Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The truth, as usual, lies in between what both sides are saying. Ukraine is sending navy ships to a new base in Berdyansk, in the Azov sea. This involves sailing them under the Kerch bridge. They did this recently, liked the response it got so went for it again. I know technically Ukraine has the right to send navy ships under the bridge but I would say its unnecessary posturing. There is little military reason to expand its navy in Berdyansk even if there is a right. It seems to me that Ukraine may have done this to bait Russia into some action like this.
Russia is also at fault for lying about this being a provocation sent by the West, ramming a tug boat already stopped (how much of a threat was it really?) and using weapons to take over the other boats. They would have gotten the job done by chasing them off after closing the straight. Maybe even declare that a victory and the point would be made that Ukraine can't move its navy into a sensitive sea. Instead they look very bad in the eyes of Ukrainians and the West, where an appetite is growing for increased sanctions and an election is coming up where Russia was hoping to gain some sympathetic votes. It also shoots its church in the foot as they try to convince their clergy not to defect.
The issue is unresolved as long as the sailors and boats remain captive. They should be returned and Ukraine should agree not to send military ships into the Azov sea.
I know technically Ukraine has the right to send navy ships under the bridge
The strait has a high load, Russia is responsible for safety of passages. A request for a passage is submitted in advance, schedule of passage is planned and agreed.
Tugboats were being escorted by gunboats which have to have the consent of the Russian government per the 2003 Treaty. Technically, both sides have to have the consent of the other side for passage of their military ships. The Russians have reasonable expectation that there may attempts to damage the bridge. They probably have legal justification to place military ships to guard the bridge and inspect suspicious craft .
Lying.
First, the territory of the Kerch Strait is a shared water area under the agreement dated 2003, and military ships can pass through the strait without agreement.
Secondly, the seizure of ships by the Russian army occurred 24km from the coast, which is unconditional international waters.
Lying.
First, the territory of the Kerch Strait is a shared water area under the agreement dated 2003, and military ships can pass through the strait without agreement.
Secondly, the seizure of ships by the Russian army occurred 24km from the coast, which is unconditional international waters.
They haven't
They can't pass through without mutual consent.
NATO mouthpiece Radio Free Europe has already admitted that Russia is acting within its legal rights.
Quote:
[The Ukrainian Sea Guard and the squadron's spokesman] Poliakov said that, while Russia's actions are "provocative," because of a controversial 2003 agreement on cooperation and shared use of the Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait, "everything Russia is doing here is technically legal."
The US conservative newspaper The Washington Examiner and several Ukrainian politicians have already stated that they want to see the bridge blown up. The threat of sabotage is out in the open.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.