UK's MI6 and Defence: Author of provocations and propaganda by SIGNYM

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

UK's MI6 and Defence: Author of provocations and propaganda

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Monday, June 28, 2021 03:18
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 773
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, June 25, 2021 3:26 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Experts: British HMS Defender Stunt Near Crimea Was Patently Illegal

On Wednesday the British Royal Navy destroyer HMS Defender staged a provocation by sailing through territorial waters of Crimea. The British government, which had explicitly instructed the destroyer to do so, insists that the move was legal:

The British government signed off on a plan to sail a battleship through disputed waters off the coast of Crimea, over the objections of its foreign policy chief, according to bombshell new claims in London's Telegraph newspaper.

In a report released on Thursday night, the outlet – known to be close to Prime Minister Boris Johnson – alleged that Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab had "raised concerns" about the mission, proposed by defense chiefs, in advance. He was reportedly worried that the move could hand a potential victory to Moscow.

The account of events claims that Johnson was ultimately called in to settle the dispute. The Type-45 destroyer HMS Defender was given its orders on Monday, ahead of a clash with the Russian navy and air force two days later.

The British government then lied about the incident insisting that no warning shots had been fired when the destroyer was in the relevant area. However, video material from the BBC, which had embedded with the destroyer, as well as footage from the Russian coastguard proved that to be false. The ship was warned to leave the area and warning shots were fired.

Russia insist that the 'innocent passage' of the warship through the relevant territorial waters was illegal.

Craig Murray, a former British diplomat who himself has negotiated several sea treaties, concurs with Russia's position:

The presence of a BBC correspondent is more than a political point. In fact it has important legal consequences. One thing that is plain is that the Defender cannot possible claim it was engaged in “innocent passage” through territorial waters, between Odessa and Georgia. Let me for now leave aside the fact that there is absolutely no necessity to pass within 12 miles of Cape Fiolent on such passage, and the designated sea lane (originally designated by Ukraine) stays just out of the territorial sea. Look at the definition of innocent passage in Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea:
...
Very plainly this was not innocent passage. It was certainly 2 (d) an act of propaganda, and equally certainly 2 (c), an exercise in collecting information on military defences. I would argue it is also 2 (a), a threat of force.

So far as I can establish, the British are not claiming they were engaged in innocent passage, which is plainly nonsense, but that they were entering territorial waters off Crimea at the invitation of the government of Ukraine, and that they regard Crimea as the territory of Ukraine and Crimean territorial waters as Ukrainian territorial waters.

Murray goes on to explain why that is an unsound argument but he misses an important legal point.

During the Ukrainian-Russian standoff in April this year both sides amassed troops near their border. Russia then introduced special restrictions on navigation of warships in parts of the Black Sea. In a Notice to Mariners Russia designated the areas around Crimea depicted below as forbidden for any foreign warship. No 'innocent passage' through these is allowed. The restrictions will be valid until October this year but may be extended.

bigger

It was through one of these zones, which are next to sensitive military sites on land, that the British destroyer passed.

The British government insists that Crimea still belongs to the Ukraine and that the Ukraine had allowed it to pass through its territorial waters. It calls Russia's presence on Crimea an occupation. It supports the view of the Ukrainian government which insist that it alone can regulate the water areas around Crimea.

That view is wrong.

Prof. Dr. Stefan Talmon LL.M. M.A is the Director at the Institute of Public International Law at the University of Bonn. On May 4 he had published a legal opinion on the legality of the zones Russia had declared. On the above point he noted (emph. added):

Ukraine protested the Russian announcement, inter alia, on the ground that Russia was not the “coastal State” with regard to the territorial sea surrounding the “temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.” According to the Ukrainian Government:

“These actions of the Russian Federation constitute another attempt to usurp Ukraine’s sovereign rights of a coastal state in violation of the norms and principles of international law, as Ukraine is in fact endowed with the right to regulate the navigation in these water areas of the Black Sea.”

The UN General Assembly condemned “the ongoing temporary occupation” of Crimea and urged the Russian Federation to “uphold all of its obligations under applicable international law as an occupying Power”. This raises the question of whether as an “occupying Power” the Russian Federation could temporarily suspend the innocent passage of foreign ships in the territorial sea of the occupied Crimean Peninsula. Occupation also extends to the occupied State’s territorial waters (internal waters and territorial sea) to the extent that effective control is established over the adjacent land territory. Under the law of armed conflict, the occupant may take measures to ensure “public order and safety” in the occupied territory, including its territorial waters. In particular, the occupying Power may take measures “to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them.” Under the laws of armed conflict, the occupying power has the right to suspend in all or in parts of the territorial sea of the occupied territory the innocent passage of foreign ships, if it considers it necessary for imperative reasons of security.

In determining whether such suspension is necessary, the occupying power enjoys a wide margin of discretion.

Even if Britain does not recognize that Crimea is Russian it still has to recognize that Russia, as the 'occupying power,' can regulate the traffic in the territorial waters of Crimea:

During the ongoing armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine the law of the sea is at least partly supplanted by the law of armed conflict and, in particular, the law of occupation. Germany and other States cannot consider Russia to be an occupying Power in Crimea and, at the same time, deny it the rights that come with that status.

There is precedence for Russia's move of which the British government is likely well aware of:

[O]n 2 May 2004, the United States, acting as an occupying Power in Iraq, issued a notice to mariners establishing with immediate effect a 2,000-metre exclusion zone around the Khawr Al’Amaya and Al Basra oil terminals in the Persian Gulf and temporarily suspended “the right of innocent passage […] in accordance with international law around [these] oil terminals within Iraqi territorial waters.”

That zone was continued until at least February 2006.

Prof. Talmon discusses various other arguments against Russia's declared zones. He finds that the zones are legal under all aspects of international law.

Ukraine has no right to interfere in the restrictions that Russia, which in the Ukrainian and British view is an occupying power, has posed on the territorial waters of Crimea. Russia has suspended the 'right of innocent passage' in those zones and the British destroyer acted illegally when it passed through them.

Professor Talmon published his legal analysis seven weeks before the HMS Defender incident. It is thus free from any undue influence.

Moreover Talmon is also a Supernumerary Fellow of St. Anne’s College, Oxford, where he previously taught, and practices as a Barrister from Twenty Essex, London.

The British government would be well advised to consult with him.

It otherwise might quite legally lose a warship to Russian missiles when it orders a repetition of Wednesday's patently illegal stunt

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2021/06/experts-british-hms-defender-stu
nt-near-crimea-was-patently-illegal.html#more

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2021 3:27 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Comments later

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2021 4:10 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

OK, what did I learn from this event, previous events, and later speculation, and information that this incursion was forwarded by UK military, while UK Foreign Affairs Scy was against it?

I can't imagine what British military/MI6 was hoping to accomplish with this. Were they planning to start a firefight with Russia, hoping the USA (military ally) or NATO (military alliance) would come swooping in and generate a major conflict? Were they testing USA and EU reaction?

Britain seems all on its own in this.

Overall assessment is that Biden* is, in fact, trying to stabilize USA-Russian relations so the USA can focus on China. USA coverage of this event is studiously neutral, without a hint of support for the UK or Ukraine. Merkel and Macron have both come out and said that the EU needs to improve relations with Russia, leaving the UK without any allies in its quixotic hatred of Russia.

If you think back, UK has been the source of MUCH "intelligence" and many allegations against Russia. Not just this latest stunt, and not just the Steele "dossier", but also allegations against Russia for every poisoning - real, fictitious, or false flag, from the Skripals to "Assad gassed his own people". They supportthe White Helmets and Bellingcat with dirty tricks money.

It's been Britain that's been agitating to remove Russia from SWIFT. If you look at where all of the Russian oligarchs fled, it was to London.

And if you think back even further, it was Britain that supplied the initial "Saddam WMD" assessment, allowing the CIA to wash its hands of responsibility for fucking up their own assessment. ("It wasn't us; we got if from the British. *wash hands*)

But this also tells me that there is the same neocon insubordination to the government in Britain as there was under Trump (and still is, under Biden*).

Given that both governments seem to have an active insurgency of neocons within their ranks, I wonder how far Biden* will be allowed to get away with his "soft on Russia" policy.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2021 3:56 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
OK, what did I learn from this event, previous events, and later speculation, and information that this incursion was forwarded by UK military, while UK Foreign Affairs Scy was against it?

I can't imagine what British military/MI6 was hoping to accomplish with this. Were they planning to start a firefight with Russia, hoping the USA (military ally) or NATO (military alliance) would come swooping in and generate a major conflict? Were they testing USA and EU reaction?

Britain seems all on its own in this.

Overall assessment is that Biden* is, in fact, trying to stabilize USA-Russian relations so the USA can focus on China. USA coverage of this event is studiously neutral, without a hint of support for the UK or Ukraine. Merkel and Macron have both come out and said that the EU needs to improve relations with Russia, leaving the UK without any allies in its quixotic hatred of Russia.

If you think back, UK has been the source of MUCH "intelligence" and many allegations against Russia. Not just this latest stunt, and not just the Steele "dossier", but also allegations against Russia for every poisoning - real, fictitious, or false flag, from the Skripals to "Assad gassed his own people". They supportthe White Helmets and Bellingcat with dirty tricks money.

It's been Britain that's been agitating to remove Russia from SWIFT. If you look at where all of the Russian oligarchs fled, it was to London.

And if you think back even further, it was Britain that supplied the initial "Saddam WMD" assessment, allowing the CIA to wash its hands of responsibility for fucking up their own assessment. ("It wasn't us; we got if from the British. *wash hands*)

But this also tells me that there is the same neocon insubordination to the government in Britain as there was under Trump (and still is, under Biden*).

Given that both governments seem to have an active insurgency of neocons within their ranks, I wonder how far Biden* will be allowed to get away with his "soft on Russia" policy.

I don't see which jump your conclusions come from, but I do realize your grasp of military and strategic maneuvers is limited.

It seems Biden is eager to grovel at the feet of Germany and France, and do what they tell him to do, and Germany is in bed with Russia due to their sweetheart deal of Oil Pipeline straight from Russia to Germany.
So in April, Biden pulled back $100M in military equipment from Ukraine, while Russia amassed 100k troops and has maintained them on the Border of Ukraine - which is when Russia decreed they are taking over control of International and Ukraine Territorial Waters.

So USA has obviously abandoned Ukraine, UK, and any effort towards peace in the region, allowing Russia to annex whatever land and waters it wants or whims.
UK is now alone in desiring peace in the region. They know they are alone, with USA cowering at the behest of Russia, and Germany and France ticked they cannot confiscate UK money to fund their EU.
As an aside, I find it disappointing that EU is happy to allow their neighbors to be annexed without a burp.
UK states that Russia is an occupying presence in Ukraine, the mostly Crimea portion. UN converts this into the legal definition of Occupying Power, so that namby pamby word salad readers can debate about it.

But you seem to claim that the Defense Ministry taking actions which Boris Johnson directed - while the namby pamby Foreign Sec delves into word games - is somehow equivalent to DEEP STATE American Military defying the orders of Trump.
Doing what the UK Prime Minister directs is the same as defying what the President directs - hunh???
I don't see how Defense Ministry doing what the Prime Minister directs is "insurgency"

Although, the "Deep State" version in UK seems embedded in Foreign Sec office, and their leaking this does undercut the rule of the PM - so the Foreign Sec undermining the PM does sound just like the DEEP STATE undermining Trump. You just got your cast of players mixed up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2021 5:14 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

JSF: IF THE USA DESIRES PEACE, THEN WHY DOES IT INVADE/ OVERTURN SO MANY GOVERNMENTS?

Let's go back to Ukraine, which is one example (but I could name Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Georgia, Belarus ... and more... as examples of USA "peaceful" destruction)

I remember the events in Ukraine quite vividly, since I was following closely.

First of all, remember that the deposed Yanukovich government had been DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED.

So, what was the wedge that was used to drive Ukraine apart? It wasn't whether the elections were fair, it wasn't about "human rights" or corruption or "fascism" or authoritarianism or the latest wedge issue (LGBTQX) that the transnationals are pushing today, it was TRADE NEGOTIATIONS.

Specifically, whether Ukraine could enter into a trade agreement with the EU.

At the time, Ukraine was also in a trade agreement with Russia, and Russia said ... "Fine, enter into a trade agreement with the EU, just make sure that your country- Ukraine- doesn't become a duty-free transshipment point for EU goods into Russia."

But the US and the IMF would have none of that. They insisted on an EXCLUSIVE deal with Ukraine.

So the USA thru it's "fuck the EU" Embassy and it's numerous USA-funded NGOs framed this as a CIVILIZATIONAL CHOICE. Then they ramped up emotions between the EU-facing western Ukraine and the Russia-facing eastern Ukraine,enlisting along the way help from the extremely violent Ukrainian Nazis.

Still, it wasn't until people were killed in the Maidan BY SNIPERS, NOT THE UKRAINE GOVERNMENT, that everything went to hell and the country devolved into chaos.

And I knew from the beginning that this was going to be a clusterfuck, because a majority of ppl had voted for Yanukovich. Worse, roughly 30-35% spoke primarily Russian, and on the other side were violent Nazi militias, and over all were Ukrainian quislings/oligarchs, American carpetbaggers like Joe and Hunter Biden, and international carpetbaggers like Christine LaGarde (IMF) sucking Ukraine dry.

I want to re-emphasize that there was very little that was "organic" about the coup or the government that followed, handpicked as it was by "fuck the EU' Victoria Nuland and her neocon hubby Robert Kagan.

This is just one of MANY examples of the USA fostering color revolutions, conducting proxy wars, overturning democratically elected governments, all the way to outright invasion and occupation.

So, how can you possibly believe that the USA wants "peace"?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 27, 2021 8:49 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF: IF THE USA DESIRES PEACE, THEN WHY DOES IT INVADE/ OVERTURN SO MANY GOVERNMENTS?

Let's go back to Ukraine, which is one example (but I could name Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Georgia, Belarus ... and more... as examples of USA "peaceful" destruction)

I remember the events in Ukraine quite vividly, since I was following closely.

First of all, remember that the deposed Yanukovich government had been DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED.

So, what was the wedge that was used to drive Ukraine apart? It wasn't whether the elections were fair, it wasn't about "human rights" or corruption or "fascism" or authoritarianism or the latest wedge issue (LGBTQX) that the transnationals are pushing today, it was TRADE NEGOTIATIONS.

Specifically, whether Ukraine could enter into a trade agreement with the EU.

At the time, Ukraine was also in a trade agreement with Russia, and Russia said ... "Fine, enter into a trade agreement with the EU, just make sure that your country- Ukraine- doesn't become a duty-free transshipment point for EU goods into Russia."

But the US and the IMF would have none of that. They insisted on an EXCLUSIVE deal with Ukraine.

So the USA thru it's "fuck the EU" Embassy and it's numerous USA-funded NGOs framed this as a CIVILIZATIONAL CHOICE. Then they ramped up emotions between the EU-facing western Ukraine and the Russia-facing eastern Ukraine,enlisting along the way help from the extremely violent Ukrainian Nazis.

Still, it wasn't until people were killed in the Maidan BY SNIPERS, NOT THE UKRAINE GOVERNMENT, that everything went to hell and the country devolved into chaos.

And I knew from the beginning that this was going to be a clusterfuck, because a majority of ppl had voted for Yanukovich. Worse, roughly 30-35% spoke primarily Russian, and on the other side were violent Nazi militias, and over all were Ukrainian quislings/oligarchs, American carpetbaggers like Joe and Hunter Biden, and international carpetbaggers like Christine LaGarde (IMF) sucking Ukraine dry.

I want to re-emphasize that there was very little that was "organic" about the coup or the government that followed, handpicked as it was by "fuck the EU' Victoria Nuland and her neocon hubby Robert Kagan.

This is just one of MANY examples of the USA fostering color revolutions, conducting proxy wars, overturning democratically elected governments, all the way to outright invasion and occupation.

So, how can you possibly believe that the USA wants "peace"?

I don't understand why you are still confused.

From 2010-2014 lifelong agitator, race hustler, and warmonger B. Hussein Obamination was occupying the White House. Americans wanted more WAR so they elected agitator, race baiter, and warmonger Obamination. King Barack is the enemy of democracy, so he needed to depose the Ukrainian President.
By your count, Bush 43 started 3 wars in 8 years - although the big one was really Clinton's, in between blow jobs - and Obamination started 6 in 8 years.

Why you keep denying the obvious, nobody seems to know.

Democraps, obviously, despise peace - but Republicans love peace, and work towards it, despite the sabotage of peace by Democraps.

All of the names that you specify are ultra-Libtards, and it only becomes more obvious the more you detail.
And now Lord Darth Obiden is re-installing the most racist Libtsards in the Cabinet of Obamination 3.0

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 27, 2021 8:59 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

lol

Yeah. GWB loved peace.

K dude.

--------------------------------------------------

And he who is not sufficiently courageous to defend his soul — don’t let him be proud of his ‘progressive’ views, and don’t let him boast that he is an academician or a people’s artist, a distinguished figure or a general. Let him say to himself: I am a part of the herd and a coward. It’s all the same to me as long as I’m fed and kept warm.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2021 3:18 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
JSF: By your count, Bush 43 started 3 wars in 8 years - although the big one was really Clinton's, in between blow jobs - and Obamination started 6 in 8 years.

Clinton's was "the big one"?

Big in terms of what?

Money?
# of troops?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE