Comments by "peabase" (@peabase) on "Finland probes Russia-linked oil tanker over undersea outage | DW News" video.

@efim_sivacholi Was that a Freudian slip, Effie? The flag state of the tanker in question is Cook Islands. Are you fessing up that it's a Russian military ship instead?
19
@johnadam2885 Uh, it's the Soviet Union that's never coming back. In fact, I wonder if the Russian Federation will endure the same fate. Finland and the Baltic states may gain new neighbours in Karelia, Ingria and Amberland. Separatism is on the rise in Russia.
13
@alphaclot302 Ukraine is fighting a defensive war, in full compliance with the UN Charter -- which Russia broke, by the way. Therefore, the EU/NATO is entirely within its rights to support Ukraine in any conceivable manner.
9
More like throwing his toys out of the pram.
8
@crushnevnikita8575 For starters, you're breaking the UN Charter, which explicitly forbids violations of territorial integrity. Actions have consequences, buddy.
4
It seems like the cargo is more valuable than the ship.
4
Thus far it's been two Chinese vessels that dragged their anchors across undersea gas pipelines and data cables.
4
@MKSense1 Hungary doesn't need to approve anything, silly. NATO members are free to come to one another's aid, as they have on numerous occasions already. In the previous subsea cable-cutting incidents, warships and coast guard vessels from Sweden, Finland and Denmark and Germany checked in immediately. NATO may act more in unison at a later date, but nothing prevents its members from acting immediately, jointly or separately. You must confuse NATO for the Borg Collective.
3
@MKSense1 What does this sentence mean: "Not when they have to apply article 5 ignorant"? English translation, please.
3
@VladimirStepanov-e6h It's murkier than that. The Cook Islands enjoy the protection of New Zealand, but New Zealand doesn't legislate them. In other words, the Cook Islands alone have jurisdiction over Eagle S.
3
@jounik You're not making sense. Whoever provides the cargo doesn't necessarily run the ship. It's the flag state of the ships that matters in a legal sense. In two previous two cases, it's China. It doesn't necessarily mean China is guilty, but it is responsible for prosecuting those who are, or failing that, face sanctions itself.
3
There's such a thing as freedom of navigation. If we start encroaching on it, China may also demand that "its" South China Sea is no longer subject to it. However, there are other considerations, like unsafe ships and "poor" seamanship, like dragging anchors willy-nilly over the seafloor, that need to be tackled, but appropriately.
2
@ТаняСкворцова-э9ю No, you only have a lot of whataboutism for us. And why is the Nordstream sabotage uncomfortable to Finland? It didn't deliver gas to Finland -- or anywhere else, for that matter. It's an undersea moment to commemorate Russia's former glory, when it still had something to sell to Europe.
2
@x-hale2899 Right. Or rather, with disapproval. NATO was very divided on the matter, feeling that the justification for the Iraq War -- the ever-elusive WMDs -- just wasn't there. And right we were. Those Freedom fries didn't taste so good after all.
1
@MKSense1 For your info, you don't call someone "an ignorant". You either call them simply "ignorant" or alternatively, "an ignoramus". You're ignorant of this, aren't you? You should also work on your punctuation. To answer your poorly worded question, if NATO's Article 5 does get invoked, Hungary will mobilise, no ifs and buts, just like all NATO members. After all, NATO is not the CSTO, where Russia may or may not spring into action, depending on Putin's priorities.
1
@MKSense1 Oh, you concede that you're wong? That was easy.
1
@inso80 Now it is. I was referring to international waters, where the ship allegedly performed the sabotage.
1
@inso80 It's not, in fact. UNCLOS allows for the seizure of a vessel in international waters if said vessel is engaging in piracy, but interestingly, performing sabotage on vital subsea infrastructure does not allow for it. We're not discussing whether it's wrong or right from a moral point of view. It's about what international law says -- or doesn't say. Let's keep it factual. You can find the information readily on the internet or in news reports that quote legal experts.
1
@inso80 I have a law degree. Even so, I don't interpret the law outside of my area of expertise. You, however, have no such inhibitions as a rank amateur. Since you struggle to stay on topic -- whether or not a ship in international waters can be seized on suspicion of damaging subsea infrastructure -- the answer, according to current legal interpretation of UNCLOS, in unclear at best since there's no precedent. In summary, Eagle S would've been entirely within its rights to continue its journey through international waters unimpeded. In fact, Finland, had it failed to comply with that legal tenet, could've been accused of piracy itself. Before you start whining "NO FAIR!", this is how the cookie crumbles in a legal sense. We can only hope that UNCLOS is amended so that inspections can take place on the high seas without the authorities risking piracy.
1