Ukrainian Military on Full Alert for Possible War With Russia

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,951
Kiev declared a start of a new passing through the strait in some near time. Sure they don't want just to move from one point to the next one. It could be easy. Notify the passing 48, 24 and 4 hours in advance, follow the necessary passing rules and go. No. Apparently their last passing failed its goal. No dead bodies, no sunken ships, no world wide indignation. They have to repeat the deed. Poroshenko needs it. His bosses in NATO need it.
Of course Vaeltaja will be talking once more about the "road crossing at red light" so to speak. But the rules are rules. When passing the Little Belt military vessels have to notify the Denmark 8 days in advance. It's a rule. When Kertch was Ukrainian Russia had ask Ketch for a passing.
The point here is the Crimea. Well. Lets see how the second attempt will be executed
 

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,635
Well under prez Obama ,the US at one time was promoting the Right to protect .
the Russian Government could claim this to protect Russian speakers from being oppressed

from the united nation responsibility to protect
United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect
the main proponent of this thesis was Samantha Power , us representative to the UN
In the Land of the Possible
The problem for your argument is that it doesn't allow violation of other countries sovereignty. Had you read the documents you linked you might have noticed that the UN document explicitly notes that it (i) only applies to certain cases and Russian opinion of oppression wasn't one of them, (ii) it explicitly is there to reinforce sovereignty which Russia didn't respect to begin with, (iii) even in the very end it still doesn't allow any exceptions to the rule which requires UN-SC approval for certain actions. So you are grasping at straws, what you linked to doesn't actually help your case at all.

The relevant text from it:
These existing international obligations require States to refrain from and take a number of actions to prevent and punish genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity....
..
Ultimately, the Responsibility to Protect principle reinforces sovereignty by helping states to meet their existing responsibilities. It offers fresh programmatic opportunities for the United Nations system to assist states in preventing the listed crimes and violations and in protecting affected populations through capacity building, early warning, and other preventive and protective measures, rather than simply waiting to respond if they fail.
 

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,635
Kiev declared a start of a new passing through the strait in some near time. Sure they don't want just to move from one point to the next one.
Mainly because per the international law the Ukrainians have every right to sail through the Kerch straits. They can even sail back and forth daily if they want to.
Of course Vaeltaja will be talking once more about the "road crossing at red light" so to speak. But the rules are rules. When passing the Little Belt military vessels have to notify the Denmark 8 days in advance. It's a rule. When Kertch was Ukrainian Russia had ask Ketch for a passing.
Now you are again making false comparisons. Let's first start with basic geography. The Little Belt is the narrow channel between Jutland (Jylland) and the island of Funen (Fyn), The Great Belt is the channel between the island of Funen (Fyn) and the island of Zealand (Sjælland). Both of these are actually outside of the 'transit passage' as defined in the UNCLOS because there exists one further channel for ships to navigate through - the Sound (Öresund). The strait between Sweden and the Denmark. You did read and understand the part in the UNCLOS which discusses the straits between island and the mainland when they can be sailed around? So to paraphrase you, the rules are the rules, but the rules which apply to the Little Belt are not the same which apply to the Kerch straits. Passage through the Kerch straits is covered under the transit passage rules of the UNCLOS but the passage through the Little Belt is not. Which means the Danes are free to impose their own rules on warships sailing through the Little Belt, that they allow any foreign warships to sail through it all is a courtesy by itself.

For reference:
 

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,951
You sidestep the main question. The goal of the passing. Kiev wants to prove the Crimea is Ukranian. That's why they break the rules of passing. When Kertch was Ukrainian Russians had to apply to the Kertch port authorities for passing for the strait is quite dangerous and to rule the passing is a must. No one complained then. No Russians, no Ukranians, no west Europeans, no Finns. Now Kiev intentionally wants to break the rules. Why? It's no secret why.
 

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,635
You sidestep the main question. The goal of the passing.
It really doesn't matter as long as Ukraine acts within the international law which it has. You do understand that Russia only made itself into an utter fool by acting against international law in this matter regardless of the Ukrainian goal?
Kiev wants to prove the Crimea is Ukranian.
Because it is Ukrainian. Just under Russian occupation. De jure that is.
When Kertch was Ukrainian Russians had to apply to the Kertch port authorities for passing for the strait is quite dangerous and to rule the passing is a must.
Ships need to abide by the civilian traffic system, yes. But such a system is not allowed to be punitive or discriminating. Nor is it allowed to violate sovereign immunity. And no country is allowed to suspend the transit passage either (which is why the Russian scheme of mooring a ship to block the strait is illegal). Besides the main cause of danger in this incident were the Russian ships attempting to ram and shoot at Ukrainian ships and the Russian tanker/freighter that was dangerously moored to block the passage through the strait.

You do understand that even if the Ukrainians had acted somehow wrong, and even if there would have been some reason to prevent passage through the straits (which there per international law really couldn't have been), even then the Russians attacking Ukrainian warships was a direct violation of sovereign immunity and therefore a clear violation of the international law? There is absolutely nothing which would allow it. That sovereign immunity also means that it is impossible for the Ukrainian sailors or crew (or even the SBU members) to be held in any manner accountable for supposedly having violated Russian laws prior to being kidnapped and illegally detained by Russians (which is what it was). The exact same as with diplomatic immunity.
 

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,951
I repeat. The same rules of prior notification of Kertch port authrities before passing the strait were in force before 2014. Only then Kertch was Ukranian. Anyone complained?
 

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,635
I repeat. The same rules of prior notification of Kertch port authrities before passing the strait were in force before 2014.
Which is what the Ukrainian warships have reported as having done. So why exactly are you complaining about that now? It seems you just keep moving goalposts all the time.

Russia and Ukraine Clash Over Kerch Strait, Explained
Russian attack on Ukrainian ships near Kerch Strait - full chronology |
Прикордонні кораблі РФ здійснили відверто агресивні дії проти кораблів ВМС ЗС України (ОНОВЛЕНО) - Військово-Морські Сили ЗС України
Or even wiki: Kerch Strait incident - Wikipedia

All which note the same thing - that the Ukrainians notified the Russians beforehand. The point which you may not seem to grasp is that because it is international strait (since there also Ukrainian waters behind it) it is not up to Russia to give or withhold permissions to pass through it.
 

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,951
The point which you may not seem to grasp is that because it is international strait (since there also Ukrainian waters behind it) it is not up to Russia to give or withhold permissions to pass through it.

Even if the Turkish straits are "international" by your POV it's up to Turkey to issue "1994 Turkish Straits Regulations". You deny Turkey the right to regulate the passing through the Turkish straits?
 

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,635
Even if the Turkish straits are "international" by your POV it's up to Turkey to issue "1994 Turkish Straits Regulations". You deny Turkey the right to regulate the passing through the Turkish straits?
It is not my POV. It is the definition for it. That you choose to dislike or disparage it doesn't matter. As to the Turkish issue... What about it? Turkey is not prohibiting warships from sailing through - that is civilian regulation to which all ships need to abide by. Had you read UNCLOS you would have learned that they do not exempt ships from traffic separation scheme - and only really prevent passage through in case there are hazardous cargoes already in transit. I can't really see how any of that would be in violation with UNCLOS, and neither seemed to have IMO which accepted it in 1995. So it doesn't quite work (i.e. 'regulate') like you seem to imagine. Nor does it have any relevance with the matter at hand.
 

Similar History Discussions