Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

THUGR: Of course The less you have the less you have to lose. Too funny...

---

Russia has a lot less debt, one thing that we have trillions of. We should follow their example.

THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.

---

Quote:

---

Article by Sergey Lavrov, Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, “The Law, the Rights and the Rules”, Moscow, June 28, 2021
amarynth
27 - 34 minutes

https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02
Bw/content/id/4801890

The frank and generally constructive conversation that took place at the June 16, 2021 summit meeting between presidents Vladimir Putin and Joseph Biden in Geneva resulted in an agreement to launch a substantive dialogue on strategic stability, reaffirming the crucial premise that nuclear war is unacceptable. The two sides also reached an understanding on the advisability of engaging in consultations on cybersecurity, the operation of diplomatic missions, the fate of imprisoned Russian and US citizens and a number of regional conflicts.

The Russian leader made it clear, including in his public statements, that finding a mutually acceptable balance of interests strictly on a parity basis is the only way to deliver … The Russian leader made it clear, including in his public statements, that finding a mutually acceptable balance of interests strictly on a parity basis is the only way to deliver on any of these tracks. There were no objections during the talks. However, in their immediate aftermath, US officials, including those who participated in the Geneva meeting, started asserting what seemed to be foregone tenets, perorating that they had “made it clear” to Moscow, “warned it, and stated their demands.” Moreover, all these “warnings” went hand in hand with threats: if Moscow does not accept the “rules of the road” set forth in Geneva in a matter of several months, it would come under renewed pressure.

Of course, it has yet to be seen how the consultations to define specific ways for fulfilling the Geneva understandings as mentioned above will proceed. As Vladimir Putin said during his news conference following the talks, “we have a lot to work on.” That said, it is telling that Washington’s ineradicable position was voiced immediately following the talks, especially since European capitals immediately took heed of the Big Brother’s sentiment and picked up the tune with much gusto and relish. The gist of their statements is that they are ready to normalise their relations with Moscow, but only after it changes the way it behaves.

It is as if a choir has been pre-arranged to sing along with the lead vocalist. It seems that this was what the series of high-level Western events in the build-up to the Russia-US talks was all about: the Group of Seven Summit in Cornwall, UK, the NATO Summit in Brussels, as well as Joseph Biden’s meeting with President of the European Council Charles Michel and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen.

These meetings were carefully prepared in a way that leaves no doubt that the West wanted to send a clear message: it stands united like never before and will do what it believes to be right in international affairs, while forcing others, primarily Russia and China, to follow its lead. The documents adopted at the Cornwall and Brussels summits cemented the rules-based world order concept as a counterweight to the universal principles of international law with the UN Charter as its primary source.

In doing so, the West deliberately shies away from spelling out the rules it purports to follow, just as it refrains from explaining why they are needed. After all, there are already thousands of universal international legal instruments setting out clear national commitments and transparent verification mechanisms. The beauty of these Western “rules” lies precisely in the fact that they lack any specific content.When someone acts against the will of the West, it immediately responds with a groundless claim that “the rules have been broken” (without bothering to present any evidence) and declares its “right to hold the perpetrators accountable.” The less specific they get, the freer their hand to carry on with the arbitrary practice of employing dirty tactics as a way to pressure competitors. During the so-called “wild 1990s” in Russia, we used to refer to such practices as laying down the law.

To the participants in the G7, NATO and US-EU summits, this series of high-level events signalled the return by the United States into European affairs and the restored consolidation of the Old World under the wing of the new administration in Washington. Most NATO and EU members met this U-turn with enthusiastic comments rather than just a sigh of relief. The adherence to liberal values as the humanity’s guiding star provides an ideological underpinning for the reunification of the “Western family.” Without any false modesty, Washington and Brussels called themselves “an anchor for democracy, peace and security,” as opposed to “authoritarianism in all its forms.” In particular, they proclaimed their intent to use sanctions to “support democracy across the globe.” To this effect, they took on board the American idea of convening a Summit for Democracy. Make no mistake, the West will cherry pick the participants in this summit. It will also set an agenda that is unlikely to meet any opposition from the participants of its choosing. There has been talk of democracy-exporting countries undertaking “enhanced commitments” to ensure universal adherence to “democratic standards” and devising mechanisms for controlling these processes.

The revitalised Anglo-American Atlantic Charter approved by Joseph Biden and Boris Johnson on June 10, 2021 on the sidelines of the G7 Summit is also worth noting. It was cast as an updated version of the 1941 document signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill under the same title. At the time, it played an important role in shaping the contours of the post-war world order.

However, neither Washington, nor London mentioned an essential historical fact: eighty years ago, the USSR and a number of European governments in exile joined the 1941 charter, paving the way to making it one of the conceptual pillars of the Anti-Hitler Coalition and one of the legal blueprints of the UN Charter.

By the same token, the New Atlantic Charter has been designed as a starting point for building a new world order, but guided solely by Western “rules.” Its provisions are ideologically tainted. They seek to widen the gap between the so-called liberal democracies and all other nations, as well as legitimise the rules-based order. The new charter fails to mention the UN or the OSCE, while stating without any reservations the adherence by the Western nations to their commitments as NATO members, viewed de facto as the only legitimate decision-making centre (at least this is how former NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen described NATO’s role). It is clear that the same philosophy will guide the preparations for the Summit for Democracy.

Labelled as “authoritarian powers,” Russia and China have been designated as the main obstacles to delivering on the agenda set out at the June summits. From a general perspective, they face two groups of grievances, loosely defined as external and internal. In terms of international affairs, Beijing is accused of being too assertive … Russia stands accused of adopting an “aggressive posture”in a number of regions. This is the way they treat Moscow’s policy aimed at countering ultra-radical and neo-Nazi aspirations in its immediate neighbourhood, where the rights of Russians, as well as other ethnic minorities, are being suppressed, and the Russian language, education and culture rooted out. They also dislike the fact than Moscow stands up for countries that became victims to Western gambles, were attacked by international terrorists and risked losing their statehood, as was the case with Syria.

Still, the West reserved its biggest words to the inner workings of the “non-democratic” countries and its commitment to reshape them to fit into the Western mould. This entails bringing society in compliance with the vision of democracy as preached by Washington and Brussels. This lies at the root of the demands that Moscow and Beijing, as well as all others, follow the Western prescriptions on human rights, civil society, opposition treatment, the media, governance and the interaction between the branches of power. While proclaiming the “right” to interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries for the sake of promoting democracy as it understands it, the West instantly loses all interest when we raise the prospect of making international relations more democratic, including renouncing arrogant behaviour and committing to abide by the universally recognised tenets of international law instead of “rules.” By expanding sanctions and other illegitimate coercive measures against sovereign states, the West promotes totalitarian rule in global affairs, assuming an imperial, neo-colonial stance in its relations with third countries. They are asked to adopt the democratic rule under the model of the Western choosing, and forget about democracy in international affairs, since someone will be deciding everything for them. All that is asked of these third countries is to keep quiet, or face reprisals.

Clearheaded politicians in Europe and America realise that this uncompromising policy leads nowhere, and are beginning to think pragmatically, albeit out of public view, recognising that the world has more than just one civilisation. They are beginning to recognise that Russia, China and other major powers have a history that dates back a thousand years, and have their own traditions, values and way of life. Attempts to decide whose values are better, and whose are worse, seem pointless. Instead, the West must simply recognise that there are other ways to govern that may be different from the Western approaches, and accept and respect this as a given. No country is immune to human rights issues, so why all this high-browed hubris? Why do the Western countries assume that they can deal with these issues on their own, since they are democracies, while others have yet to reach this level, and are in need of assistance that the West will generously provide.

International relations are going through fundamental shifts that affect everyone without exception. Trying to predict where it will take us is impossible. Still, there is a question: messianic aspirations apart, what is the most effective form of government for coping with and removing threats that transcend borders and affect all people, no matter where they live? Political scientists are beginning to compare the available toolboxes used by the so-called liberal democracies and by “autocratic regimes.” In this context, it is telling that the term “autocratic democracy” has been suggested, even if timidly.

These are useful considerations, and serious-minded politicians who are currently in power, among others, must take heed. Thinking and scrutinising what is going on around us has never hurt anyone. The multipolar world is becoming reality. Attempts to ignore this reality by asserting oneself as the only legitimate decision-making centre will hardly bring about solutions to real, rather than farfetched challenges. Instead, what is needed is mutually respectful dialogue involving the leading powers and with due regard for the interests of all other members of the international community. This implies an unconditional commitment to abide by the universally accepted norms and principles of international law, including respecting the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in their domestic affairs, peaceful resolution of conflict, and the right to self-determination.

Taken as a whole, the historical West dominated the world for five hundred years. However, there is no doubt that it now sees that this era is coming to a close, while clinging to the status it used to enjoy, and putting artificial brakes on the objective process consisting in the emergence of a polycentric world. This brought about an attempt to provide a conceptual underpinning to the new vision of multilateralism. For example, France and Germany tried to promote “effective multilateralism,” rooted in the EU ideals and actions, and serving as a model to everyone else, rather than promoting UN’s inclusive multilateralism.

By imposing the concept of a rules-based order, the West seeks to shift the conversation on key issues to the platforms of its liking, where no dissident voices can be herd. This is how like-minded groups and various “appeals” emerge. This is about coordinating prescriptions and then making everyone else follow them. Examples include an “appeal for trust and security in cyberspace”, “the humanitarian appeal for action”, and a “global partnership to protect media freedom.” Each of these platforms brings together only several dozen countries, which is far from a majority, as far as the international community is concerned. The UN system offers inclusive negotiations platforms on all of the abovementioned subjects. Understandably, this gives rise to alternative points of view that have to be taken into consideration in search of a compromise, but all the West wants is to impose its own rules.

At the same time, the EU develops dedicated horizontal sanctions regimes for each of its “like-minded groups,” of course, without looking back at the UN Charter. This is how it works: those who join these “appeals” or “partnerships” decide among themselves who violates their requirements in a given sphere, and the European Union imposes sanctions on those at fault. What a convenient method. They can indict and punish all by themselves without ever needing to turn to the UN Security Council. They even came up with a rationale to this effect: since we have an alliance of the most effective multilateralists, we can teach others to master these best practices. To those who believe this to be undemocratic or at odds with a vision of genuine multilateralism, President of France Emmanuel Macron offered an explanation in his remarks on May 11, 2021: multilateralism does not mean necessity to strike unanimity, and the position of those “who do not wish to continue moving forward must not be able to stop … an ambitious avant-garde” of the world community.

Make no mistake: there is nothing wrong with the rules per se. On the contrary, the UN Charter is a set of rules, but these rules were approved by all countries of the world, rather than by a closed group at a cosy get-together.

An interesting detail: in Russian, the words “law” and “rule” share a single root. To us, a rule that is genuine and just is inseparable from the law. This is not the case for Western languages. For instance, in English, the words “law” and “rule” do not share any resemblance. See the difference? “Rule” is not so much about the law, in the sense of generally accepted laws, as it is about the decisions taken by the one who rules or governs. It is also worth noting that “rule” shares a single root with “ruler,” with the latter’s meanings including the commonplace device for measuring and drawing straight lines. It can be inferred that through its concept of “rules” the West seeks to align everyone around its vision or apply the same yardstick to everybody, so that everyone falls into a single file.

While reflecting on linguistics, worldview, sentiment, and the way they vary from one nation or culture to another, it is worth recollecting how the West has been justifying NATO’s unreserved eastward expansion towards the Russian border. When we point to the assurances provided to the Soviet Union that this would not happen, we hear that these were merely spoken promises, and there were no documents signed to this effect. There is a centuries-old tradition in Russia of making handshake deals without signing anything and holding one’s word as sacrosanct, but it seems unlikely to ever take hold in the West.

Efforts to replace international law by Western “rules” include an immanently dangerous policy of revising the history and outcomes of the Second World War and the Nuremberg trials verdicts as the foundation of today’s world order. The West refuses to support a Russia-sponsored UN resolution proclaiming that glorifying Nazism is unacceptable, and rejects our proposals to discuss the demolition of monuments to those who liberated Europe. They also want to condemn to oblivion momentous post-war developments, such as the 1960 UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, initiated by our country. The former colonial powers seek to efface this memory by replacing it with hastily concocted rituals like taking a knee ahead of sports competitions, in order to divert attention from their historical responsibility for colonial-era crimes.

The rules-based order is the embodiment of double standards. The right to self-determination is recognised as an absolute “rule” whenever it can be used to an advantage. This applies to the Malvinas Islands, or the Falklands, some 12,000 kilometres from Great Britain, to the remote former colonial territories Paris and London retain despite multiple UN resolutions and rulings by the International Court of Justice, as well as Kosovo, which obtained its “independence” in violation of a UN Security Council resolution. However, if self-determination runs counter to the Western geopolitical interests, as it happened when the people of Crimea voted for reunification with Russia, this principle is cast aside, while condemning the free choice made by the people and punishing them with sanctions.

Apart from encroaching on international law, the “rules” concept also manifests itself in attempts to encroach on the very human nature. In a number of Western countries, students learn at school that Jesus Christ was bisexual. Attempts by reasonable politicians to shield the younger generation from aggressive LGBT propaganda are met with bellicose protests from the “enlightened Europe.” All world religions, the genetic code of the planet’s key civilisations, are under attack. The United States is at the forefront of state interference in church affairs, openly seeking to drive a wedge into the Orthodox world, whose values are viewed as a powerful spiritual obstacle for the liberal concept of boundless permissiveness.

The insistence and even stubbornness demonstrated by the West in imposing its “rules” are striking. Of course, domestic politics is a factor, with the need to show voters how tough your foreign policy can get when dealing with “autocratic foes” during every electoral cycle, which happen every two years in the United States.

Still, it was also the West that coined the “liberty, equality, fraternity” motto. I do not know whether the term “fraternity” is politically correct in today’s Europe from a “gender perspective,” but there were no attempts to encroach on equality so far. As mentioned above, while preaching equality and democracy in their countries and demanding that other follow its lead, the West refuses to discuss ways to ensure equality and democracy in international affairs.

This approach is clearly at odds with the ideals of freedom. The veil of its superiority conceals weakness and the fear of engaging in a frank conversation not only with yes-men and those eager to fall in line, but also with opponents with different beliefs and values, not neo-liberal or neo-conservative ones, but those learned at mother’s knee, inherited from many past generations, traditions and beliefs.

It is much harder to accept the diversity and competition of ideas in the development of the world than to invent prescriptions for all of humanity within a narrow circle of the like-minded, free from any disputes on matters of principle, which makes the emergence of truth all but impossible. However, universal platforms can produce agreements that are much more solid, sustainable, and can be subject to objective verification.

This immutable truth struggles to make it through to the Western elites, consumed as they are with the exceptionalism complex. As I mentioned earlier in this article, right after the talks between Vladimir Putin and Joseph Biden, EU and NATO officials rushed to announce that nothing has changed in the way they treat Russia. Moreover, they are ready to see their relations with Moscow deteriorate further, they claimed.

Moreover, it is an aggressive Russophobic minority that increasingly sets the EU’s policy, as confirmed by the EU Summit in Brussels on June 24 and 25, 2021, where the future of relations with Russia was on the agenda. The idea voiced by Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron to hold a meeting with Vladimir Putin was killed before it saw the light of day. Observers noted that the Russia-US Summit in Geneva was tantamount to a go-ahead by the United States to have this meeting, but the Baltic states, siding with Poland, cut short this “uncoordinated” attempt by Berlin and Paris, while the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry summoned the German and French ambassadors to explain their governments’ actions. What came out of the debates at the Brussels summit was an instruction to the European Commission and the European Union External Action Service to devise new sanctions against Moscow without referring to any specific “sins,” just in case. No doubt they will come up with something, should the need arise.

Neither NATO, nor the EU intend to divert from their policy of subjugating other regions of the world, proclaiming a self-designated global messianic mission.The North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation is seeking to proactively contribute to America’s strategy for the Indo-Pacific Region, clearly targeted at containing China, and undermining ASEAN’s role in its decades-long efforts to build an inclusive cooperation architecture for Asia-Pacific. In turn, the European Union drafts programmes to “embrace” geopolitical spaces in its neighbourhood and beyond, without coordinating these initiatives even with the invited countries. This is what the Eastern Partnership, as well as a recent programme approved by Brussels for Central Asia, are all about. There is a fundamental difference between these approaches and the ones guiding integration processes with Russia’s involvement: the CIS, the CSTO, EurAsEC and the SCO, which seek to develop relations with external partners exclusively on the basis of parity and mutual agreement.

With its contemptuous attitude towards other members of the international community, the West finds itself on the wrong side of history.

Serious, self-respecting countries will never tolerate attempts to talk to them through ultimatums and will discuss any issues only on an equal footing.

As for Russia, it is high time that everyone understands that we have drawn a definitive line under any attempts to play a one-way game with us. All the mantras we hear from the Western capitals on their readiness to put their relations with Moscow back on track, as long as it repents and changes its tack, are meaningless. Still, many persist, as if by inertia, in presenting us with unilateral demands, which does little, if any, credit to how realistic they are.

The policy of having the Russian Federation develop on its own, independently and protecting national interests, while remaining open to reaching agreements with foreign partners on an equal basis, has long been at the core of all its position papers on foreign policy, national security and defence. However, judging by the practical steps taken over the recent years by the West, they probably thought that Russia did not really mean what it preached, as if it did not intend to follow through on these principles. This includes the hysterical response to Moscow’s efforts to stand up for the rights of Russians in the aftermath of the bloody 2014 government coup in Ukraine, supported by the United States, NATO and the EU. They thought that if they applied some more pressure on the elites and targeted their interests, while expanding personal, financial and other sectoral sanctions, Moscow would come to its senses and realise that it would face mounting challenges on its development path, as long as it did not “change its behaviour,” which implies obeying the West. Even when Russia made it clear that we view this policy by the United States and Europe as a new reality and will proceed on economic and other matters from the premise that we cannot depend on unreliable partners, the West persisted in believing that, at the end of the day, Moscow “will come to its senses” and will make the required concessions for the sake of financial reward. Let me emphasise what President Vladimir Putin has said on multiple occasions: there have been no unilateral concessions since the late 1990s and there never will be. If you want to work with us, recover lost profits and business reputations, let us sit down and agree on ways we can meet each other half way in order to find fair solutions and compromises.

It is essential that the West understands that this is a firmly ingrained worldview among the people of Russia, reflecting the attitude of the overwhelming majority here. The “irreconcilable” opponents of the Russian government who have placed their stakes on the West and believe that all Russia’s woes come from its anti-Western stance advocate unilateral concessions for the sake of seeing the sanctions lifted and receiving hypothetical financial gains. But they are totally marginal in Russian society. During his June 16, 2021 news conference in Geneva, Vladimir Putin made it abundantly clear what the West is after when it supports these marginal forces.

These are disruptive efforts as far as history is concerned, while Russians have always demonstrated maturity, a sense of self-respect, dignity and national pride, and the ability to think independently, especially during hard times, while remaining open to the rest of the world, but only on an equal, mutually beneficial footing. Once we put the confusion and mayhem of the 1990s behind us, these values became the bedrock of Russia’s foreign policy concept in the 21st century. The people of Russia can decide on how they view the actions by their government without getting any prompts from abroad.

As to the question on how to proceed on the international stage, there is no doubt that leaders will always play an important role, but they have to reaffirm their authority, offer new ideas and lead by conviction, not ultimatums. The Group of Twenty, among others, is a natural platform for working out mutually acceptable agreements. It brings together the leading economies, young and old, including the G7, as well as the BRICS and its like-minded countries. Russia’s initiative to form a Greater Eurasian Partnership by coordinating the efforts of countries and organisations across the continent holds a powerful consolidating potential. Seeking to

Efforts to bring more democracy to international relations and affirm a polycentric world order include reforming the UN Security Council by strengthening it with Asian, African and Latin American countries, and ending the anomaly with the excessive representation of the West in the UN’s main body.

facilitate an honest conversation on the key global stability matters, President Vladimir Putin suggested convening a summit of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council that have special responsibility for maintaining international peace and stability on the planet.

Regardless of any ambitions and threats, our country remains committed to a sovereign and independent foreign policy, while also ready to offer a unifying agenda in international affairs with due account for the cultural and civilisational diversity in today’s world. Confrontation is not our choice, no matter the rationale. On June 22, 2021, Vladimir Putin published an article “Being Open, Despite the Past,” in which he emphasised: “We simply cannot afford to carry the burden of past misunderstandings, hard feelings, conflicts, and mistakes.” He also discussed the need to ensure security without dividing lines, a common space for equitable cooperation and inclusive development. This approach hinges on Russia’s thousand-year history and is fully consistent with the current stage in its development. We will persist in promoting the emergence of an international relations culture based on the supreme values of justice and enabling all countries, large and small, to develop in peace and freedom. We will always remain open to honest dialogue with anyone who demonstrates a reciprocal readiness to find a balance of interests firmly rooted in international law. These are the rules we adhere to.

---

Quote:

---

China Building Over 100 New ICBM Silos According To New Satellite Data

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

In regards to the recent incursion of British vessel into Russian protected waters, Putin, in his annual call-in show, said: "They won't start WW III because it's a war they know they'll lose".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

And, of course, THUGR completely forgets about this ...

Quote:

---

China Building Over 100 New ICBM Silos According To New Satellite Data

---

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/new-arms-race-satellite-data-su
ggests-china-building-over-100-icbm-silos

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

I think this needs its own thread. SIG pulls most of her information that she posts here from this blog and stupidly defends it as a reputable source. As she continues to do so I will regenerate this thread to remind all it is a corrupted blog designed to create havoc rather than informing.

Below are the names of those behind zero hedge. Don't miss what I've highlighted in red below. This folks is why comrade troll SIG loves to quote zero hedge.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

And then we have THUGR, whose understanding of the world only extends to cartoons.

THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.

---

Quote:

---

Report that China building new ICBM silos 'concerning': US

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Oh BTW, THUGR- since you apparently plug your ears/hide your eyes from news that disturbs your inner narrative-

Quote:

---

Report that China building new ICBM silos 'concerning': US

---

https://news.yahoo.com/report-china-building-icbm-silos-204304557.html

Also, Russia has promised that next time a ship crosses into their waters of concern, they will sink it. They COULD have sunk the British warship, yanno. They DID destroy the electronics of a Dutch spy ship that they didn't like. I'd say we got fair warning, which we will probably take seriously from now on.

tick tock

If not, expect a crippled/ sunken ship, and then it's off to the "hot" wars!

---

Quote:

---

Crying wolf in the Ukraine (again)
The Saker
July 05, 2021

I have to admit that before I sat down to write this column I had some misgivings: I thought “not *another* article warning about a potential explosion in the Ukraine! Not again!”. And yet, events on the ground are what they are and ignoring them under the pretext that I am fed up “crying wolf” again and again is not a wise solution either. I will try to keep it short though. First, let me provide you a quick summary of what has been happening in the Ukraine since my last column about the Ukraine on June 28th.

As most of you know, NATO and the Ukraine have been conducting maneuvers on the Black Sea, air and land called “Sea Breeze”. This is nothing new, but this year these maneuvers attracted more countries than usual, see for yourself:

Officially, 32 countries from six continents providing 5,000 troops, 32 ships, 40 aircraft, and 18 special operations and dive teams are participating in this exercise: Albania, Australia, Brazil, [Brazil???] Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, [Egypt???] Estonia, France, Georgia, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, [Japan???] Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Morocco[???] Norway, Pakistan, [???] Poland, Romania, Senegal,[???] Spain, South Korea, [???] Sweden, Tunisia, [???] Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates,[???] United Kingdom, and the United States.

Kristina Kvien, the chargé d’affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, declared that “USS Ross‘ participation in this year’s Sea Breeze maritime exercise is a tangible demonstration of U.S. support for Ukraine and is necessary now more than ever (…) it is part of the enduring commitment that the United States and our NATO Allied and partner nations have made since 1997 to enhance maritime security in the Black Sea”.

Now here are a few examples of what the Ukies are saying:

* Let’s see if the accursed Moskals will dare to shoot at the Ross which (at least according to the Ukies) can sink the entire Russian Black Sea Fleet with one salvo of its super-dooper Tomahawk missiles.

*The Ukraine now has missiles which can bring down the bridge over the Kerch Strait.

*The USA is delivering us fast attack boats while Turkey is giving us Bairaktar drones – with those we will liberate Crimea and the Donbass from the accused Moskal’.

*The Ukrainian military is now the best in Europe (in fact, it protects the entire EU from assaults by the Russian hordes) and it will make minced meat of the Russians for sure the next time around.

*In their current format, the Minsk Agreements are dead and we will never implement them. If the Moskal’ refuse to amend them then we also have a plan B: to build a big wall and totally cut all our ties with Russia. Either that, or we will liberate Crimea and the Donbass manu militari!

*The next time the accursed Moskal’ try to prevent a Ukie vessel from traversing the Kerch Strait we will sink any force trying to stop us.

[SAKER, Sidebar: keep in mind that all TV channels which are not controlled by Ze have now been banned. The Ukie Rada passed a law declaring that Russians are not native to the Ukraine (makes me wonder where they came from, outer space I suppose). All the main leaders of the rather uninspiring opposition are constantly harassed or even kept under house arrest. All this is to say that the insane examples of what the Ukronazis are saying above is not some minority of hardcore delusional Ukronazis – this is what many of the members of the party of Ze (and others!) are openly saying 24/7.]

Now, let’s cut to the chase and see what is really going on!

Official White House
We want to contain Russia, maintain a dialog where it is in the interests of the USA and we will defend our friends and values in the region and the whole world

US/NAT/EU officials
We will resist any Russian provocation or use of force, we have the means to force Russia to renounce her plans to rebuild the Soviet Union.

Ukronazis
The world is with us. Russia is weak and isolated. The US, NATO and our invincible military will teach a painful lesson to the Russian bear which really belongs East of the Urals (the latter are the natural border between the EU and China). We are now rehearsing the liberation of Crimea with our allies.

Russians
Just try

Let’s sum this up: while the top US officials have not held the same kind of language as the US, UK and Dutch Navy officers on their ships last week, it is pretty clear that one of two things will happen: either NATO will try to “poke the bear” or they won’t.

In the first case, NATO will have looked like it “blinked” and that for all its posturing, NATO is afraid of taking on Russia.
In the second case, Russia will sink a NATO ship (or shoot down a NATO aircraft) and if NATO does not reply, it will have blinked, hard and with both eyes.

---

Quote:

---

Both [ALL THREE] of these outcomes are highly undesirable for the US, NATO or the Empire. These outcomes are also bad news for the EU (which cannot afford to lose NS2 to some silly three letter agency provocation against Russia).

The main problem is that many western officials have declared urbi et orbi ["to the city and the world", like a Papal address] that “the civilized world (by that we mean “us” of course) has not recognized the Russian annexation of Crimea and, therefore, we don’t recognize the waters off Crimea as legit Russian waters”. This must have sounded really cool to the first simpletons who declared this, but the Ukies and their UK+3B+PU have immediately, and logically (in their own simple-minded way), declared “okay, great! Prove it by ignoring the Russian warnings and send something across this Russian “red line” to prove to the world that you are not only bark and no bite”. In other words, this is yet another iteration of a favorite challenge amongst US teenagers: “and whatcha gonna do about it?”.

Frankly, this is a legit question. And the US/NATO have until July 10th (this Saturday) to answer it. Okay, I guess they could also answer it after Sea Breeze 2021 is over, but since US Americans (and their clueless NATO counterparts) believe that coalition warfare is the way to victory (in reality, it is a way to defeat, as I have explained it in this article) and the real leaders of the Empire also believe that large coalitions offer a veneer of legitimacy (they don’t, as only a UNSC Resolution can) to their (imperialistic and illegal) actions with lots of small Tabaquis to make it all look kosher.

Furthermore, in the Ukronazi media the SeaBreeze 2021 is presented like this: “hey, Moskal’, it is way easier to threaten a small Ukrainian vessel than to take on NATO!!! Right?! If you just move, we will kick your asses from the Black Sea to Siberia (where you belong!)”; and the conclusion, “we are invincible, NATO is invincible, the US is invincible and the entire civilized world, which is also invincible, is against you”.

As for the clueless (and spineless and brainless) EU leaders, they talk about “containing” Russia by interacting with her “from a position of force”. In other words, this is what is really happening now: NATO encourages the Ukraine to try something, the Ukraine encourages NATO to try something, and both sides take a great deal of (quite misplaced) pride in ignoring not only the Russian warnings, but also the Russian capabilities.

I should also mention that much of the imperial propaganda machine (aka “the free press”) is also hyping the expectations of those who still take them seriously. Their message: “our invincible navies will kick the Russian bear in the ass and teach him a lesson”. Rah! Rah! Rah!

In other words: unless the US/NATO/Ukies trigger some kind of incident, the US/NATO/Ukies will lose face by the 11th of this month.

As for Putin, this is what he had to say recently when asked about the risks of a major war:

“Here is what I would like to say. You said that this put the world on the brink of a global war. No, of course, not. Even if we had sunk that ship, it is nevertheless difficult to imagine that this would have put the world on the brink of a third world war because those who did this know they could not win a war like that. This is very important.”

Pretty clear, no?

Putin will come under a lot of pressure, and even outright anger, if he does not back his words with some real action. This is an election year and the Kremlin simply cannot afford being all bark and no bite.

Last, but not least, from a geostrategic/military point of view, the Russian military cannot afford to ignore NATO’s actions.

Conclusion: alas, only more crying wolf…

Crying wolf is a very thankless task, and in the case of the Nazi-occupied Ukraine, this is made even worse by the fact that every time the wolf fails to show up, an increasing number of people get used to the idea that the wolf (or bear) turned into a demure and fully tamed koala.

We shall soon find out which side will “blink” and which one won’t.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

I see you're posting about your unrequited love, again. I know, I know. It's so heartbreaking when the man of your dreams acts like you don't even exist.


THUGGER is an idiot. It's that simple.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The exercises are due to end July 10. Here is an interesting analysis

Quote:

---

Crying wolf in the Ukraine (again)
The Saker
July 05, 2021

either NATO will try to “poke the bear” or they won’t.

---

---

Quote:

---

Black Sea drills showcase strong NATO-Ukraine defense ties

ABOARD USS ROSS (AP) — Ukraine and NATO have conducted Black Sea drills involving dozens of warships in a two-week show of their strong defense ties and capability following a confrontation between Russia’s military forces and a British destroyer off Crimea last month.

The Sea Breeze 2021 maneuvers that ended Saturday involved about 30 warships and 40 aircraft from NATO members and Ukraine. The captain of the USS Ross, a U.S. Navy destroyer that took part in the drills, said the exercise was designed to improve how the equipment and personnel of the participating nations operate together.

“We’d like to demonstrate to everybody, the international community, that no one nation can claim the Black Sea or any international body of water,” Cmdr. John D. John said aboard the guided missile destroyer previously deployed to the area for drills. “Those bodies of water belong to the international community, and we’re committed to ensure that all nations have access to international waterways.”

The Russian Defense Ministry said it was closely monitoring Sea Breeze. The Russian military also conducted a series of parallel drills in the Black Sea and southwestern Russia, with warplanes practicing bombing runs and long-range air defense missiles’ deploying to protect the coast.

Last month, Russia said one of its warships in the Black Sea fired warning shots and a warplane dropped bombs in the path of the HMS Defender, a British Royal Navy destroyer, to chase it away from an area near Crimea that Moscow claims as its territorial waters.

Russia denounced the Defender’s maneuver as a provocation and warned that next time it might fire to hit intruding warships.

Britain, which like most other nations didn’t recognize Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, insisted the Defender wasn’t fired upon on June 23 and said it was sailing in Ukrainian waters when Russia sent its planes into the air and shots were heard during the showdown.

The incident added to the tensions between Russia and the NATO allies. Relations between Russia and the West have sunk to post-Cold War lows over Moscow’s annexation of Crimea, its support for a separatist insurgency in eastern Ukraine, accusations of Russian hacking attacks, election interference and other irritants.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said last week that the incident with the Defender wouldn’t have triggered a global conflict even if Russia had sunk the British vessel because the West knows it can’t win such a war. The statement appeared to indicate Putin’s resolve to raise the stakes should a similar incident happen again.

Aboard the Ross, John said the Sea Breeze participants were exercising their right to operate in international waters. He described the drills as “a tangible demonstration of our commitment to each other for a safe and stable Black Sea region.”

---

Quote:

---

Britain, which like most other nations didn’t recognize Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, insisted the Defender wasn’t fired upon

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

The exercises are due to end July 10. Here is an interesting analysis

Quote:

---

Crying wolf in the Ukraine (again)
The Saker
July 05, 2021

either NATO will try to “poke the bear” or they won’t.

---

---

Well, NATO's military exercises are now over. And what does the US have to say about them now?

Quote:

---

Black Sea drills showcase strong NATO-Ukraine defense ties

---

It looks like the US blinked, and is settling for empty PR for internal consumption.

---

Quote:

---

SIGNYM:
The exercises are due to end July 10. Here is an interesting analysis

Quote:

---

Crying wolf in the Ukraine (again)
The Saker
July 05, 2021

either NATO will try to “poke the bear” or they won’t.

---

KIKI Well, NATO's military exercises are now over. And what does the US have to say about them now?

Quote:

---

Black Sea drills showcase strong NATO-Ukraine defense ties

---

It looks like the US blinked, and is settling for empty PR for internal consumption.

THUGR: That's too funny kiki. 30 countries violate what Putin says is the sovereign property of Russia. Russia does nothing, and you say the US blinked. Holy shit that's funny.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

SIGNYM:
The exercises are due to end July 10. Here is an interesting analysis

Quote:

---

Crying wolf in the Ukraine (again)
The Saker
July 05, 2021

either NATO will try to “poke the bear” or they won’t.

---

KIKI Well, NATO's military exercises are now over. And what does the US have to say about them now?

Quote:

---

Black Sea drills showcase strong NATO-Ukraine defense ties

---

It looks like the US blinked, and is settling for empty PR for internal consumption.

THUGR: That's too funny kiki. 30 countries violate what Putin says is the sovereign property of Russia. Russia does nothing, and you say the US blinked. Holy shit that's funny.

---

WRONG.

Russia never claimed the Black Sea as "sovereign property", just certain coastal areas around their installations. Britain and the Nederlands violated those restrictions, the Brtish shp was scared away and the Dutch shipped got its (electronic) nose clipped.

YOU are too funny!

You were a low-information troll "back then", and your're STILL a low-information troll. I hope someday you improve your standing here at FFF.net.

THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

Again comrades signym and kiki show how they go through their days in a state of confusion. No wonder Russia can't seem to get ahead. No wonder it's border countries want nothing to do with it.

tick tock

T

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

SIGNYM:
The exercises are due to end July 10. Here is an interesting analysis

Quote:

---

Crying wolf in the Ukraine (again)
The Saker
July 05, 2021

either NATO will try to “poke the bear” or they won’t.

---

KIKI Well, NATO's military exercises are now over. And what does the US have to say about them now?

Quote:

---

Black Sea drills showcase strong NATO-Ukraine defense ties

---

It looks like the US blinked, and is settling for empty PR for internal consumption.

THUGR: That's too funny kiki. 30 countries violate what Putin says is the sovereign property of Russia. Russia does nothing, and you say the US blinked. Holy shit that's funny.

---

WRONG.

Russia never claimed the Black Sea as "sovereign property", just certain coastal areas around their installations. Britain and the (Nederlands sic)violated those restrictions, the (Brtish shp sic) was scared away and the Dutch shipped got its (electronic) nose clipped.

YOU are too funny!

You were a low-information troll "back then", and (your're sic) STILL a low-information troll. I hope someday you improve your standing here at FFF.net.

THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

Again comrades signym and kiki show how they go through their days in a state of confusion. No wonder Russia can't seem to get ahead. No wonder it's border countries want nothing to do with it.

tick tock

T

---

Quote:

---

Crying wolf in the Ukraine (again)
The Saker
July 05, 2021
either NATO will try to “poke the bear” or they won’t.

---

Quote:

---

Black Sea drills showcase strong NATO-Ukraine defense ties

---

Quote:

---

Russia Openly Violates International Maritime Law in Black Sea Region
The Centre for Global Studies “Strategy XXI” and an expert group, consisting of representatives of all Black Sea countries and the Maritime Expert Platform, monitored the security situation in the Black Sea region during 2020. The main trends, new challenges, threats and signs of deteriorating security situation in the Black Sea region were summarised on the basis of obtained data.

https://www.promoteukraine.org/russia-openly-violates-international-ma
ritime-law-in-black-sea-region/

---

Quote:

---

The awareness that war and peace are continuous, rather than discrete, fields of human endeavor have given rise to the idea that they may blend into each other, producing a gray zone that is neither truly war nor truly peace. These trends gave rise to the concept of gray zone conflict. This notion is marked by ambiguity on the nature of the conflict and the legal status of the parties, which in turn generates uncertainty about the applicable law. In the legal practice, the threshold between war and peace and their attendant regulatory frameworks is not as firm as the law may suggest. Confirmation of this was the Kerch incident on 25 November 2018 when Russia hindered passage against Ukrainian warships through occupation waters of the Black Sea around the Crimea peninsula, and the Kerch Strait to enter the ports of the Azov Sea.

---

Quote:

---

... The consequences of the occupation of the Crimea became the establishment of factual control by Russia over a part of the territory of Ukraine, including control over the maritime zones of Ukraine and directly over the passage within the territorial sea of the Black Sea, and the Kerch Strait to enter the ports of the Azov Sea that what has become an obstacle to the freedom of navigation in this region for Ukrainian ships (both state and commercial), and foreign ships as well.

Exploring and the legal assessment of the hindering shipping against Ukrainian warships through the occupation waters requires selection between peacetime rules of the International Law of the Sea and the Law of Naval Warfare, which applies to International Armed Conflicts (IAC).

---

Quote:

---

IAC is in all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties (HCP), even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. Geneva Convention (GC) (1-4) of 1949 and Protocol I Additional to GC of 12 August 1949 (1977) shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of HCP, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

---

Quote:

---

The presence of international armed conflict between states does not depend on the fact of declaring war, how it is qualified and whether the parties recognize it, and the degree of intensity. In accordance with para. 70 of the Tadic decision, an IAC exists whenever there is a resort to armed force between States and it is not dependent on its recognition by either party...

... Russia still has duties before Ukraine regarding respect to the rules under the International Law of the Sea even during international armed conflict. However, it should be recognized that Ukrainian warships lost their immunity during passage through occupied water due to the presence of armed conflict.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

I see you have no factual links to back up your hyperventilation.

As always.


THUGGER is an idiot. It's that simple.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:The problem you have Polish Russian Collaborator Signym is that what you post is Putties propaganda.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:
tick tock

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:The problem you have Polish Russian Collaborator Signym is that what you post is Putties propaganda.

---

From LITHUANIA??

Lithuanians HATE Russia with a passion, which is why I selected that particular sour

THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.

---

Quote:

---

THUGR: The problem you have Polish Russian Collaborator Signym is that what you post is Putties propaganda.

SIGNYM: From LITHUANIA??
Lithuanians HATE Russia with a passion, which is why I selected that particular source

THUGR: Russian Trolls Are Hammering Away at NATO’s Presence in Lithuania
A broad disinformation campaign of fake news and other tricks aims to turn the Baltic nation’s public against the alliance.

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2019/12/russian-trolls-are-hamme
ring-away-natos-presence-lithuania/161654/

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

THUGR: The problem you have Polish Russian Collaborator Signym is that what you post is Putties propaganda.

SIGNYM: From LITHUANIA??

Lithuanians HATE Russia with a passion, which is why I selected that particular source

THUGR: Russian Trolls Are Hammering Away at NATO’s Presence in Lithuania
A broad disinformation campaign of fake news and other tricks aims to turn the Baltic nation’s public against the alliance.

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2019/12/russian-trolls-are-hamme
ring-away-natos-presence-lithuania/161654/

---

Yes

You've got Russia on the brain, you low-information troll.

THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I posted additional links from international and national sources on laws of the sea during wartime and occupation. YOU justed post more name-calling.

Are you prepared to discredit the International Red Cross?

THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.

---

Quote:

---

America’s World War II contest with Japan put an end to America’s traditional view of freedom of the seas. As historian Joel Ira Holwitt writes, the order to conduct unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan, targeting “all Japanese shipping, from fishing trawlers to freighters to tankers,” issued on 7 December 1941, was “a major and dramatic change to the American attitude toward freedom of the seas.”2 In World War II, the U.S. Navy exercised the type of unrestricted submarine warfare the United States had condemned in Germany in World War I.

Today, U.S. naval officers will find instruction on the rights of belligerents and the rights of neutrals in The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7A, Edition July 2007 [Washington, D.C.: 2007]), which is an update of the Law of Naval Warfare, promulgated by the Navy Department in 1955. The 1955 volume in the U.S. Naval War College’s International Law Studies series, The Law of War and Neutrality at Sea, by Robert W. Tucker, is a commentary on the Law of Naval Warfare. Tucker’s main concern in writing the 1955 Naval War College volume was to explore the relationship between modern belligerent practices and the traditional law of naval warfare. He concludes that the modern practice of sinking enemy merchantmen without warning is in accord with the principles behind the traditional law. The standard international law texts, Grotius, Vattel, and others, were written during an era in which merchant vessels did not pose a serious threat to warships, and therefore the accepted practice was to require a belligerent warship, before firing on an enemy merchantman, to identify itself and give the enemy merchant ship a chance to surrender.

---