https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/25/ukraine-considers-declaring-martial-law-after-apparent-defeat-in-russia-naval-skirmishes/

The Ukrainian president will ask his parliament to consider enacting martial law after three Ukrainian navy ships were fired upon and captured in the Black Sea on Sunday.

Following its fragmentation in the 13th century, the territory was contested, ruled and divided by a variety of powers, including Lithuania, Poland, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and Russia. A Cossack republic emerged and prospered during the 17th and 18th centuries, but its territory was eventually split between Poland and the Russian Empire, and finally merged fully into the Russian-dominated Soviet Union in the late 1940s as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

Since 1991 Ukraine politicians have claimed they do not wish to be part of Russia.

HOWEVER, Russia claims the issue is a "grab" of a large natural gas deposit at the sea Russia has no intention of "letting go of".

(were ukraine to disclaim ownership of that Russia might reconsider - but ukrainian politicians are not disclaiming it. other states trying to succeed in past also had large ore deposits russia had invested to be developed / mined)

Two crewmen of the Ukranian navy are understood to be injured and two gunboats and a tugboat are in the hands of the Russian.

Ukraine has in the past challenged Russia on land with Tanks and soldier skirmish.


Russia claims the tugboat and two "military ships" were in Russian waters, Ukraine denies it.


I suggest the presence and seizure of the tugboat is material. Ukraine doesn't deny the ships were "near" russian waters the next question is WHY. Why would you have a tug boat near russian waters protected by two military ships.

The answer is: a contested ship that needed a tow. Perhaps a Russian surveillance craft Ukraine planned to seize. Perhaps a stranded Ukrainian cargo craft Russia planned to seize.

by that i'm suggesting: the associated press has not released the whole story

With its origins in antiquity, the basis of salvage is that a person helping another at sea would put himself and his vessel at risk,and should be appropriately rewarded. A related consideration was to prevent piracy, since any vessel in peril might well be abandoned to pirates if the owner did not reward an honest salvor. Salvage law has been recognized for centuries in such documents as the edicts of Rhodes and the Roman Digest of Justinian. It is still a nearly universally recognized right, though conditions for awards of salvage vary from country to country.

HOWEVER - abandonment is another maritime law involving ships with "no crew" that are "in dis-repair".

The condition of whether a vessel is abandoned and what condition it is in could obviously become a point of dispute were a company to salvage and restore a vessel (the owner might claim the ship stolen and the vessel had been recently restored).

With its origins in antiquity, the basis of salvage is that a person helping another at sea would put himself and his vessel at risk,and should be appropriately rewarded. A related consideration was to prevent piracy, since any vessel in peril might well be abandoned to pirates if the owner did not reward an honest salvor. Salvage law has been recognized for centuries in such documents as the edicts of Rhodes and the Roman Digest of Justinian. It is still a nearly universally recognized right, though conditions for awards of salvage vary from country to country.

HOWEVER - abandonment is another maritime law involving ships with "no crew" that are "in dis-repair".

The condition of whether a vessel is abandoned and what condition it is in could obviously become a point of dispute were a company to salvage and restore a vessel (the owner might claim the ship stolen and the vessel had been recently restored).

Three ships from the Ukrainian Navy, in violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, crossed the Russian maritime border on 25 November, entered the temporarily closed area of the country's territorial waters, and were moving from the Black Sea toward the Kerch Strait, according to the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB).

The Ukrainian ships did not react to legal demands of the ships accompanying them and made dangerous manoeuvres, the FSB noted.

(the photo above is recent, Russia has blockaded this bridge crossing part of the strait - which is reportedly a russian built bridge)

"Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov campaigned for a highway bridge to be constructed across the strait. Since 1944, various bridge projects to span the strait have been proposed or attempted, always hampered by the difficult geologic and geographic configuration of the area. Construction of an approach was actually started in 2003 with the 3.8 kilometres (2.4 mi)-long dam, provoking the 2003 Tuzla Island conflict."

Open source (Canada) http://vectornews.eu/news/world/82101-canada-condemns-opening-of-kerch-strait-bridge-in-crimea.html

The opening of the Kerch Strait Bridge in Crimea is another violation of the sovereignty of Ukraine by the Russian Federation. This was stated by the Foreign Minister of Canada Chrystia Freeland on May 16.
“Canada condemns the construction and partial opening today of the Kerch Strait Bridge,” it was stated.
According to Freeland, it aims to harden Russia’s unlawful hold on the peninsula and to forcibly isolate it from the rest of Ukraine.

It's a public bridge for cars. Get Over It

Live Video of Seizure

https://sputniknews.com/russia/201811261070135332-ukrainian-navy-ships-kerch/

e7uej

(look very carefully, the picture appears B&W but there is color in it)

"RUSSIA REFUSES TO RETURN SHIPS"

big media (supports high gov wages, all do these days) says it was russian aggression (however we know russia has not started all the skirmishes between the two)

#1 why was a tug boat going into the sea of azof escorted by two military ships?

#2 what ship was going to be towed by the tug and who owned the (abandoned) ship? or was this tug expected to arrive on the south-east cost of ukraine and operate at some port? was the tug going to seize a russian ship at sea? or a ukranian or crimean ship at sea? perhaps a stalled cargo ship from asia?

it is NOT normal practice to escort tug boats with gun ships except for a tug towing a military ship - in general it's illegal* (however it's why we have a navy - to protect from piracy) except perhaps on the east african coast where there are pirates with heavy machine gun counting on "no resistance"

#3 is it as simple as russian piracy - see a nice tug and take it? i doubt it?

the picture above is from an article that a tug was delivered to ukraine (on February 22, 2010) - ROUGHLY the same model i'd say

WHY WAS THE SEIZED TUG BOAT CAMOUFLAGE FOR MILITARY SEA OPERATION? (the reason it looks like a B&W photo on a rainy day is because it was painted to dis-appear on such a day)

WHY HAS BIG MEDIA BEEN CALLING A CAMO TUG A TUG INSTEAD OF CALLING IT A 3RD MILITARY SHIP? (the military obviously has tug but more often calls them from port like anyone else and pays the troll)

A next question is if disputed territories "regularly run small gun ships in plain sight of russia's coast".

A next question is: why did this ship not turn around? Were russians worried they might be there to tug away a russian ship?

if the tug was a commercial tug (note they are pretty expensive), why didn't they turn around and come back on a better day? Are russians seizing all ships of any modest value is that the claim?

And then, the obvious question, the bridge (russian built?) to crimea is close to all three regions. Anyone could call it territorial waters and there's likely a standing agreement. However both Crimea and Ukraine claimed they succeeded from russia in 1991 - when russia was too busy to object due to other world events (perhaps now russia isn't too busy, perhaps they are too busy). I somewhat doubt either country has any agreement with russia to run through it's waters - especially gun ships.

ukraine is claiming they had an agreement to freely move gun ships in the azoth sea - but i doubt they can prove any such agreement exists

international law would "probably" designate shipping channels 1/2 between all (note: a designation of shipping passage not a designation of ownership)

another good question: did russia tell any other military or tug ship to turn around that day?

FINALLY A LAST 1/2 QUESTION

it's well known that on the US coast the US cost guard may stop any vessel for inspection of ship logs (to prove they are keeping them accurately and ("have a driver's license") and that nothing illegal is being shipped).

any ship asked to stop must stop or face - possibly - us coast guard's gun ships.

It's just common practice that any ship near the boarder of (a 1st world country) might be asked to steer away from a sea region "temporarily" or might be required to show their shipping logs.

WHY WOULDN'T THE TUG OBEY warnings from russian military vessels that the shipping channel was closed that day and to turn back?

why wouldn't they turn back and then investigate what the closure was FOR and when the lane would be re-opened?

there is an exception to the rule: military vessels are NOT subject to foreign country "shipping log inspections" but are subject to port authorities captaining if wishing to dock at a port. the tug would be - but it was a military tug is what i suggested above. HOWEVEr obviously military vessels aren't allowed passage except by state diplomacy*

for example without diplomacy the whole azoth sea might be a no-go-zone for any military of either country (each fearing re-percussion and neither wanting the other's ships so close to land) or it might be a 1/2 between land mass rule, or it might be one country is so dominant that agreements were meaningless.

there is no port authority tug boat coloring scheme. at communist ports they tend to all be the same colors (what is available, all owned by communist party port). usually distinctly colored so ships can see them.

in other areas it depends on the owner but might follow a theme requested by port authorities - such as this tug sporting Florida colors - again bright

I think the end of this story is this.

They aren't in my port I can't pull them over to check their logs :)

Big media isn't going to say what they know or even ask questions.

Russia hasn't released why they asked the ships to turn around and Ukraine hasn't denied they were asked to turn around.

USA stars and stripes isn't going to do anything but admonish Russia, because russia is a kind of competitor.

which leaves me scratching my head - exactly their intent

A Russian coast guard vessel rammed the tugboat, damaging the ship’s engines and hull.

(read the above questions: exclude that russia wanted the ship because they rammed it - it will need a tug just to get to a port)

Ukraine Imposes Martial Law After Clashes With Russian Coastguard

Martial law, the powers of seizing all metals and gold in a country - the ability to threaten citizens to do "whatever wish government has": often is the motive for ongoing wars that last (millenia truth be known of the arab israel case)

THERE IS NOW A POSSIBLE MOTIVE FOR THE TUG TO REFUSE TURNING AROUND ...

gov workers in ukraine can deal with the poor and seize all goods in the country at will

there were protests in Ukraine - many against russia, though reportedly some also briefly clashed with the police

It's bad news for USA.

It means Russia is urged to rebuild military again after the cold war* and that money won't buy things **

This means to protect borders USA and USA holdings abroad (we) have to ramp up our military spending so they don't cross our lines: and that costs MONEY. ALLOT of MONEY. This isn't good at a time we're wishing we could exit arabian wars and are trying to deal with illegal alien job loss, rising prices, closed factories.

Infact - it's poison for our economy and russia's as well.

I'm surprised USA is supporting Ukrainian separation - and can only guess it's DNC democrats doing it - who have lodged bills for Hawaii to become japan again and California to separate and become mexico again.

* instead of focusing on sale of fuel and products. It means Russia will seek old military ties (ie with china) in securing it's trade instead of more focus on improving exports and natural resources trades.

** asians pooling together, "china yuan only can be iran oil" and walmart sells only china, news russia and china working together to dis-use us dollar in trading, India building a navy from scrap countries sell to them and running war exercises with china

my the initial knee jerk reaction has something to do with it all

but it wasn't an un-educated guess but published in news many times decades ago:

parts of russia rich with resources and factories russians paid for want to separate - the russina accusation is they are "trying to split with the goods" and not give russian tax payers back any consideration

as i said: that's news from decades ago - if any millenial reporter didn't bother looking at the past of this - SHAME ON THEM. (me, i was in a mail room reaadin gthe daily paper or something, so i less have to look back - i just remember it)

on of the "separatist areas" attempting succession from russia, reported decades ago: HOUSED MANY OF RUSSIA'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS

the politicians claimed their region was forced to be part of russia and would keep the weapons and use them AGAINST russia

the proposition there is clear - they had some of russia's cold war stash and fully intended to take the money and run

the obvious problem is MONEY. russia invested in and built up these areas for reasons, and now the areas want to take the money - being much more per capita than the rest of russia - and run. and its' not a new story. this happens in politics frequently inside countries and inside states too. it's old news that wealthier areas wish to "split off and stop paying taxes"

INFACT - not a few years ago one california bill proposed splitting california - and the motives were similar, to separate a wealthier part of california from the poorer and stop paying the poor tax

I like countries that don't lose ships.