• 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!

Ukraine Seizes Russian Tanker

PoS

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
33,919
Reaction score
26,629
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/world/europe/ukraine-russia-tanker.html

In a move likely to further ratchet up tensions between Moscow and Kiev, Ukraine seized a Russian tanker that it said was used during a naval confrontation last year to block passage through a disputed waterway linked to the Black Sea, Ukraine’s security service said on Thursday.
Click to expand...

Ukrainians are just like the Iranians, looking for war, but the difference is theyre cowards when they'll come crying to the West all over again. Well, I have a feeling they're going to get it.
 
As usual, you conveniently leave out the reason that tanker was seized. But I will explain your Kremlin disinformation with words and pictures and links :yes:

17341_big_pdpochrpopgpa1_bimage_17349_2185.jpg


Above - Russia constructed an illegal bridge connecting occupied Crimea and southern Russia. The arched span above is located in the narrow Kerch Strait and is the only entrance/exit from the Black Sea (international waterway) to the Azov Sea. According to a 1992/2003 Treaty, Ukraine and Russia share joint rights to the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov.

Agreement between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on cooperation in the use of the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait

UNCLOS/Law of the Sea - Joint Statement by Ukraine and Russia on the Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait 24 December 2003 (Page 131)

CONTINUED
 
On 25 November 2018, Russian warships captured 2 Ukrainian patrol boats and a tugboat in the Black Sea, kidnapping the 24 sailors, and towing the boats to occupied Crimea.


Investigating The Kerch Strait Incident


[video=youtube;JnU_F2LwHrI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?JnU_F2LwHrI[/video]


D1omY0BXQAEbg5A.jpg

The 24 kidnapped Ukrainian sailors


To this day the captured boats are still being held in occupied Crimea, and the Ukrainian sailors remain imprisoned in Moscow's infamous Lefortovo Prison.

2240159.jpg

Lefortovo Prison in Moscow

CONTINUED
 
Also on 25 November 2018, Russian tugboats manuvered an empty tanker under the Crimea bridge span in the Kerch Strait to block entrance/exit between the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.....

%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%80-%D0%AD%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BD.jpg


Above - Russian tugs pulling the empty tanker side-wise under the Crime Bridge

2018-11-25T144607Z_536891014_UP1EEBP150UU2_RTRMADP_3_UKRAINE-CRISIS-RUSSIA-800x461.jpg


Above - The tanker positioned. No ships can now pass through the Kerch Strait and into the Sea of Azov until Russia decides to remove the tanker.

This is in violation of international law, and the 1992/2003 Treaty signed by Ukraine and Russia

CONTINUED
 
PoS said:
Ukrainians are just like the Iranians, looking for war, but the difference is theyre cowards when they'll come crying to the West all over again. Well, I have a feeling they're going to get it.
Click to expand...

Iran was not promised protection by the United States in exchange for giving up their nuclear weapons and then abandoned during invasion and annexation.

What's happening in Ukraine is directly the US's fault.
 
On 25 May 2019 the Maritime Tribunal at the Hague orders Russia to release the kidnapped Ukrainian sailors and the boats.....

UN Tribunal Orders Russia to Release Ukrainian Sailors, Ships

International court orders Russia to release detained Ukrainian sailors

Russia refused to defend her actions at the Hague because there is no defense for piracy at sea.

To this day, Russia still has not complied with the court's order. This is the highest international Maritime Court in the world.

CONTINUED
 
ecofarm said:
Iran was not promised protection by the United States in exchange for giving up their nuclear weapons and then abandoned during invasion and annexation.

What's happening in Ukraine is directly the US's fault.
Click to expand...

Why muck up this thread with Iran crap? Geezus.
 
That tanker that was blocking the Kerch Strait under the bridge?

0431e0deff8840ac96d67904f70fa91f


Russia had the gall to sail this ship (NEYMA) in Ukrainian waters and dock at a Ukrainian port! (Izmail, in Odesa oblast).

The crew was released back to Russia, but the tanker was impounded.

Now you know the entire story, the one the OP (PoS) didn't want to tell you :mrgreen:
 
ecofarm said:
OP: I think my countering an asinine claim made in the OP is legit play.
Click to expand...

Well, you could have waited until I was done explaining what the pro-Russia OP had conveniently forgot to mention. :lamo

No biggie though.
 
ecofarm said:
Iran was not promised protection by the United States in exchange for giving up their nuclear weapons and then abandoned during invasion and annexation.

What's happening in Ukraine is directly the US's fault.
Click to expand...

I agree, but its clear Ukraine is doing its best to start a conflict and then will come running like cowards to the West once Russia reacts.

Iran was promised a deal by the US but then America pulled out of it too- so your so-called moral high ground is pretty much the same for both.
 
PoS said:
I agree, but its clear Ukraine is doing its best to start a conflict and then will come running like cowards to the West once Russia reacts.
Click to expand...

Ukraine has every right to ask for help. It gave up operational nuclear arms in exchange for US protection. We abandoned them as they were invaded an annexed. Not only is the conflict in Ukraine our fault, we poisoned the well of promises for de-nuclearization.

We totally ****ed up that situation so badly, we owe the Ukraine everything. There's literally nothing - nothing - they could ask for that we don't owe them.
 
ecofarm said:
We abandoned them as they were invaded an annexed.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Putin made the decision to employ his military in Ukraine. And in Georgia also. And Moldova.

No one forced the Kremlin to act the pirate and pariah state. They did that all themselves.
 
Rogue Valley said:
I disagree. Putin made the decision to employ his military in Ukraine. And in Georgia also. And Moldova.

No one forced the Kremlin to act the pirate and pariah state. They did that all themselves.
Click to expand...

If we had stayed out of it, or kept our word, that wouldn't be possible.
 
ecofarm said:
If we had stayed out of it, or kept our word, that wouldn't be possible.
Click to expand...

The Budapest Memorandum was not a Treaty.

There's not much that can be done when nuclear-armed Russia bullies its neighbors.

But the US, and NATO nations, are assisting Ukraine quite nicely these days.
 
Rogue Valley said:
The Budapest Memorandum was not a Treaty.

There's not much that can be done when nuclear-armed Russia bullies its neighbors.

But the US, and NATO nations, are assisting Ukraine quite nicely these days.
Click to expand...

We allowed it to happen after making it possible. We basically handed Ukraine to Putin.

Quite nicely? A big chunk of utmost strategic importance is gone and another chunk is occupied. That's US protection?
 
ecofarm said:
We allowed it to happen after making it possible. We basically handed Ukraine to Putin.

Quite nicely? A big chunk of utmost strategic importance is gone and another chunk is occupied. That's US protection?
Click to expand...

Neither the US, nor NATO, is under any obligation to start WWIII over Ukraine. Ukraine is not a NATO nation.

Ukraine has what it needs now. The Russians would pay a heavy price trying to expand the occupied territories.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Neither the US, nor NATO, is under any obligation to start WWIII over Ukraine. Ukraine is not a NATO nation.

Ukraine has what it needs now. The Russians would pay a heavy price trying to expand the occupied territories.
Click to expand...

We ratified a treaty. That's as strong as Nato obligations, even stronger.

They have every right to ask us for nukes.
 
ecofarm said:
We ratified a treaty. That's as strong as Nato obligations, even stronger.

They have every right to ask us for nukes.
Click to expand...

What treaty? Specify plz.
 
Rogue Valley said:
What treaty? Specify plz.
Click to expand...

Correction: signed and shuffled.

In the U.S. neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, nor did they believe the U.S. Senate would ratify an international treaty, so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms.[19]
Click to expand...

Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances - Wikipedia


They did their end. Then we shuffled. Then they fell. And we stood watching. Double-cross.
 
ecofarm said:
Ukraine has every right to ask for help. It gave up operational nuclear arms in exchange for US protection. We abandoned them as they were invaded an annexed. Not only is the conflict in Ukraine our fault, we poisoned the well of promises for de-nuclearization.

We totally ****ed up that situation so badly, we owe the Ukraine everything. There's literally nothing - nothing - they could ask for that we don't owe them.
Click to expand...

Those nuclear weapons were never Ukrainian to begin with; they were legally Soviet weapons, owned and operated by Soviet personnel, and independent Ukraine had no capacity to support, maintain, or operate said arsenal.

And when we floated the idea of intervention after Crimea, the Russians made it clear they would nuke targets in Europe if we did. Ukraine, simply put, isn't worth it.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Those nuclear weapons were never Ukrainian to begin with; they were legally Soviet weapons, owned and operated by Soviet personnel, and independent Ukraine had no capacity to support, maintain, or operate said arsenal.

And when we floated the idea of intervention after Crimea, the Russians made it clear they would nuke targets in Europe if we did. Ukraine, simply put, isn't worth it.
Click to expand...

Putin ain't nuking ****. We ran out on friends. They lost an arm and a leg. And now we pretend that's okay.
 
ecofarm said:
Putin ain't nuking ****. We ran out on friends. They lost an arm and a leg. And now we pretend that's okay.
Click to expand...

Yes, they would have. Russia knows in a conventional war it has no hope of winning. Since Zapad 2009 they've relied on their nuclear arsenal to deter action against Russia.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Yes, they would have. Russia knows in a conventional war it has no hope of winning. Since Zapad 2009 they've relied on their nuclear arsenal to deter action against Russia.
Click to expand...

Putin does not launch nukes if denied Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.
 
ecofarm said:
Putin does not launch nukes if denied Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.
Click to expand...

If the United States would have intervened, yes he would have. They made that abundantly clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom