6/24/21
MOSCOW (AP) — Russia will be ready to fire to hit intruding warships, a senior diplomat said Thursday in a tough warning in the wake of a Black Sea incident in which a British destroyer sailed near Crimea in an area that Russia claims as its territorial waters. Russia said one of its warships fired warning shots and a warplane dropped bombs in the path of British destroyer Defender on Wednesday to drive it away from the area near Sevastopol. But Britain denied that account and insisted its ship wasn’t fired upon. The incident marked the first time since the Cold War that Moscow acknowledged using live ammunition to deter a NATO warship, underlining the rising threat of military collisions amid Russia-West tensions. Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Thursday that “the inviolability of the Russian borders is an absolute imperative,” adding that it will be protected “by all means, diplomatic, political and military if needed.”
Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014, a move not recognized by most countries, gaining access to its long Black Sea coast. Russia has chafed at NATO warships visiting near Crimea as destabilizing. In April, it declared a broader area off Crimea closed to foreign naval ships. “It’s incorrect to say either that it was fired on or this ship was in Russian waters,” Max Blain, a spokesman for Prime Minister Boris Johnson, said Wednesday. "HMS Defender was taking the most direct and internationally recognized route between Ukraine and Georgia.” He emphasized that Britain, and much of the international community, does not recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
Russia says it may fire to hit intruding warships
Moscow would have a point if Crimea was Russian land, but it is not. It is Ukrainian land illegally occupied by Russia.
Well, it’s Russian now and nobody has the stomach to substantively challenge them. A General Assembly resolution? Oh Noooooz!
In the same sense that Palestine is Israeli occupied. Nobody is going to do anything about it so for all intents and purposes it’s Russian now.No. It's Russian occupied.
In the same sense that Palestine is Israeli occupied. Nobody is going to do anything about it so for all intents and purposes it’s Russian now.
That looks to be an English boat pictured.
And that matters in any practical sense how? Russia deployed a nerve agent on British soil and they did diddly in response. Why should I believe there will be fisticuffs on the high seas over Crimea?I don't subscribe to your "might makes right" logic.
By every legal standard, Crimea remains Ukrainian land.
Russia says a lot of things.Russia says it may fire to hit intruding warships
Moscow would have a point if Crimea was Russian land, but it is not. It is Ukrainian land illegally occupied by Russia.
Absolutely not. Ukraine was and is a sovereign nation. The West Bank has never been part of any sovereign nation. So the occupations are not at all the same in law. You confuse the lay term for physical occupation with the international legal term for occupation.In the same sense that Palestine is Israeli occupied. Nobody is going to do anything about it so for all intents and purposes it’s Russian now.
In the same sense that Palestine is Israeli occupied. Nobody is going to do anything about it so for all intents and purposes it’s Russian now.
And that matters in any practical sense how? Russia deployed a nerve agent on British soil and they did diddly in response. Why should I believe there will be fisticuffs on the high seas over Crimea?
The time for picking sides was 7 years ago. No one chose Ukraine.So you're on Vladmir Putin's side.
There’s been an economic war involving Chinese warships in the South China Sea for ages. They don’t much care what Russia does.I suspect that China is closely watching to see how the international community will act if Russia cuts off international waters to other nations.
China, for example, feels offended that the United States is sending warships into waters claimed by China.
And that matters in any practical sense how? Russia deployed a nerve agent on British soil and they did diddly in response. Why should I believe there will be fisticuffs on the high seas over Crimea?
The time for picking sides was 7 years ago. No one chose Ukraine.
That’s your problem. You want to come in here demanding Crimea be recognized as something that isn’t. It was Ukranian, but in case you forgot there was a war 7 years ago that nobody intervened in and Ukraine lost. Crimea now belongs to Russia because, unlike Putin, none of the Western powers are willing to go war for what they want. Those are just the facts.No one argued for warfare in the Black Sea.
Just don't come in here telling us Crimea is Russian land.
It isn't.
That’s your problem.
I never claimed it was and it doesn’t matter if it’s legal or not. Thoughts, prayers, and unenforced international law won’t make Crimea Ukranian again. The argument you’re making makes as much practical real-world sense as saying Delaware isn’t part of the United States..its Lanape territory under occupation. Again, you’re playing by a different set of rules than Russia.You stated it. It's now your problem.
Show us with citations how Crimea is legally Russian land.
Russia says it may fire to hit intruding warships
Moscow would have a point if Crimea was Russian land, but it is not.
It is Ukrainian land illegally occupied by Russia.
I never claimed it was and it doesn’t matter if it’s legal or not.
I never said anything about the legality. I keep pointing out to you that it’s irrelevant. Unenforced international law doesn’t change the facts on the ground.You neglected to post credible sources to demonstrate that Crimea legally belongs to Russia as you stated. In reality, what we have here is an illegal Russian occupation.
No different than if Russian forces invaded Finland and militarily occupied portions of that nation.
Perhaps sovereignty, independence, and legality fail mean much in your Trumpian worldview, but it does to Ukraine and virtually all nations in the world.
I never said anything about the legality. I keep pointing out to you that it’s irrelevant. Unenforced international law doesn’t change the facts on the ground.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?