5 ms·

Your comment adds unwarranted mystery. Here is a report[0] from the ship during the time of events. As the leaked documentation shows, the encounter had been a

Your comment adds unwarranted mystery. Here is a report[0] from the ship during the time of events. As the leaked documentation shows, the encounter had been anticipated, so I guess it was a tough call to put a journalist on board. The reason MoD denies the “warning shots were fired” phrasing (and BBC puts it in quotes) is most likely to defuse the sizzling situation. Either UK frames the events as “warning shots were fired by Russian navy in Ukranian waters at a British ship” and has a conflict that requires following up, or it denies Russian framing of events (leaving it open to interpretation—say Russian navy suffered equipment malfunction that resulted in ammunition ending up in Ukranian waters some distance away from the British ship, stuff happens) leaving it for them to follow up—which Russia can’t really do, as no major country accepts its jurisdiction over Crimea (even China abstained on the relevant UN vote). [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLPYAKL-f2M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLPYAKL-f2M

LAC-Tech 5y ago
> as no major country accepts its jurisdiction over Crimea (even China abstained on the relevant UN vote). Which UN vote are you referring to?
- Muromec 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...
  - LAC-Tech 5y ago
    That wasn't a vote on accepting Russias jurisdiction on Crimea, though. (Also interesting to note that Israel was absent)
    - strogonoff 5y ago
      A vote to support territorial integrity of Ukraine and invalidate on international level the 2014 referendum in Crimea sounds right about the same as a vote to continue recognizing Crimea as part of Ukraine and not Russia.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        No, it's quite different. It's not a vote on accepting jurisdiction, it's a vote on rejecting it, with the status quo being compatible with acceptance.
        strogonoff 5y ago
        The vote was on the UN resolution that reaffirms territorial integrity of Ukraine, thereby rejecting Russian jurisdiction over Crimea. The resolution was proposed by Canada, Ukraine (naturally) and others, and 100 countries voted in favor. What am I missing?
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        That abstaining means that you are fine with the status quo.
        strogonoff 5y ago
        Status quo as it stands is Ukraine de jure in control of Crimea, and Russia de facto unlawfully occupying it. Voting against the resolution was an option. Presumably that means a country doesn’t necessarily believe Ukraine deserves to remain in control of this part of its territory. Zimbabwe and Belarus, among a few others, have voted against. China is the most prominent country among the few who abstained. The rest voted for Crimea being part of Ukraine.
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        International law is a stupid and weak thing. Yes, the case for Ukraine controlling Crimea de jure is strong. But at the same time self-determination exists, and no one seriously contests that the majority of Crimeans would rather belong to Russia. It's not as cut and clear de jure as it may seem, international law almost never is. Russia does not de facto "unlawfully" occupy it, because law is not a matter of fact. It's not even under occupation anymore, it's almost entirely annexed now.
sudosysgen 5y ago
I'm not sure a convincing answer to a charge of a disinfo is to cite leaked info on print that should never have been printed to begin with and that was published by a state media outlet of an interested party. Britain has absolutely no obligation to follow up on warning shots there. It's bizarre to claim so. Britain didn't follow up on an actual invasion, warning shots will be ignored. The UN vote you are citing wasn't to accept Russian jurisdiction over Crimea, it was to reject it. Abstention is support of the status quo for major powers that can't be bullied. In reality, everyone accept Russian control of Crimea de facto. Even the Ukrainians, propaganda and internal politics aside, have largely accepted it as a ground fact that cannot be changed. It is what it is.
- strogonoff 5y ago
  The British were never attacked or threatened during the annexation of Crimea. “Warning shots were fired at UK navy in the waters where UK navy was in its right to be” would mean British navy being threatened. Putin can call it “warning shots” all he wants. As long as the UK maintains poker face he can do zilch about it, unless he is willing to either literally attack the UK or withdraw from Crimea. “It is what it is” and “everyone accept” are not acceptable justifications for rogue actor behavior.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    The British weren't attacked here. They went into waters they don't control. If a British boat goes into Crimean territorial waters and refuses to leave and gets sunk, the only result with be a sunk British boat, pretty much. What is Britain going to do, increase sanctions? Wether that had a "right" to be there doesn't care. It doesn't matter if I had the right or way when I get run over by tank, I get run over anyways.
    - gpm 5y ago
      If Russia attacks the British navy in Ukrainian (according to everyone but the Russians) waters which the British navy has permission to be in, that's just an outright aggressive act of war. Britian, and/or other members of nato, might well decide to shoot back. They might not too, it's borderline, but no one knows quite where that line is. If forced to bet on an outcome I would bet on nato sinking a Russian ship of comparable size also in Crimean waters.

LAC-Tech 5y ago

> as no major country accepts its jurisdiction over Crimea (even China abstained on the relevant UN vote). Which UN vote are you referring to?

Muromec 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...
- LAC-Tech 5y ago
  That wasn't a vote on accepting Russias jurisdiction on Crimea, though. (Also interesting to note that Israel was absent)
  - strogonoff 5y ago
    A vote to support territorial integrity of Ukraine and invalidate on international level the 2014 referendum in Crimea sounds right about the same as a vote to continue recognizing Crimea as part of Ukraine and not Russia.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      No, it's quite different. It's not a vote on accepting jurisdiction, it's a vote on rejecting it, with the status quo being compatible with acceptance.
      - strogonoff 5y ago
        The vote was on the UN resolution that reaffirms territorial integrity of Ukraine, thereby rejecting Russian jurisdiction over Crimea. The resolution was proposed by Canada, Ukraine (naturally) and others, and 100 countries voted in favor. What am I missing?
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        That abstaining means that you are fine with the status quo.
        strogonoff 5y ago
        Status quo as it stands is Ukraine de jure in control of Crimea, and Russia de facto unlawfully occupying it. Voting against the resolution was an option. Presumably that means a country doesn’t necessarily believe Ukraine deserves to remain in control of this part of its territory. Zimbabwe and Belarus, among a few others, have voted against. China is the most prominent country among the few who abstained. The rest voted for Crimea being part of Ukraine.
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        International law is a stupid and weak thing. Yes, the case for Ukraine controlling Crimea de jure is strong. But at the same time self-determination exists, and no one seriously contests that the majority of Crimeans would rather belong to Russia. It's not as cut and clear de jure as it may seem, international law almost never is. Russia does not de facto "unlawfully" occupy it, because law is not a matter of fact. It's not even under occupation anymore, it's almost entirely annexed now.

sudosysgen 5y ago

I'm not sure a convincing answer to a charge of a disinfo is to cite leaked info on print that should never have been printed to begin with and that was published by a state media outlet of an interested party. Britain has absolutely no obligation to follow up on warning shots there. It's bizarre to claim so. Britain didn't follow up on an actual invasion, warning shots will be ignored. The UN vote you are citing wasn't to accept Russian jurisdiction over Crimea, it was to reject it. Abstention is support of the status quo for major powers that can't be bullied. In reality, everyone accept Russian control of Crimea de facto. Even the Ukrainians, propaganda and internal politics aside, have largely accepted it as a ground fact that cannot be changed. It is what it is.

strogonoff 5y ago
The British were never attacked or threatened during the annexation of Crimea. “Warning shots were fired at UK navy in the waters where UK navy was in its right to be” would mean British navy being threatened. Putin can call it “warning shots” all he wants. As long as the UK maintains poker face he can do zilch about it, unless he is willing to either literally attack the UK or withdraw from Crimea. “It is what it is” and “everyone accept” are not acceptable justifications for rogue actor behavior.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  The British weren't attacked here. They went into waters they don't control. If a British boat goes into Crimean territorial waters and refuses to leave and gets sunk, the only result with be a sunk British boat, pretty much. What is Britain going to do, increase sanctions? Wether that had a "right" to be there doesn't care. It doesn't matter if I had the right or way when I get run over by tank, I get run over anyways.
  - gpm 5y ago
    If Russia attacks the British navy in Ukrainian (according to everyone but the Russians) waters which the British navy has permission to be in, that's just an outright aggressive act of war. Britian, and/or other members of nato, might well decide to shoot back. They might not too, it's borderline, but no one knows quite where that line is. If forced to bet on an outcome I would bet on nato sinking a Russian ship of comparable size also in Crimean waters.