Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "BBC journalist reports from British warship as Russia “fires warning shots” - BBC News" video.

  1. Note Israelis also claim 12nm limit off Palestine coast to prevent any supplies.
    9
  2.  @aksbeixhev  If Russia is so insignificant why all this attention from from little island next to Europe? Does UK have its empire? No? Does it count on this planet? Nope. So who cares about UK? Nobody. People in EU even forgot there was some island somewhere.
    3
  3. BUT the do not cross do they? They are just close! Here UK did cross.
    3
  4. Not really. Ukraine has no control of Crimea and under international laws Russia can be either recognized to be new owner or recognized as occupational force. Either way they have same right to 12 nm.
    3
  5.  @nintendokings  What international waters - they were into the 12nm limit. There is a map of their passage that clearly shows violation of international law.
    3
  6. Next time I enter your home and when you protest I point out that I am no threat.
    2
  7. Classic provocation.
    2
  8. Or US.
    2
  9.  @conquery  NATO article 5 clearly states that attack on one member is attack on all and every member must provide help it deems necessary. There is no requirement to provide any help. NATO is a US construct. If US wants to help you, it will. If it does not then it will not. There is no pressure. The only "pressure" is NATO prestige. Lets say warning shots were interpreted as firing on the ship and UK blasted that patrol boat. Russia would sink the destroyer for sure. UK would yell loudly. US would call Russia. Everyone would "de-escalate". UK would look foolish. No one would start a war over this. Depending on how investigation went sanctions would be applied. If it went to international court or something it is a slam dunk win for Russia.
    2
  10.  @mysteriousstranger6857  There is no difference whose land someone recognizes - US occupied Iraq and were occupational authority. Anyone whom entered Iraqi waters under US occupation did so at their peril as US navy had legal right to defend these waters. This way one cannot sail next to Scotland and claim their are just occupied by the British thus making it OK.
    2
  11.  @mysteriousstranger6857  It does not matter whatever territory is recognized to be owned by X or Y. Taiwan is also not recognized yet it has territorial waters. When Iraq was occupied by the US its airspace and territorial waters were under US jurisdiction.
    2
  12.  @thevortex7075  It does not matter whose shore it is - Russia is the occupational authority.
    2
  13.  @conquery  Remember its a defensive alliance where US calls the shots. Invading Russia is not defensive.
    2
  14.  @greatasia606  They are sailing in international waters through, so no poking the dragon.
    2
  15.  @TheFreshman321  Like behind Bosporus. May as well be in UK.
    1
  16. Essentially UK as usual decided to ignore international law that clearly states innocent passage is to be used only if there is no other way*. Yet at 5:10 it is clear there was *other way they did not have to enter territorial waters. It cannot be international waters as per international treaties which UK signed. Each state is entitled to claim up to 12nm. It does not matter whatever the 12nm is from land recognized as part of the state or not. UK warship was just over 10nm from the shore. Innocent passage cannot be claimed. It was plan illegal.
    1
  17.  @GeraudRulz  It only matters whom controls the waters now. Russia does. Same as say Israel controls Golan Heights. No one cares that no one recognizes it as part of Israel. No one asks Syria for permission but Israel. I never saw anyone, even US, refer to Golan Heights as anything but "occupied". The whole world sees it as occupation. Still, you ask Israel as they are de facto in control. You can ask Syria through, see how well you can dodge that Patriot.
    1
  18.  @Giorg189  Course change is on video. The whole interaction lasted less then 30m before UK moved out of territorial waters.
    1
  19.  @mr_slidey  Ship tracker clearly shows them changing course out of territorial waters. It also shows clear violation.
    1
  20.  @conquery  I think everyone agrees this was a provocation. There would be no war over such little things. If UK wanted to somehow continue it they would be alone. US would told them to stop if they refused they would see what bear could do to them. Which mostly would be defensive in nature. I.e. UK would be full on aggressor. Remember NATO is US organization and US is in charge. Wars are no joke with at peer adversaries and are fought for a solid reason. There is zero reason for UK to have a war with Russia. Nor is there a reason for anyone to get involved on UK side. Just imagine for a second what would it mean for say Russia to loose such war - be forced to apologize? Why would NATO assist right away? In what - sudden attack on Russia to escalate? Is UK itself under attack? Nope. So why would NATO (US) help immediately? Finally NATO is a defensive treaty. Attacking Russia by say insane UK government would get a quick rebuke from all NATO members & US. There simply is no point to such action. The most that would happen is sanctions against Russia / demand for investigation. Diplomatic chaos. Maybe thoughts of some retaliation. This would go in front of UN. I am sure Russia would bring the card out that ship was in its waters as per UN laws. Also UK would not be so willing to go for a Russian coast ride without making 100% sure it can win any shooting encounter. NATO is not a license to kick someone and hide behind it. The kick would have to be fully authorized by US and even then could strain NATO on the inside - so frequently US would just kick itself. Imagine UK went into Russian waters and under some pretext sunk a cost guard ship. To which Russia retaliated and sunk the destroyer as it attempted to flee. UK asked NATO for "help" and NATO members (with few exceptions) refused to join some kind of "invasion" of Russia (almost 100% certain). US would go ballistic. Behind the scenes UK main threat would be angry and pissed off US, not defensively minded Russia.
    1
  21.  @conquery  So wait, you do not think it was a provocation?
    1
  22.  @conquery  Maybe you believe the British more? "The Royal Navy ship is conducting innocent passage through Ukrainian territorial waters in accordance with international law." Well, they did lie about the shots - either RN officer or RN spokesperson, both cannot be true. But at least both UK and Russia agree the ship was NOT in international waters. It is obviously provocative as RN even included BBC correspondent. Let me know when was last time Russian warship crossed into UK waters outside of channel crossing aka Transit passage. Go ahead. Well, when was it??? Oh, wait, you have no examples of innocent passages right next to UK bases. Why is that? Note that this passage was not "some random" location next to the coast. Here is legal definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_passage
    1
  23.  @jr-bw1lt  These are Russian waters as Russia controls the land they are attached to. Taiwan has its territorial waters even through they are not recognized. So does Israel (big parts). There are even more airspaces - try central Asia.
    1
  24.  @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
  25.  @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
  26.  @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
  27. 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
  28.  @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
  29.  @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
  30.  @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
  31.  @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
  32.  @Mk1Male  All items I quoted are historically verified and agreed to facts by all sides. Maybe you should learn some history.
    1
  33.  @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
  34.  @Mk1Male  Well. Lets just say I am right and you are wrong. There settled.
    1
  35. It does not matter. They were less then 12nm from shore and 12nm was claimed.
    1
  36. 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
  37.  @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
  38.  @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
  39. 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
  40. Maybe b/c it would had to point a finger at itself?
    1
  41. B/c they were not in international waters ;) They were just over 10nm off the coast.
    1
  42.  @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
  43.  @wolfgangmeyer3900  Ukraine killed not 1000s but millions. And worse part is that current government sings prize to these events - see monuments made to "heroes" of geneocide, cemeteries to fallen SS men etc. One of the laws of UN is the right of the people to decide. Same as the right of Scotland to secede from the UK. Lets use that right to see where Crimea wants to be - you do know they at dissolution of the Soviet Union they voted to be an independent country.
    1
  44.  @KillYourLocalMP  Oh, when was last time someone just crossed into UK territorial waters ... just for a dip? Well? Do you recall anyone in last 50 years?
    1
  45. Same mistake as before WWII - Hitler was supposed to take on evil Stalin. So they supported Adolf. Until it blew into everyone's face.
    1