "Government" is actually interested in stabilizing the country with something other than lip service... /sarcasm

Back when the USSR was around, Kiev had decent infrastructure to deal with rain. Said infrastructure hasn't been upgraded. As a result, you can google Kiev flood and witness the horror of a city without a sewage system. Is that also Putin's fault?

[Dooom35796821595]

Actually they are, under international law.

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) sets out various scenarios that give a state freedom of passage, irrespective of a state's territorial waters.
All ships, including foreign warships, enjoy the right of "innocent passage" within another state's territorial sea under international law.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-46345317

Innocent passage probably includes responding to an inquiry from the border guards.

Russia has pointed to a section of this UN convention that requires a warship to leave its territorial waters if it fails to comply with the laws of that country. Under international law, a country would have the right to seize another warship only if the warship was acting in a hostile manner, says Valentin Schatz, a research associate in public international law at Germany's University of Hamburg... The Kremlin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, says: "Foreign military ships entered Russia's territorial waters without responding to any requests made by our border guards. Therefore, all actions were taken in strict compliance with the law."

If the Ukrainian ships responded to the border guards, why not simply provide a transcript? Something tells me that warships, approaching the border, and not responding to the border patrol, aren't there for "innocent" passage.

If they were acting in a hostile manner Russia should provide the evidence. And no, saying the Russian sailors were “sightseeing” doesn’t count.....oh wait, wrong misinformation campaign.

[Shofercia]

Innocent passage probably includes responding to an inquiry from the border guards.



If the Ukrainian ships responded to the border guards, why not simply provide a transcript? Something tells me that warships, approaching the border, and not responding to the border patrol, aren't there for "innocent" passage.

If they were acting in a hostile manner Russia should provide the evidence. And no, saying the Russian sailors were “sightseeing” doesn’t count.....oh wait, wrong misinformation campaign.

So what kind of evidence would you like Russia to present showing that Ukraine's warships weren't responding to repeated inquiries?

[Dooom35796821595]

If they were acting in a hostile manner Russia should provide the evidence. And no, saying the Russian sailors were “sightseeing” doesn’t count.....oh wait, wrong misinformation campaign.

So what kind of evidence would you like Russia to present showing that Ukraine's warships weren't responding to repeated inquiries?

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

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

[The National Salvation Front for Russia]

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.

[Shofercia]

So what kind of evidence would you like Russia to present showing that Ukraine's warships weren't responding to repeated inquiries?

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

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

I think that the recordings should've been provided, by both sides. So that's fair. However, Russia isn't known to stage fake assassinations of journalists, in order to blame Ukraine. I'll let the incident speak for itself: https://www.cjr.org/watchdog/babchenko- ... nation.php

HE WAS a “martyr for the freedom of Russia and for peace in Ukraine” and “an outspoken critic of the Kremlin.” He was memorialized with flowers and photographs outside his apartment. He is, as you’ve probably heard by now, very much alive.

Arkady Babchenko, the dissident Russian journalist living in Ukraine, shocked his friends and colleagues by turning up yesterday at a press conference meant to update the investigation into his murder. He explained that he had faked his own death, with the help of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), in a Hollywood-style sting operation designed to capture those who really were out to get him. SBU claimed that Russian operatives plotted Babchenko’s assassination, and that they have a suspect in custody.

Babchenko is very anti-Putin, and a dissident. His writing isn't bad, as he is an actual war correspondent. However, he's also not very popular. Some bureaucrats hate him, other love him, but there was probably no sanctioned murder on him, as he was a journalist, not a former agent, and didn't reveal, (probably because he never had,) classified information. So far so good, right?

“This journalist’s reappearance is a great relief but it was distressing and regrettable that the Security Service of Ukraine played with the truth,” Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Christophe Deloire said in a statement. “Was such a scheme really necessary? There can be no grounds for faking a journalist’s death.”

The involvement of SBU in the case is especially troubling because the security service has faced disturbing questions about its possible involvement in the 2016 murder of Pavel Sheremet, a Belarusian journalist killed by a car bomb in central Kiev. Public trust in Ukrainian institutions, already low, is unlikely to be bolstered by deliberately false statements and a lack of transparency. SBU has not explained why such dramatic measures were necessary, nor has it identified the man it claims to have arrested in connection with the assassination plot.

Well, it turns out that the assassin busted in the sting was allegedly working for the SBU. Whoopsie: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 79241.html

A businessman accused of plotting the assassination of a Russian dissident journalist has told a court he knew there was not going to be a murder. Borys Herman is said to have paid $15,000 (£11,000) to an unidentified 'hitman' to shoot dead 41-year-old Arkady Babchenko in Ukraine. Mr Babchenko stunned the world on Wednesday when he revealed he had faked his own death using pig's blood and a t-shirt with bullet holes in it as part of a sting operation by Ukrainian security forces to foil a Russian assassination plot.

The former war correspondent, who fled Russia in February last year after receiving death threats, has claimed reports of his death led Mr Herman to hand over the money. Mr Herman, the Ukrainian co-owner of a weapons manufacturer, made his first appearance at court in Kiev on Thursday. The suspect told the court he had been contacted by a "longtime acquaintance who lives in Moscow" about the plot to kill Mr Babchenko. "In the process of communicating with him it turned out that he works for the fund of Comrade Putin precisely to orchestrate destabilization in Ukraine," he said.

Mr Herman claimed he turned this information over to the Ukrainian authorities and co-operated with their counter-intelligence operations. "We knew perfectly well that there would be no killing," he said. "This was done only for the benefit of Ukraine." The Ukrainian authorities have claimed Mr Herman was paid $40,000 by the Russian security service to organise and carry out the hit.

So a multi-million dollar arms manufacturer decided to jeopardize his status in Ukraine, by ordering a hit on a journalist, who was no threat to him, because he was paid $40k by the FSB. In order to bust such a high profile case, the SBU conducted a sting operation, resulting in the resurrection of a journalist. Welcome to Ukraine!

[Special Aromas]

Actually they are, under international law.

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) sets out various scenarios that give a state freedom of passage, irrespective of a state's territorial waters.
All ships, including foreign warships, enjoy the right of "innocent passage" within another state's territorial sea under international law.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-46345317

Innocent passage probably includes responding to an inquiry from the border guards.

It doesn't. Russia had no legal right to restrict the passage of the Ukrainian vessels whether they responded to inquiries or not. Russia certainly had no legal right block the waterway with a tanker, which was definitely already in place there prior to the arrival of the Ukrainian vessels. I'm amazed there is even a discussion over right and wrong in this scenario.

[Shofercia]

Innocent passage probably includes responding to an inquiry from the border guards.

It doesn't. Russia had no legal right to restrict the passage of the Ukrainian vessels whether they responded to inquiries or not. Russia certainly had no legal right block the waterway with a tanker, which was definitely already in place there prior to the arrival of the Ukrainian vessels. I'm amazed there is even a discussion over right and wrong in this scenario.

Amazingly enough, different laws have different interpretations in different countries. It can be a hard concept to grasp. Russia de facto controls Crimea, (one side of the strait,) and de facto controls Taman, (another side of the strait,) whereas Ukrainian warships were attempting to cross the strait, and allegedly, weren't responding to the border patrol. I wonder, if an Iranian submarine entered Israeli waters, and failed to respond to any signals, what would Israel's reaction be? And how would the US respond to that?

Also, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but oil tankers are ships, and ships have the ability to move on water, so if the tanker was blocking the passage, it could've easily moved, since, as was mentioned earlier, ships do have that amazing ability to get from point A to point B on the water. If the tanker was actually blocking merchant marine, that was appropriately responding to signals, that'd be wrong. But that's not the case here, even though Ukraine might pretend that it was.

[Special Aromas]

It doesn't. Russia had no legal right to restrict the passage of the Ukrainian vessels whether they responded to inquiries or not. Russia certainly had no legal right block the waterway with a tanker, which was definitely already in place there prior to the arrival of the Ukrainian vessels. I'm amazed there is even a discussion over right and wrong in this scenario.

Amazingly enough, different laws have different interpretations in different countries. It can be a hard concept to grasp. Russia de facto controls Crimea, (one side of the strait,) and de facto controls Taman, (another side of the strait,) whereas Ukrainian warships were attempting to cross the strait, and allegedly, weren't responding to the border patrol. I wonder, if an Iranian submarine entered Israeli waters, and failed to respond to any signals, what would Israel's reaction be? And how would the US respond to that?

International law doesn't have different interpretations in different countries.

Also, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but oil tankers are ships, and ships have the ability to move on water, so if the tanker was blocking the passage, it could've easily moved, since, as was mentioned earlier, ships do have that amazing ability to get from point A to point B on the water. If the tanker was actually blocking merchant marine, that was appropriately responding to signals, that'd be wrong. But that's not the case here, even though Ukraine might pretend that it was.

And yet, if you parked your car in a no stopping zone you'd still receive a ticket even though you could easily have moved your car. This is of course, ignoring the fact that the tanker couldn't have possibly ended up where it was without the help of at least two tug boats, seeing as ships can't travel in a direction perpendicular to the bow.

[Shofercia]

Amazingly enough, different laws have different interpretations in different countries. It can be a hard concept to grasp. Russia de facto controls Crimea, (one side of the strait,) and de facto controls Taman, (another side of the strait,) whereas Ukrainian warships were attempting to cross the strait, and allegedly, weren't responding to the border patrol. I wonder, if an Iranian submarine entered Israeli waters, and failed to respond to any signals, what would Israel's reaction be? And how would the US respond to that?

International law doesn't have different interpretations in different countries.

Maybe not in your imagination, but in reality - it does. For instance, China interprets Taiwan's status differently from the way that the US interprets Taiwan's status. There's even a Most Favored Nation Clause as part of International Law, which states that some nations are favored over others, in the name. Furthermore, when it comes to territorial disputes, like Crimea, different nations treat said disputes, differently. We have different Judges provide different interpretations to the US Constitution, i.e. Living Document Interpretation vs Textualist Interpretation, but suddenly, all countries have the same interpretation of every treaty in the UN Charter?

Also, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but oil tankers are ships, and ships have the ability to move on water, so if the tanker was blocking the passage, it could've easily moved, since, as was mentioned earlier, ships do have that amazing ability to get from point A to point B on the water. If the tanker was actually blocking merchant marine, that was appropriately responding to signals, that'd be wrong. But that's not the case here, even though Ukraine might pretend that it was.

And yet, if you parked your car in a no stopping zone you'd still receive a ticket even though you could easily have moved your car. This is of course, ignoring the fact that the tanker couldn't have possibly ended up where it was without the help of at least two tug boats, seeing as ships can't travel in a direction perpendicular to the bow.

Actually, if we're talking about a realistic comparison, then in this scenario, I would've had de facto control of the lot, and I wouldn't have given myself a ticket. Maybe you love giving yourself parking tickets, but I certainly don't. You can't just pull comparison out of your ass, Special Aromas, as comparisons have to be somewhat relevant.

[Cinnibar]

My opinion is that because of Yeltsin, Medvedev & Putin, the Soviet Union never ceased to exist, but rather, the economy was reorganized, and outside of the Baltics, the former Soviet Socialist Republics are merely highly autonomous to the point where they seem independent, but have Pro-Russian dictators. As of now, only four non-baltic countries have broken free of Russian control, two peacefully (Kyrgyzstan & Armenia), and two violently (Georgia and Ukraine).

[Special Aromas]

International law doesn't have different interpretations in different countries.

Maybe not in your imagination, but in reality - it does. For instance, China interprets Taiwan's status differently from the way that the US interprets Taiwan's status. There's even a Most Favored Nation Clause as part of International Law, which states that some nations are favored over others, in the name. Furthermore, when it comes to territorial disputes, like Crimea, different nations treat said disputes, differently. We have different Judges provide different interpretations to the US Constitution, i.e. Living Document Interpretation vs Textualist Interpretation, but suddenly, all countries have the same interpretation of every treaty in the UN Charter?

None of these examples have anything to do with international law, you seem to be conflating foreign policy and law into one issue.

And yet, if you parked your car in a no stopping zone you'd still receive a ticket even though you could easily have moved your car. This is of course, ignoring the fact that the tanker couldn't have possibly ended up where it was without the help of at least two tug boats, seeing as ships can't travel in a direction perpendicular to the bow.

Actually, if we're talking about a realistic comparison, then in this scenario, I would've had de facto control of the lot, and I wouldn't have given myself a ticket. Maybe you love giving yourself parking tickets, but I certainly don't. You can't just pull comparison out of your ass, Special Aromas, as comparisons have to be somewhat relevant.

I think the comparison is quite apt at highlighting that blockades aren't legal simply because the ships can be removed at any time, hence your excuse is bogus.

[Shofercia]

Maybe not in your imagination, but in reality - it does. For instance, China interprets Taiwan's status differently from the way that the US interprets Taiwan's status. There's even a Most Favored Nation Clause as part of International Law, which states that some nations are favored over others, in the name. Furthermore, when it comes to territorial disputes, like Crimea, different nations treat said disputes, differently. We have different Judges provide different interpretations to the US Constitution, i.e. Living Document Interpretation vs Textualist Interpretation, but suddenly, all countries have the same interpretation of every treaty in the UN Charter?

None of these examples have anything to do with international law, you seem to be conflating foreign policy and law into one issue.

Fairly certain that when the US Supreme Court interprets the US Constitution, they're going for the law, rather than the policy, but you're welcome to disagree. International Law is defined as "a body of rules established by custom or treaty and recognized by nations as binding in their relations with one another". Not sure if you're aware of this, Special Aromas, but different nations have different customs, which are interpreted differently. Different blocks of nations have different International Law Treaties with each other, making them different treaties which apply differently.

Actually, if we're talking about a realistic comparison, then in this scenario, I would've had de facto control of the lot, and I wouldn't have given myself a ticket. Maybe you love giving yourself parking tickets, but I certainly don't. You can't just pull comparison out of your ass, Special Aromas, as comparisons have to be somewhat relevant.

I think the comparison is quite apt at highlighting that blockades aren't legal simply because the ships can be removed at any time, hence your excuse is bogus.

Where did I say that blockades are legal because ships can be removed at any time? You made a post whining about the tanker being definitely already on the location, (not just already, but definitely already,) implying that the tanker was there to block not just military, but also civilian traffic, without having any proof to support that implication, and now you're "heroically" attempting to put words in my mouth. I even stated, in black and white, for all of those who are capable of reading comprehension:

...ships do have that amazing ability to get from point A to point B on the water. If the tanker was actually blocking merchant marine, that was appropriately responding to signals, that'd be wrong. But that's not the case here, even though Ukraine might pretend that it was.

And now you're pretending that quote is about legitimizing blockades because ships can be moved... lolwut?

[Special Aromas]

None of these examples have anything to do with international law, you seem to be conflating foreign policy and law into one issue.

Fairly certain that when the US Supreme Court interprets the US Constitution, they're going for the law, rather than the policy, but you're welcome to disagree. International Law is defined as "a body of rules established by custom or treaty and recognized by nations as binding in their relations with one another". Not sure if you're aware of this, Special Aromas, but different nations have different customs, which are interpreted differently. Different blocks of nations have different International Law Treaties with each other, making them different treaties which apply differently.

Russia is party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Russia, within that treaty, is not granted a role which gives them a responsibility akin to the role of the US Supreme Court in adjudicating breaches of the law. The responsibility of interpreting the law rests with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Russia may very well have been operating within their own legal boundaries, but that assertion isn't worth a pinch of shit.

I think the comparison is quite apt at highlighting that blockades aren't legal simply because the ships can be removed at any time, hence your excuse is bogus.

Where did I say that blockades are legal because ships can be removed at any time? You made a post whining about the tanker being definitely already on the location, (not just already, but definitely already,) implying that the tanker was there to block not just military, but also civilian traffic, without having any proof to support that implication, and now you're "heroically" attempting to put words in my mouth. I even stated, in black and white, for all of those who are capable of reading comprehension:

...ships do have that amazing ability to get from point A to point B on the water. If the tanker was actually blocking merchant marine, that was appropriately responding to signals, that'd be wrong. But that's not the case here, even though Ukraine might pretend that it was.

And now you're pretending that quote is about legitimizing blockades because ships can be moved... lolwut?

You seem to be taking what I thought was a reasonable discussion to some weirdly personal place, have I struck a nerve with you at some point?

[Shofercia]

Fairly certain that when the US Supreme Court interprets the US Constitution, they're going for the law, rather than the policy, but you're welcome to disagree. International Law is defined as "a body of rules established by custom or treaty and recognized by nations as binding in their relations with one another". Not sure if you're aware of this, Special Aromas, but different nations have different customs, which are interpreted differently. Different blocks of nations have different International Law Treaties with each other, making them different treaties which apply differently.

Russia is party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Russia, within that treaty, is not granted a role which gives them a responsibility akin to the role of the US Supreme Court in adjudicating breaches of the law. The responsibility of interpreting the law rests with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Russia may very well have been operating within their own legal boundaries, but that assertion isn't worth a pinch of shit.

Where did I say that blockades are legal because ships can be removed at any time? You made a post whining about the tanker being definitely already on the location, (not just already, but definitely already,) implying that the tanker was there to block not just military, but also civilian traffic, without having any proof to support that implication, and now you're "heroically" attempting to put words in my mouth. I even stated, in black and white, for all of those who are capable of reading comprehension:



And now you're pretending that quote is about legitimizing blockades because ships can be moved... lolwut?

You seem to be taking what I thought was a reasonable discussion to some weirdly personal place, have I struck a nerve with you at some point?

You thought that placing words in a fellow poster's mouth about claims he never made is a reasonable discussion? And I see your confusion, you think that your interpretation of Russia's assertion actually matters more than Russia's assertion, but in reality, your interpretation isn't worth much. Always glad to help clear up the confusion!

[Phoenicaea]

..I mean, I may understand about (which is fewer than few), Ukraine has been a 'poor' country last decade, no grievance it couldn t invest on armies.

if the neighbor invades, that is it, so I m displeased, nevertheless Ukraine couldn t save itself no need to blame, it couldn t invest all food in armies.

there is techniques, burnt soil, resistance, if you ve got a rather poor country with a larger and belligerant neighbor, you can t do things if you fall misfortunate.

perhaps, beeing (some part) at least of people of different language, they will oppose and resist later if the case. they can, because a resistance may cause the tyrant to fall.

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

no things have been done for aiding Mediterranean, so it is fair people don t want to struggle for the North. the affair is political, and it was corruption that has paved the way for it.

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

the deal of these days is mere fencing, the assault may come not because of this. it is attended because of second wave coming after the first (of Crimea). the aim would be Kiev.

[Special Aromas]

Russia is party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Russia, within that treaty, is not granted a role which gives them a responsibility akin to the role of the US Supreme Court in adjudicating breaches of the law. The responsibility of interpreting the law rests with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Russia may very well have been operating within their own legal boundaries, but that assertion isn't worth a pinch of shit.


You seem to be taking what I thought was a reasonable discussion to some weirdly personal place, have I struck a nerve with you at some point?

You thought that placing words in a fellow poster's mouth about claims he never made is a reasonable discussion? And I see your confusion, you think that your interpretation of Russia's assertion actually matters more than Russia's assertion, but in reality, your interpretation isn't worth much. Always glad to help clear up the confusion!

I mean, you could have spent far less energy saying "To clarify, that's not what I meant. I actually was trying to infer...." and we could have carried on this intriguing discourse without taking offence at innocuous comments.

[Shofercia]

You thought that placing words in a fellow poster's mouth about claims he never made is a reasonable discussion? And I see your confusion, you think that your interpretation of Russia's assertion actually matters more than Russia's assertion, but in reality, your interpretation isn't worth much. Always glad to help clear up the confusion!

I mean, you could have spent far less energy saying "To clarify, that's not what I meant. I actually was trying to infer...." and we could have carried on this intriguing discourse without taking offence at innocuous comments.

It was rather blatantly obvious to anyone who wasn't being deliberately oblivious that I wasn't trying to claim that blockades are legal as long as ships can be moved... How do you go from this:

...ships do have that amazing ability to get from point A to point B on the water. If the tanker was actually blocking merchant marine, that was appropriately responding to signals, that'd be wrong. But that's not the case here, even though Ukraine might pretend that it was.

To this:

blockades aren't legal simply because the ships can be removed at any time

In what World did I say they were?

[Petrolheadia]

Still able to steamroll Poland.


And not making it a concern could lead to stuff like another 1973.

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.

[Special Aromas]

I mean, you could have spent far less energy saying "To clarify, that's not what I meant. I actually was trying to infer...." and we could have carried on this intriguing discourse without taking offence at innocuous comments.

It was rather blatantly obvious to anyone who wasn't being deliberately oblivious that I wasn't trying to claim that blockades are legal as long as ships can be moved... How do you go from this:

...ships do have that amazing ability to get from point A to point B on the water. If the tanker was actually blocking merchant marine, that was appropriately responding to signals, that'd be wrong. But that's not the case here, even though Ukraine might pretend that it was.

To this:

blockades aren't legal simply because the ships can be removed at any time

In what World did I say they were?

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

Also, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but oil tankers are ships, and ships have the ability to move on water, so if the tanker was blocking the passage, it could've easily moved, since, as was mentioned earlier, ships do have that amazing ability to get from point A to point B on the water. If the tanker was actually blocking merchant marine, that was appropriately responding to signals, that'd be wrong. But that's not the case here, even though Ukraine might pretend that it was.

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.

[Petrolheadia]

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.

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.

Besides Russia is not going to attack you, so long as you have allies and a strong military.
Russia only preys on the weak.

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

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

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

Sure, if you pay for it.

[Shofercia]

It was rather blatantly obvious to anyone who wasn't being deliberately oblivious that I wasn't trying to claim that blockades are legal as long as ships can be moved... How do you go from this:

...ships do have that amazing ability to get from point A to point B on the water. If the tanker was actually blocking merchant marine, that was appropriately responding to signals, that'd be wrong. But that's not the case here, even though Ukraine might pretend that it was.

To this:

blockades aren't legal simply because the ships can be removed at any time

In what World did I say they were?

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

Also, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but oil tankers are ships, and ships have the ability to move on water, so if the tanker was blocking the passage, it could've easily moved, since, as was mentioned earlier, ships do have that amazing ability to get from point A to point B on the water. If the tanker was actually blocking merchant marine, that was appropriately responding to signals, that'd be wrong. But that's not the case here, even though Ukraine might pretend that it was.

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!"