"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (11 Viewers)

[GTX]

NATO's Rutte warns allies they are Russia's next target

Hence why giving Ukraine everything they need is so vital.

More:

NATO’s Rutte says Europe must prepare for ‘scale of war our grandparents’ endured

If Putin is “prepared to sacrifice ordinary Russians in this way, what is he prepared to do to us?” the NATO chief said.

www.politico.eu

 

[GTX]

Breaking: Ukrainians could vote on disputed territory, Zelenskyy says in updated peace plan

Ukraine has proposed a vote on disputed territory in an updated version of the US-led peace plan to end Russia's war.

www.abc.net.au

 

[GTX]

View: https://x.com/praisethesteph/status/1997702127959875947?s=20

 

[Dimlee]

Ukraine hits Russian oil rig in Caspian Sea for first time, official says

Good news. Oil campaign continues. Gloves go off.

 

[MiTasol]

Now Ukraine needs to take out the gas supplies to Moscow and Crimea as a Xmas present to Putin.

 

[Dimlee]

Now Ukraine needs to take out the gas supplies to Moscow and Crimea as a Xmas present to Putin.

Crimea - the main pipeline is underwater. Also, the underground storage facility is usually filled in before winter. But maybe the on-ground distribution network is vulnerable, pumping stations, etc.

 

[MiTasol]

Pumping stations are, to me, the perfect target. Reasonably large, on the surface, and a drone or missile cracking one of the high pressure pipelines, especially on the inlet side, will create a massive fire that will likely destroy the whole facility before the upstream pumping station is shut down and the accumulated gas in the line burns off.

It would create a satisfying glow in the sky until the upstream pumps are stopped and reduce to a heart warming glow after that, probably for some hours.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Crimea - the main pipeline is underwater.

That would be doable.

 

[MiTasol]

The Jokers seizure of the sanctioned oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela leaves me with very very very mixed feelings. This conundrum has me very worried.

On the positive side the Joker is telling the world that every NATO and allied nation should be out there doing the same to every other sanctioned ship which is running "contraband" to and from Russia. Under this precedent Ukraine can board and seize every ship leaving any Russian port and then use or sell the cargo and maybe even the ship. Likewise they can do the same to any ship headed for a Russian port. If all the nations with navies did the same the effect on the war would be considerable and would significantly swing the war in Ukraines favour and anything that helps Ukraine is a positive.

On the negative side this is piracy on the high seas. Armed persons boarding a civilian vessel and stealing the ship and its contents is piracy. No if's. No but's. No exceptions because the US congress has not declared war on any entity related to that ship so that is an illegal military action. As such, in accordance with the "I was under orders" is not a defence as determined during the war crimes trials at Nuremberg. Worse still the Joker has broken other international laws by executing persons, again at sea, where that person has not been tried and found guilty of a capital crime by a legally constituted court. Add to that one of his puppets has murdered two people who were clinging to wreckage and even in wartime that is a crime.

You can see my dilemma. Are these crimes acceptable when the criminal nation is a third party not legally at war with either side who are at war? And if we accept this what next will we have to accept. Other third parties like China sanctioning and sinking US vessels? This is a really slippery slope.

 

[SaparotRob]

Crimea - the main pipeline is underwater...

Time for the good guys to do some anchor dragging.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

AIUI, this seizure was not legally piracy because the ship that has been seized has been itself sanctioned for participating in helping Iran and -- wait for it -- Russia violate sanctions on the two nations. It seems to be in accordance with international law.

Of course that's not saying that it was a wise move, or that our current Administration is not using international law as a fig-leaf to cover what is clearly an attempt to ratchet up pressure on Venezuela in an attempt to perpetrate either a war itself or the ouster of a foreign government.

I'm just saying that the action itself is prima facie legal.

 

[GrauGeist]

There are additional concerns regarding Venezuela which include Russian military and an Iranian presence.

From what I understand, Iran has also been producing drones in Venezuela, too.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

There are additional concerns regarding Venezuela which include Russian military and an Iranian presence.

From what I understand, Iran has also been producing drones in Venezuela, too.

I know there's been economic interaction between the two nations over the last decade or so. I'm not sure that justifies the current military stance -- but that's another thread so far as I'm concerned, and probably one that would fall afoul of political rules here, so I'll leave off here.

 

[MiTasol]

AIUI, this seizure was not legally piracy because the ship that has been seized has been itself sanctioned for participating in helping Iran and -- wait for it -- Russia violate sanctions on it. It seems to be in accordance with international law.

Of course that's not saying that it was a wise move, or that our current Administration is not using international law as a fig-leaf to cover what is clearly an attempt to ratchet up pressure on Venezuela in an attempt to perpetrate either a war itself of the ouster of a foreign government.

I'm just saying that the action itself is prima facie legal.

While you might be right that the seizure is, on the first impression, legal, the fact that this was carried out by an administration who has killed survivors hanging on boat wreckage, something that is totally illegal under both civil and wartime law, and then publicly stated that it was acceptable in wartime makes me strongly question the legality of the tankers seizure. Any person who claims that killing civilians who have not been tried in any court of law and then further killing the surviving civilians who are hanging on to boat wreckage is legal in wartime needs to face an internation court and the same applies to anyone who ordered, and anyone who carried out, this unmistakeable breach of international law. Again I remind you that the Nuremberg trials made it excruciatingly clear that obeying an illegal order is NOT grounds for defence. For two hundred years the US was known as the best example of the rule of law and the concept of innocent until proven guilty. It distresses me that this no longer applies and that under the current administration the policy is kill first and destroy all the evidence that a crime was committed by the dead. It heartens me that I have seen no evidence that the majority of US citizens no longer believe in the rule of law. If the public opinion polls on Ukraine are any indication the vast majority of Americans still support law and order.

Yes the ship seized is a well known Russian shadow fleet tanker but it is still subject to international maritime law. Until I see some evidence in the form of the exact wording of the laws applicable to this seizure I will continue to classify it dubious at best, even though I do hope that it is totally legal and that therefore Ukraine and all it's supporter nations can go ahead and seize Russia's shadow fleets sanctioned ships either in their own ports or in international waters. The fact that countries that do follow the rule of law have failed to do this in the last four years makes me believe that this seizure is not legal.

As I said before - this issue vexes me and is likely to lead to Russia's "partners in crime" sanctioning and seizing pro Ukrainian ships. Even worse this could result in pro-Russia parties sanctioning and seizing aircraft.

This is a really slippery slope and may well lead to a massive dose of unintended consequences.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

As I said before - this issue vexes me and is likely to lead to Russia's "partners in crime" sanctioning and seizing pro Ukrainian ships. Even worse this could result in pro-Russia parties sanctioning and seizing aircraft.

This is a really slippery slope and may well lead to a massive dose of unintended consequences.

I'd like to think that I've made it perfectly clear that I don't agree with this for other reasons. My point was that the seizure itself was in fact legal. Pointing out this fact is not in any way any sort of support for previous or indeed future actions.

I'm not sure how many Ukrainian ships have been involved in skirting sanctions on any country. If there are, and if some get seized, okay. Is the seizure legal? You and I both know that the Russians don't have any compunctions about illegal seizures, up to and including military land-grabs. Worrying about that when their only carrier requires an escort tugboat and much of their Black Sea fleet is now submarine, meh.

This is not to say that what is legal is also moral, or as I noted, wise. This is also not to say that the apparently-legal nature of this seizure justifies the war-crime of killing hors du combat.

Please don't misunderstand me about that.

 

[MiTasol]

There are additional concerns regarding Venezuela which include Russian military and an Iranian presence.

From what I understand, Iran has also been producing drones in Venezuela, too.

Mmmm.

The core tenet for the free worlds support of Ukraine is that Ukraine is an independant sovereign nation and has the right to determine its own future.

Obviously the current US administration does not believe that but the clear majority of US citizens of all major political persuasions do believe this and do support Ukraine.

Are the Russians in Venezuela invited or did they force their way in? If invited they are no different from Putin when he was in Alaska.

It seems to me that this administration does not believe that Venezuela is an independant sovereign nation and that therefore that Venezuela no longer has the right to determine its own future, its own laws or to even have control over its own national waters and airspace. Worse still the administrations tactics against Venezuela come straight out of the Putin playbook and he was Stalin and Hitler's star pupil.

Equably relevant is the fact that there has been a very strong very senior Russian political presence in Florida, including at times at the Southern White House, for some time now and some/many of those political persons are almost certainly military and/or FSB. Why is this acceptable in Florida but not acceptable in other nations? So once again the Floraduh man pot is being a @#$%^ hypocrite when he calls the kettle black.

 

[MiTasol]

I'd like to think that I've made it perfectly clear that I don't agree with this for other reasons. My point was that the seizure itself was in fact legal. Pointing out this fact is not in any way any sort of support for previous or indeed future actions.

Your posts clearly show that you, like me, strongly support a free and independent Ukraine etc. Let's agree to disagree on the legality of that seizure until such time as one, or both, of us is proven wrong.

I'm not sure how many Ukrainian ships have been involved in skirting sanctions on any country. If there are, and if some get seized, okay. Is the seizure legal? You and I both know that the Russians don't have any compunctions about illegal seizures, up to and including military land-grabs. Worrying about that when their only carrier requires an escort tugboat and much of their Black Sea fleet is now submarine, meh.

Unfortunately today's news is that the US is about to put boots on the ground in Venezuela so the highlighted sentence above is, if the news is correct, about to apply equally to the current US administration. It will be interesting to see if any of the senior US military remember Nuremberg.

This is not to say that what is legal is also moral, or as I noted, wise. This is also not to say that the apparently-legal nature of this seizure justifies the war-crime of killing hors du combat.

Amen.

Please don't misunderstand me about that.

Let's agree to disagree on this one, minute in the whole equation, point. We are in agreement on the vast majority of issues here and there is no reason either of us should "unfriend" the other.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Your posts clearly show that you, like me, strongly support a free and independent Ukraine etc. Let's agree to disagree on the legality of that seizure until such time as one, or both, of us is proven wrong.


Unfortunately today's news is that the US is about to put boots on the ground in Venezuela so the highlighted sentence above is, if the news is correct, about to apply equally to the current US administration. It will be interesting to see if any of the senior US military remember Nuremberg.


Amen.


Let's agree to disagree on this one, minute in the whole equation, point. We are in agreement on the vast majority of issues here and there is no reason either of us should "unfriend" the other.

I don't think of it as even "agreeing to disagree", because until I know better I am withholding judgment. As I wrote, it's "apparently" legal, but that doesn't mean I slide one way or the other, that's not how I work.

That also is not a reflection on my thinking about the propriety of this Administration's actions and policies. I think objectivity requires me to acknowledge that while both perverse and aggravating the situation, the seizure itself is not necessarily illegal.

I don't disagree with your stance. I don't agree with my government's actions. That doesn't relieve me of the obligation to present facts as objectively as possible. I don't take disagreement as disfavor or dislike, I'm not trippin' here, brotha. But I feel it's important that we keep in mind objectivity insofar as it's possible.

Again, I don't want to derail this any further, and my apologies to the readers for having done so this much.

 

[Warspite63]

I don't think of it as even "agreeing to disagree", because until I know better I am withholding judgment. As I wrote, it's "apparently" legal, but that doesn't mean I slide one way or the other, that's not how I work.

That also is not a reflection on my thinking about the propriety of this Administration's actions and policies. I think objectivity requires me to acknowledge that while both perverse and aggravating the situation, the seizure itself is not necessarily illegal.

I don't disagree with your stance. I don't agree with my government's actions. That doesn't relieve me of the obligation to present facts as objectively as possible. I don't take disagreement as disfavor or dislike, I'm not trippin' here, brotha. But I feel it's important that we keep in mind objectivity insofar as it's possible.

Again, I don't want to derail this any further, and my apologies to the readers for having done so this much.

No need to apologize, good sir. 'Black & white' is never going to be as common as endless shades of grey

 

[MiTasol]

I don't think of it as even "agreeing to disagree", because until I know better I am withholding judgment. As I wrote, it's "apparently" legal, but that doesn't mean I slide one way or the other, that's not how I work.

That also is not a reflection on my thinking about the propriety of this Administration's actions and policies. I think objectivity requires me to acknowledge that while both perverse and aggravating the situation, the seizure itself is not necessarily illegal.

I don't disagree with your stance. I don't agree with my government's actions. That doesn't relieve me of the obligation to present facts as objectively as possible. I don't take disagreement as disfavor or dislike, I'm not trippin' here, brotha. But I feel it's important that we keep in mind objectivity insofar as it's possible.

Again, I don't want to derail this any further, and my apologies to the readers for having done so this much.

Clearly I misunderstood some of your previous post. Ironically I am also, to a certain extent, withholding judgement. As I said I would love to see it was legal so that Ukraine and others can do the same. As I also said I want to see the actual laws involved but, because all those countries that religiously obey the rule of law have, with one exception, refused to seize any shadow fleet ships I lean towards the Jokers actions being illegal. I will not say the American's actions as these actions were very much the Jokers, not the American peoples.

The one time that I can think of when a sanctioned Russian shadow fleet ship was seized in open waters in the English Channel it was released within hours but the captain and one or two other crew were detained. The refusal to detain the ship, to me, strongly suggests there was absolutely no legal way that they could do so. To me it is also important to remember that the Dutch boarded that ship using normal civilised procedures.

A couple of ships were impounded in Scandinavia but they were clearly implicated in cable cutting, etc, so there were clear legal grounds to impound those. I have yet to see any evidence to support the claim that the ship near Venezuela was legally seized.

Much as I would like to I cannot see any legal grounds to board and seize this tanker in International waters. As I have said, I may well be wrong but I need to see hard evidence.

As WARSPITER says "'Black & white' is never going to be as common as endless shades of grey" and the shade of grey is what we are discussing.