Jump to content

Will you see a third world war?  

57 members have voted

  1. 1. Will you see a third world war?



Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, dockers_strike said:

Putin's knackered SU24s wouldnt stand an earthly against a Type 45 like Defender and her sisters. Fuck yeah. Mess about with the Royal navy and you will get fucked over. International waters so fuck off.

Or they could just fire a load of missiles as were so close to their territory or from a sub, they obviously won’t because no one benefits from a confrontation but I wouldn’t shake off the the Russian military that easily.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, JagSquared said:

Or they could just fire a load of missiles as were so close to their territory or from a sub, they obviously won’t because no one benefits from a confrontation but I wouldn’t shake off the the Russian military that easily.  

Good luck with that view. Defender's viper missile system can target and acquire 45 individual targets at the same time. Neither was Defender on her own, USN and Dutch navy ships were close by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

British Sailor Cried Himself To Sleep After Iranians Called Him Mr. Bean |  Needs of the Many

 

"I promise that this time i won't cry myself to sleep if the Russkies take my iPod off me and call me Mr Bean."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laughed at the other government comment that the exercise will have backfired with the EU , only strengthening their resolve to have nothing to do with Russia.

 

Which was fine , except it was reported on the Beeb approximately two inches below the headline ' Macron and Merkel to invite Putin to next G7 '

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Another good question :

 

 

The only country that disputes the waters is Russia after annexing the Crimea. Im not aware of another country that doesnt recognise them as 1, Ukrainian waters 2, a recognised shipping lane and 3 siezed territory by Russia.

 

BBC reporters are on board because Defender together with the USS Sullivans and HNLMS Evertson, they are part of the Carrier group that will eventually join up with other ships and go on to Japan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are conflicting accounts from the UK and Russia about an incident off Cape Fiolent on the Crimean peninsula on June 23 when Russia’s defence ministry said its aircraft had fired warning shots at the British destroyer HMS Defender to expel it from Russia’s claimed territorial sea.

The geopolitics that might lie behind the episode are for others to debate, but having credible legal arguments is always important. The UK’s Ministry of Defence said on Twitter:

The Royal Navy ship is conducting innocent passage through Ukrainian territorial waters in accordance with international law.

“Innocent passage” for foreign ships is the main qualification on a coastal state’s otherwise untrammelled sovereignty over its territorial sea of 12 nautical miles. Several provisions are devoted to it in Part II of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which both the UK and Russia (as well as Ukraine) are party.

Disinformation is dangerous. We fight it with facts and expertise

Under Article 17 of UNCLOS, innocent passage is the right to proceed through another country’s territorial waters without interference. Article 18 defines “passage” as navigation through the territorial sea of a coastal state without calling into one of its ports – as HMS Defender was doing – or to or from the internal waters of a state. It must be “continuous and expeditious”, without stopping and anchoring, except in so far as is incidental to ordinary navigation, or because of force majeure or distress, or in order to render assistance to another vessel in distress.

 

Nothing suggests that HMS Defender’s passage was anything but continuous and expeditious. As for what is “innocent”, UNCLOS Article 19 equates this with not being prejudicial to the peace, good order and security of the coastal state, and contains an exhaustive list of prejudicial acts, including use or threat of force, weapons exercises, defence- or security-related information-gathering, propaganda, smuggling of goods or people, launching, landing or taking on board aircraft or military devices, fishing, wilfully polluting and a few others.

UK within its rights

All of this points to the UK being within its rights to send its ship through the territorial waters off the Crimean peninsula. Notably, there is no requirement that innocent passage must be done for a particular purpose, nor does it need justification in terms of the directness of the route from port of origin to destination (although a glance at the map shows that passing close to Crimea is indeed the shortest way from Odessa to any Georgian port).

Wikimedia map of Black Sea showing main ports.
 
Black Sea: the waters off Crimea are part of the route from Odessa to any Georgian ports. Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

So far there has been no accusation from Russia that HMS Defender was engaged in any of the acts that by UNCLOS Article 19 render passage non-innocent, which would have triggered Article 25 permitting the coastal state to take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent. It seems to have been its mere presence that Russia found objectionable, possibly because HMS Defender was too close for comfort to the sensitive naval port of Sevastopol.

 

The UK maintains that the ship was in a recognised sea lane. This appears to be an indirect reference to UNCLOS Article 22, which permits the coastal state to “require foreign ships exercising the right of innocent passage through its territorial sea to use such sea lanes … as it may designate or prescribe for the regulation of the passage of ships”.

 

Sea lanes off southwestern Crimea were already included in the 2013 edition of the Ships’ Routeing publication of the International Maritime Organization (the UN specialised agency for shipping), the last that predates the 2014 Russian takeover of Crimea. The current (2019) edition is behind a paywall, but it would not have been in Russia’s interest to alter the lanes since then, as that would invite the question of whether it has lawfully acquired territorial title to Crimea, answered resoundingly in the negative by UN General Assembly Resolution 68/262.

A different rule for warships?

One possible counterargument would be to say that warships do not in fact have the right of innocent passage, only merchant ships. But this is a minority view and unconvincing, as it would make nonsense of much of the relevant provisions of UNCLOS. Many of the acts identified as prejudicial under Article 19 can in practice only be done by warships, yet there is no point including them in this list if warships do not benefit from the right in the first place.

 

Moreover Russia – which, in the eyes of international law is considered as a “continuator” state to the former Soviet Union – is on record as taking what one might call the orthodox view. The 1989 USA-USSR Joint Statement on the Uniform Interpretation of Rules of International Law Governing Innocent Passage confirms that:

All ships, including warships …, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea in accordance with international law, for which neither prior notification nor authorization is required.

The 1989 statement, on which all states can rely, goes on to say that a coastal state “which questions whether the particular passage of a ship through its territorial sea is innocent shall inform the ship of the reason why it questions the innocence of the passage, and provide the ship an opportunity to clarify its intentions or correct its conduct”. No exchange of this type has been publicly released. So it is not clear why Russia reacted as it did against the passage of HMS Defender, and the UK’s legal position, at least on the facts as known, appears strong.

 

But if the aim of the passage was to underline the UK view that the Crimea belongs to Ukraine and not Russia, given the reference in the Ministry of Defence statement to HMS Defender being in Ukrainian territorial waters, this is misconceived, as it cannot possibly advance Ukraine’s claim. It might even be counterproductive, by giving an opening to an argument that the passage, if undertaken predominantly for propaganda purposes, becomes non-innocent under Article 19.

The China question

For the whole point of innocent passage is that, as a right, permission does not have to be sought for it, which makes it irrelevant to which state the territory in question belongs. The same, incidentally, goes for the South China Sea, where – even now – the Royal Navy is sending a carrier group. Innocent passage within 12 nautical miles of any feature clear of the water at high tide is a right irrespective of which of the claimants has the better case for territorial title.

The only difference is that one of them, China, is the leading proponent of the view confining innocent passage to merchant ships. So – bearing in mind the qualification about propaganda – making a demonstration of passing through without seeking any claimant’s permission does actually serve a purpose there.

This thus calls into question the wisdom of an operation which has predictably annoyed Russia – assuming that was not in fact its sole aim. But it does nothing to bolster Ukraine’s claim, however worthy a goal it might be to act in support of the UN’s rejection of any change in status of Crimea in 2014.

So in future the UK would be well advised to avoid relying on Ukrainian “permission” as a justification. This would only undermine the innocent passage rule, as one imagines the US and perhaps others are forcefully pointing out to the UK behind the scenes.

 

https://theconversation.com/hms-defender-incident-what-the-law-of-the-sea-says-163389

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dockers_strike said:

The only country that disputes the waters is Russia after annexing the Crimea. Im not aware of another country that doesnt recognise them as 1, Ukrainian waters 2, a recognised shipping lane and 3 siezed territory by Russia.

 

BBC reporters are on board because Defender together with the USS Sullivans and HNLMS Evertson, they are part of the Carrier group that will eventually join up with other ships and go on to Japan.

 

Yeah I still think it's one of the most stupid fucking things I've read about all year. This was to wind Russia up, next they're off to wind China up. I think we'd be best focusing on our own currently fucked up island instead of sending warships around the world to wind up two of the most powerful countries on the planet and pretending the British Empire is still a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Yeah I still think it's one of the most stupid fucking things I've read about all year. This was to wind Russia up, next they're off to wind China up. I think we'd be best focusing on our own currently fucked up island instead of sending warships around the world to wind up two of the most powerful countries on the planet and pretending the British Empire is still a thing.

 

I totally disagree, I don't think anyone is pretending we have an empire. 

 

The Russians have been playing around on the borders of our airspace for decades and will continue to do so, they do similar things with UK waters. It's a tedious game between the countries and can alarm its citizens but it won't stop. 

 

They no doubt expect us and other countries to retaliate, that's part of the game. None of the countries want mutually assured destruction but these games are constant tests. 

 

While we on our own have almost no defence against them, (apart from nuclear) we have little option but to push back on them. Even if it gives them a laugh. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Yeah I still think it's one of the most stupid fucking things I've read about all year. This was to wind Russia up, next they're off to wind China up. I think we'd be best focusing on our own currently fucked up island instead of sending warships around the world to wind up two of the most powerful countries on the planet and pretending the British Empire is still a thing.

Personally, I dont think our island is fucked up even if it isnt perfect. I cant remember the last time we smeared a deadly nerve agent on a door handle in an attempt to assasinate a known dissident and ended up killing someone else. Neither can I recall us using an umbrella to inject a plutonium pellet into another dissident so he'd die very slowly.

 

Russian air force planes and navy ships regularly 'test' UK forces response so maybe President Putin should concentrate on putting his own house in order instead of worrying about a navy ship undertaking a legally innocent passage?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Impostor said:

I totally disagree, I don't think anyone is pretending we have an empire. 

 

The Russians have been playing around on the borders of our airspace for decades and will continue to do so, they do similar things with UK waters. It's a tedious game between the countries and can alarm its citizens but it won't stop. 

 

They no doubt expect us and other countries to retaliate, that's part of the game. None of the countries want mutually assured destruction but these games are constant tests. 

 

While we on our own have almost no defence against them, (apart from nuclear) we have little option but to push back on them. Even if it gives them a laugh. 

 

 

 

A bunch of stupid Tories are on a power trip after leaving the EU, wouldn't be surprised if they had the old empire in mind. The last defence secretary said this :

 

Quote

Brexit, says the defence secretary, “has brought us to a great moment in our history”, when we must be ready to deploy “hard power” against those who “ flout international law”.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/11/gavin-williamson-defence-policy-uk

 

The current clown probably has the same type of things in mind. And yeah the Russian gov is fucking stupid sending bombers and whatever else over here to wind us up, but I don't think the most sensible option after defending ourselves is to then go off doing the same to them before going to wind the Chinese up too. Maybe I missed the part where China had also been in our waters/airspace or something? Or maybe it's that we're a US lap dog going off to wind them up because they threaten the dollar more than most others at the moment.

 

1 hour ago, dockers_strike said:

Personally, I dont think our island is fucked up even if it isnt perfect. I cant remember the last time we smeared a deadly nerve agent on a door handle in an attempt to assasinate a known dissident and ended up killing someone else. Neither can I recall us using an umbrella to inject a plutonium pellet into another dissident so he'd die very slowly.

 

Russian air force planes and navy ships regularly 'test' UK forces response so maybe President Putin should concentrate on putting his own house in order instead of worrying about a navy ship undertaking a legally innocent passage?

 

I think that after more than a decade of austerity to help out bankers, financial institutions and other greedy elites, over a decade of the Tories and a global pandemic things are pretty fucked up right now. Sending ships over to Russia and China might not be the best solution.

 

I can't remember the last time Russia joined an Iraq or Libya either. Depleted uranium in Iraq alone outweighs a plutonium pellet and some nerve agent smeared on a door handle by several orders of magnitude too.

 

It doesn't mean that I don't think the Russian gov is also stupid, or that I don't think Putin is a massive fucking loon who'd happily keep himself in power for eternity if he could, but sending warships nearby to wind them up with BBC and Daily Fail reporters on board before going off to start up the next South China Sea drama isn't the best answer to those problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Butch said:

Russian warship fire's warning shots at British warship. 

Thank fuck they didn't engage. Must have known it was warning shots and no genuine threat or that Russian ship would have been toast. Then so would all of us probably. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’re assuming that the Russians don’t have a copy of the Type 45 Destroyer plans. They do, and they’ve identified a weakness.

 

It's a small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port. The shaft leads directly to the reactor system. A precise hit will start a chain reaction which should destroy the ship. Only a precise hit will set off a chain reaction.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Anubis said:

You’re assuming that the Russians don’t have a copy of the Type 45 Destroyer plans. They do, and they’ve identified a weakness.

 

It's a small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port. The shaft leads directly to the reactor system. A precise hit will start a chain reaction which should destroy the ship. Only a precise hit will set off a chain reaction.

It's not sub goalie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anubis said:

You’re assuming that the Russians don’t have a copy of the Type 45 Destroyer plans. They do, and they’ve identified a weakness.

 

It's a small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port. The shaft leads directly to the reactor system. A precise hit will start a chain reaction which should destroy the ship. Only a precise hit will set off a chain reaction.

Their plans are fucking useless then. The Type 45s arent nuclear powered and have no reactor to go critical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Section_31 said:

 

Two things struck me. 

 

1 how polite are the British?

 

2 the Russians are still using paper maps 

 

On boats they all use maps instead of totally relying on technology. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×