• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The US Navy is back in the Black Sea, sending a message to Moscow

Westphalian said:
Go and visit Crimea then - and tell the relevant authorities that it's all Ukrainian.
Click to expand...
Why don't you just state:

"The hell with agreements we've signed up to, to hell with any laws or that the annexation of Crimea was illegal....................we've taken it, we're keeping it, and the rest of the world can go to hell."

That would at least be honest.

For once.
 
Westphalian said:
~..........................Note that Russia has never called the Black Sea its own lake. But as a matter of military practicality, it could be, if you madmen pushed the issue, and a poxy US warship means nothing.
Click to expand...
Translation:

"Seeing how, in my dream world, we can make the Black Sea Russian at any time, we don't care what we or anybody else calls it".

That would be honest.

For once.
 
DaveFagan said:
Glad you acknowledge you are in a fantasy World.
/
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-46345317

The law of the sea

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.

Russia has disputed whether the passage was innocent. The UN law states that a passage is innocent "so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state". That includes threat or use of force, exercise or practice with weapons or any act of propaganda affecting the security of the state.

Russia would need to prove that the passage of the Ukrainian vessels was not innocent and that Ukraine had showed "some form of hostile intent", says Mr Muller, to act against them.

According to the Russian FSB's account, Ukrainian vessels entered "combat readiness" in contravention of the innocent passage rules.

A country does not need to ask for permission before exercising that right but can be asked to follow certain rules once doing so.

This may include measures to protect security interests, says Dr Wim Muller, an international law expert at Chatham House.

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.

Ukraine has also highlighted provisions (Article 38 and Article 44) of the convention, which require all ships to be given the freedom to travel through a strait from one part of the high seas to another - known as transit passage.

There are also rules within the UN convention that "ensure that ports which can only be reached by a single route through the strait, as is true of all ports in the Sea of Azov, always remain accessible", says Andrew Serdy, director of the Institute of Maritime Law at Southampton University.
 
Fledermaus said:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-46345317

The law of the sea

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.

Russia has disputed whether the passage was innocent. The UN law states that a passage is innocent "so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state". That includes threat or use of force, exercise or practice with weapons or any act of propaganda affecting the security of the state.

Russia would need to prove that the passage of the Ukrainian vessels was not innocent and that Ukraine had showed "some form of hostile intent", says Mr Muller, to act against them.

According to the Russian FSB's account, Ukrainian vessels entered "combat readiness" in contravention of the innocent passage rules.

A country does not need to ask for permission before exercising that right but can be asked to follow certain rules once doing so.

This may include measures to protect security interests, says Dr Wim Muller, an international law expert at Chatham House.

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.

Ukraine has also highlighted provisions (Article 38 and Article 44) of the convention, which require all ships to be given the freedom to travel through a strait from one part of the high seas to another - known as transit passage.

There are also rules within the UN convention that "ensure that ports which can only be reached by a single route through the strait, as is true of all ports in the Sea of Azov, always remain accessible", says Andrew Serdy, director of the Institute of Maritime Law at Southampton University.
Click to expand...

Yep! With Russian permission.
/
 
UNCLOS Article 18 defines "passage" as navigation through the territorial sea without entering the internal waters of the coastal State or for the purpose of entering or leaving the internal waters, with the condition that the passage be continu- ous and expeditious, save in cases incidental to navigation, of force majeure, distress, or for rendering assistance to other ves- sels.3 ' UNCLOS defines "innocent passage" in Article 19(1) as "innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State."
Article 19 lists activities that constitute a threat to the peace and security of the coastal State, and are therefore pro- hibited in the territorial sea. Those activities are: 1. military activities; 2. activities contrary to the coastal State's customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary regulations; 3. pollution; 4. fish- ing activities; 5. research or survey activities; 6. interference with systems of communication or any other facilities or instal- lations; and 7. "any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage."32 Article 20 also imposes on foreign submarines and other underwater vehicles the obligation to navigate on the sur- face and show their flags while in the territorial sea of another State.

https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1188&context=pilr

The Ukrainian warships had intelligence officers on board and therefore violated condition 1 of 'innocent passage'.

They also failed to heed the instructions of the coastal state (Russia) when in Russian waters.

Two violations of UNCLOS relating to inland sea rules.
 
DaveFagan said:
Yep! With Russian permission.
/
Click to expand...

Where does it state that given the treaty allows BOTH NATIONS passage?

The Russians were informed the ships would be in passage....

And you missed this part...

Russia would need to prove that the passage of the Ukrainian vessels was not innocent and that Ukraine had showed "some form of hostile intent", says Mr Muller, to act against them.

What was the hostile intent?
 
Last edited:
Westphalian said:
UNCLOS Article 18 defines "passage" as navigation through the territorial sea without entering the internal waters of the coastal State or for the purpose of entering or leaving the internal waters, with the condition that the passage be continu- ous and expeditious, save in cases incidental to navigation, of force majeure, distress, or for rendering assistance to other ves- sels.3 ' UNCLOS defines "innocent passage" in Article 19(1) as "innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State."
Article 19 lists activities that constitute a threat to the peace and security of the coastal State, and are therefore pro- hibited in the territorial sea. Those activities are: 1. military activities; 2. activities contrary to the coastal State's customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary regulations; 3. pollution; 4. fish- ing activities; 5. research or survey activities; 6. interference with systems of communication or any other facilities or instal- lations; and 7. "any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage."32 Article 20 also imposes on foreign submarines and other underwater vehicles the obligation to navigate on the sur- face and show their flags while in the territorial sea of another State.

https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1188&context=pilr

The Ukrainian warships had intelligence officers on board and therefore violated condition 1 of 'innocent passage'.

They also failed to heed the instructions of the coastal state (Russia) when in Russian waters.

Two violations of UNCLOS relating to inland sea rules.
Click to expand...

Every military ship I have been on had at least one intelligence officer aboard...

What did those intelligence officer DO to contravene the rules?
 
Fledermaus said:
A country does not need to ask for permission before exercising that right but can be asked to follow certain rules once doing so.
Click to expand...

Between ukraine and russia you are beyond correct, their boundaries overlap and is covered under international law and under treaty. For foriegn entities especially military both countries need to grant permission, meaning the us military can not enter the azov without russian permission and let's say any random russian ally could not enter without ukraines permission.

The rules and norms you boldly put in red are understood worldwide, russia has to deal with it going through turkish waters, turkey is not allowed to restrict them from using the passage without due reason, but can place rules like how the ships travel through the straight or requiring immediate identification and travel plans when called up.
 
beerftw said:
Between ukraine and russia you are beyond correct, their boundaries overlap and is covered under international law and under treaty. For foriegn entities especially military both countries need to grant permission, meaning the us military can not enter the azov without russian permission and let's say any random russian ally could not enter without ukraines permission.

The rules and norms you boldly put in red are understood worldwide, russia has to deal with it going through turkish waters, turkey is not allowed to restrict them from using the passage without due reason, but can place rules like how the ships travel through the straight or requiring immediate identification and travel plans when called up.
Click to expand...

The Putin apologist as usual comes up short....

The Parties, proceeding from the necessity of conservation of the Azov-Kerch defined area of water as integral economic and natural complex, to be used in the interests of the Russian Federation and the Ukraine, have agreed as follows: 1) The sea of Azov and the strait of Kerch are historically internal waters of the Russian Federation and the Ukraine. 2) The sea of Azov must be delimited by the state border in accordance with the Agreement signed by the Parties. 3) Dispute settlement regarding the issues pertaining to the defined area of water of Kerch must be regulated by agreement between the Parties. 4) Mercantile vessels and other state non-commercial vessels flying the flags of the Russian Federation and Ukraine have free navigation in the sea of Azov and the strait of Kerch. 5) Russian-Ukrainian cooperation in the spheres of navigation, fisheries, protection of marine environment, ecological safety and life-saving in the sea of Azov and the strait of Kerch must be implemented on the basis of existing international agreements and by conclusion, in respective cases, of the new ones.
Click to expand...

Agreement between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on cooperation in the use of the Sea of Azov and the Strait of Kerch
 
Westphalian said:
Back - post Christmas.

Great comments by Dave and PoS. What a lot of nonsense RV posts. More pathetic signalling in relation to western made hysteria.

Note that Russia has never called the Black Sea its own lake. But as a matter of military practicality, it could be, if you madmen pushed the issue, and a poxy US warship means nothing.
Click to expand...

There is also a training and readiness benefit gained by taking vessels in close proximity of trouble. Most nations do not have a battle tested officer and NCO corps. War games are great for command and control, but not all that much experience down to troop level. Taking a vessel within contact range of Russa serves to keep you on your toes.
 
As I alluded ............. bolding can't hide ignorance.
 
Rogue Valley said:
The US Navy is back in the Black Sea, sending a message to Moscow

ec2dbeaa95-1_600x.jpg

The USS Fort McHenry, part of the Kearsarge Amphibious Ready Group, has entered the Black Sea.



No, Russian does not own the Black Sea like Putin believes. Hopefully, the USS Fort McHenry will travel to the Ukraine port city of Odesa next.

24 Ukrainian sailors, kidnapped on the high seas on November 25, remain in a Moscow prison. The 'brave' Russian navy wouldn't dare mess with a US warship.

Related: U.S. Warship Arrives At Romanian Port Amid Black Sea Tensions
Click to expand...
Good to see we still exercise freedom of the seas.
 
Just like to point out the no forum rules require every thread to become a "!Trump:twisted:" thread.
 
Bullseye said:
Just like to point out the no forum rules require every thread to become a "!Trump:twisted:" thread.
Click to expand...

If Trump isn't an integral part of a narrative, I don't toss him in.

You should endeavor to do the same re: Hillary and Obama.
 
Rogue Valley said:
If Trump isn't an integral part of a narrative, I don't toss him in.

You should endeavor to do the same re: Hillary and Obama.
Click to expand...
Seriously? You wanna compare the number of times I reference Obama or Hilary vs the number of times you mention Trump. Dude, you got me beat by a couple of orders of magnitude.
 
Bullseye said:
Seriously? You wanna compare the number of times I reference Obama or Hilary vs the number of times you mention Trump. Dude, you got me beat by a couple of orders of magnitude.
Click to expand...

Here in the Europe forum? Dude you're hallucinating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom