Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "BBC News" channel.

  1. Yep!
    1
  2. Plenty of people. Shows 10 cars ... Fail.
    1
  3.  @nintendokings  No BBC. Waters are under authority of Russian Federation. Same as Taiwan is under authority of Republic of China and Iraq was under US authority.
    1
  4. The long term repercussions are a fall of EU and US thanks to Putin, a leader of one of the smallest economies in Europe. There be books written how something so small could topple something that large.
    1
  5. Well they can later call it truthful news - I mean chances of getting land back are 0.001% - but more then 0. So "Could" is true. Like you could mutate into a bird and fly away - its a true statement.
    1
  6. World voted "no interest" to any AZ - AM UN resolutions so do not expect any sanctions on AZ.
    1
  7.  @mysteriousstranger6857  This has nothing to do with legality or illegality of Russian occupation. Russia is in de facto control and thus has full rights to the waters. Same as any other power that is doing an occupation of any land, whatever recognized or not. This is why UK warship did alter its course and moved out of the waters. Since it clipped on a triangle it was not a big deal. If you were correct then UK warship could have just been parked there. If you are correct the Taiwan can give permission to anyone to sail /fly into PRC waters/air. And vice versa. Also you can certainly fly over Golan Heights, not recognized by anyone except Israel without asking Israel - good luck with that. There are many, many examples. The international law is set on de facto as it is far more practical. Imagine Scotts demanded independence and UK did not want to give it to them. They would claim they are occupied. Would it now suddenly by OK for Russians to sail in Scottish waters if some Scottish lad gave them permission? It also lead to "not recognized" question - if say Russia does not recognize X would it mean it can simply ignore current ownership? What about partial recognition? As you can see it is far easier to go de facto - nice and clear. I mean Spain claims Gibraltar and Argentina claims Falklands - so one can say UK is also occupying these lands - I mean who is the legal authority on Earth (God?) who grants this full on de juro ownership. There is lots of "lines of control" especially in Asia. It is not clear to anyone whom exactly should own the land - even UN cannot resolve the issue. Its not white and black. Hence de facto.
    1
  8.  @mysteriousstranger6857  Taiwan is as recognized as is Crimea. Israel's territories it occupies are recognized by everyone as occupied. When US invaded Grenada they had ZERO support from international community. It established occupational authority and took over territorial waters. In short UN "international community" opinion do not matter much. There would not be any "war" as a result of a skirmish - as wars have "purpose". International community sees this as provocation. It is also not legal as per international law. So I fail to see HOW international community would rail around UK. Status of "Crimea" is meaningless - occupational authority is Russia. Full UN vote would certainly fail for the UK - these even failed against Israel multiple times (Palestine coast). Israel had no qualms in sending armed troops and killing people. In occupied zone. Foreigners. UK is no US. There is no "power" to back things up. Any "war" would be interesting as there would be no purpose. UK ships would not be allowed into Bosphorus so they could not sail next to Crimea. What would UK do - invade Vladivostok? Come on, be sensible. US did get rammed once and did not try such stunt for some time afterwards (in almost exact same spot - the fact of Crimea not being contested back then was of no issue). Stunts are risky. What if there was miscalculation in the stunt? And we are talking about US here not some small island that is not even part of EU. The main fallout would be diplomatic, sanctions and more behind scenes diplomacy. Lets just say there would be no sailing in Russian waters for a while - recognized or not (which is of no issue). Also this may be brought to international court so UK gets its "international community" response.
    1
  9. Where are the news of Russian advances on the main front - in Donbas? Russian offensive in the Donbas region is slowly pushing Ukrainian forces out.
    1
  10. Sure, but Russians are also moving around 1000s of troops getting ready for a counter.
    1
  11. Oh, so Kosovo back to Serbia?
    1
  12.  @pedrorodrigues7285  More than Ukrainians in Crimea.
    1
  13.  @pedrorodrigues7285  Its Albanians not *Armenians*. Donbass and Crimea have majority Russian population. Part of the reason for the war is to prevent an Ukrainian massacre. After all, Ukrainian government made anything remotely Russian illegal - no books, no language, no culture. They allow or turn blind eye to any killings of ethnic Russians.
    1
  14.  @pedrorodrigues7285  Few things to note - Kosovo had mixed population of Serbs and Albanians for a long time. Since Ottoman invasion the Albanians were converted to Islam and since about that time each time one of the sides has upper hand they kill of the other. So, no, there is no historical strong precedent for Kosovo to be Albanian. Crimea did not have a Tatar majority for a very long time and was taken over by Russian empire at time of Catherine the Great. Tatars were part of the so called "white horde" before the time of takeover and were major contributor to killing and pillaging of Rusin land - i.e. they were main force that killed of Ukrainian people's ancestors. So I do not see them historically as "friends". These not killed were sold as slaves - one of the women taken did so well she was empress of Ottomans for few years (!) As for today, majority of Crimean people are Russians and want to be in Russia - something I respect as we should respect the will of the people. Either you respect will of all people regardless of ethnicity or you are a racist. Please state which one you are.
    1
  15.  @pedrorodrigues7285  Stalin did not give Crimea to Ukraine. Crimea was administratively transferred to Ukrainian SSR by Chruszczow. I.e. ethnic Ukrainian. UN did not recognize Crimea transfer as this was internal administrative thing of Soviet Union. UN also recognized sovereign territory of Serbia - which includes Kosovo - US as a permanent member of UN has to uphold UN laws and thus ... help Serbia recover Kosovo - no? This is not about Putin's Law. This is about UN law called "the right of people to determine their future". I.e. UN recognizes that it is a human right to chose you future. I.e. the people of Crimea have the right, as per UN, to decide their future. US as permanent member of the UN has a duty to assist people of Crimea in fulfilling their desire for the future - a future as part of Russia. So why is US not doing its duty?
    1
  16.  @pedrorodrigues7285  Crimea belongs to people of Crimea. People of Crimea, as per international law, decided to join Russia and left Ukraine. What is the problem? All legal. Or do you want to return Kosovo to Serbia?
    1
  17.  @pedrorodrigues7285  Where is this BS coming from? Donbass is de-populating like rest of Ukraine - who wants to live in a war zone. I.e. people are leaving Donbas and houses are empty. Most leave for Russia. We can do UN sponsored referendum with all people that were there before the war, would that make you happy?
    1
  18. Umm, no they do not. I do not recall a single incident in last decade. Air identification zone is NOT sovereign airspace.
    1
  19. Shipping lane is for shipping not for warships. Warships have to claim innocent passage through territorial waters. Here as per video this cannot be claimed, as there was clearly another way. Thus UK actions were illegal.
    1
  20.  @thevortex7075  Occupational authority is anyone occupying the land. It does not matter it was invaded and is held temporarily, permanently, is recognized by everyone or no one. It is whom is on the land right now and has control of it. UN recognizes 12nm limit of occupational authority. Go sail next to Palestine and get shot by Israelis. Explain in your dying breath that UN does not recognize Israel as "occupational authority" and some other BS. No one will care. You die. Israel will return your body and other UK sailors to UK and cut your ship for scrap. And that will be the end of it. They defended their shore. As per UN laws. Even anti Israel UN would condemn your unprovoked attack on Israel.
    1
  21. It supposedly dropped 4 general purpose 250kg bombs in front. We do get video of the destroyer from a drone and a video of the fighter bomber crossing next to it - I wonder whatever there will be video of actual bomb drop. Certainly Russians were in force with also a patrol craft in the video. Patrol craft clearly veers towards the destroyer and has a huge wake - it was going fast.
    1
  22. Well they are cheering it even more now.
    1
  23. One has to look at both Korean war and Vietnam war. In neither war, Soviets came even within small fraction of the help - money wise, to what US already provided Ukraine. In fact, adjusted for inflation, per year, this is way more $$$ than US provided Soviet Union during WWII to fight the Germans.... Come on, if this was Soviets helping Ukraine fight US, the money would be 1/10 ... at most!
    1
  24. They are killing them in a simulation. Russians are killing them in real life.
    1
  25.  @eddiel7635  But did they? Almost all actions now supposedly Russian are with Novichok. None end up with target death. Would anyone sane use an agent that as Russian as a bear time and time again with success rate of zero? KGB was the best intelligence agency on the planet hands down. Is this their legacy? Really?
    1
  26.  @mikuso-iw6gj  He could have given up the land before even the war started & less land. He did not think through what turning to the west will mean for relations with Russia. If you can see AZ is rich and well armed why did not PM?
    1
  27. So why is there a UK ship so close to Russia? I assume you do not count UK as part of Western Europe. Even if you only count say France they certainly did invade and fought many times after WWII - say the kicking they got in Vietnam where Vietnamese fought off French to grab freedom just for US to come in and try to tarnish it.
    1
  28.  @Mk1Male  Like sail through "Palestinian" waters and show these Israelis they have no power there. I would not be surprised if Israel after few warning shots just sunk it. They have US support. UK can do nothing to them & it would be a very strong message.
    1
  29.  @Mk1Male  The almost sunk US warship, I think UK would be easy pickings for them. . Why there are no Palestinian waters - they have Gaza strip, don't they? That strip is adjacent to the ocean, is it not? So they have 12nm they can claim, right? Also how many UK aircraft did Israel shot down, it must be almost 100.
    1
  30.  @Mk1Male  All items I quoted are historically verified and agreed to facts by all sides. Maybe you should learn some history.
    1
  31.  @Mk1Male  So I guess you do not know how to use google.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident https://www.historynet.com/spitfire-vs-spitfire-aerial-combat-israels-war-independence.htm
    1
  32.  @Mk1Male  Well. Lets just say I am right and you are wrong. There settled.
    1
  33. I can almost see someone in Hitler's staff, in February of 1945 saying "We can still win this" ;)
    1
  34. It shows CIA is worthless and/or Biden knows how to lie and does not worry pp know he lies.
    1
  35.  @El-Jefe  Imagine HMS Defender has to be towed back to UK after one of warning bombs goes off too close. What an embarrassment.
    1
  36.  @GalAxy-u9s  And they are only 1/2 the size of Russian ones ;)))))))))))
    1
  37. Its an old ballistic missile with low accuracy from Soviet times. AM does not have a lot of modern weapons so they use the old ones. They may be running low on artillery ammo for smerch and thus are using old ballistic missiles to retaliate for heavy shelling of NK.
    1
  38. It does not matter. They were less then 12nm from shore and 12nm was claimed.
    1
  39. This was no protest. Just UK looking for a provocation. It does not matter whose waters UK thinks they are - occupational authority is of Russia. This is not the first time this occurred. US in the late 80s did the same thing in exact same area when Ukraine was in Soviet Union. For some unknown reason west loves to do it exactly at that same spot.
    1
  40.  @internetenjoyer1044  First of all its not your channel. Most of it has international waters and only short portion has both French and UK waters joined. However, since there is no other way, the right of innocent passage applies. I assume the actual channel is right between UK and France. When US does it next to Iran they usually go into Quatar waters - even through technically they could be in the middle or Iranian waters. Here there was no innocent passage - they simply first said its innocent, then they said they never were in, then something even more bizarre. Frankly it was just provocation, similar to Russians going next to some UK naval base for "fun".
    1
  41.  @internetenjoyer1044  Legal response as per rules of the sea is clear "since there was no reasonable grounds for innocent passage claim the crossing was illegal". I.e. UK ship was not allowed. The status of Crimea is irrelevant. Same thigs have happened during cold war in exactly same spot (more or less) multiple times. No one contested Crimea then. Also international law does not care who "should" own Crimea - but whom currently occupies it.
    1
  42. Why would they not attack military targets? What do they have too many missiles?
    1
  43. Russian warning shots simply were not recorded by the British which point out next time they should just shoot at the destroyer to get someone's attention. I mean these ships are now so automated that there are to few pp to actually see what is going on.
    1
  44. Not out of your airspace - out of international air space. International. Stop extending UK over to international space. Or US will do you a freedom of navigation.
    1
  45. They were doing gunnery exercise close to UK destroyer - which despite a warning of such exercise was... so close as to see it... this makes little sense. If someone was on the range would you run in front of their gun or anywhere close to it?
    1
  46. When AZ shells civilians do expect to have your civilians shelled back. As simple as that. AZ should either not agree to a ceasefire or when they agree stick to it. If they agree and intentionally break it then it puts any agreement with AZ as a joke not worth money its written on.
    1
  47. Maybe b/c it would had to point a finger at itself?
    1
  48. Getting closer to be strongest on Earth - may supersede US next year.
    1
  49. B/c they were not in international waters ;) They were just over 10nm off the coast.
    1
  50.  @wolfgangmeyer3900  Well, Kosovo did not even have a vote and it separated. If you held a vote under UN rules it would be the same count. Now what?
    1