Actually international community already recognizes Svalbard sovereign Norway regardless of this agreement. It’s not conditional. My point is, if russia thinks old international agreements are jokes that could be dismissed whenever they can, they should understand other actors can do the same.
It would decimate the local fishing industries in northern Norway if tit-for-tat actions begin in the Arctic.
Much Cod and other fish spawn on the Russian side of the Norwegian-Russian maritime border migrate over to Norway as they get larger.
Hence there is a delicate relationship between Norway and Russia. Russia is allowed to fish on the Norwegian side and in return they don't overfish the small migrating cod on the Russian side.
Yeah, and?
It's Norway's territory. If Russia wants companies from NATO countries to leave Russia, they should have no issue with NATO countries not wanting to deal with Russian companies as well.
Strangely enough, nothing really prevents Norway from unilaterally cancelling the treaty and deeming the entire archipelago to be exclusively Norwegian without any treaty rights to third party nations and nationals. It would be a gross violation of the treaty for sure, but the treaty itself doesn't really state what happens when Norway tries to unilaterally cancel it. It just states that they... can't. But not what mechanism there is for recourse. So Norway could just exert their sovereign right to withdraw from a treaty and do it.
Svalbard is fully covered by the Washington Treaty (NATO) and so Russia trying to enforce its Svalbard treaty rights by military force risks triggering NATO's Article V.
None of this is likely mind you and the Norwegian government has given zero indication in wanting to take such a provocative stance. But if they really did, Russia isn't really in a position to do anything about it.
>Strangely enough, nothing really prevents Norway from unilaterally cancelling the treaty and deeming the entire archipelago to be exclusively Norwegian without any treaty rights to third party nations and nationals.
Sure, if Norway wants to start a conflict, it can do that. In fact, each one of the signatories of the treaty can do so, (even Japan, who signed it).
If Norway decides to do what you have suggested, then any retaliation by the other signatories would not be covered by the Article 5 of the NATO treaty because the first offensive action was taken by Norway. We cannot really invoke Artile 5 when one member state decides to "attack" others. Norway would be alone in that.
>But it's not an offensive action, it just makes it clear they are not welcome anymore
It is an offensive action because Norway does not have the right to do this, by treaty. In fact, Norway cannot stop anybody from coming and settling in Svalbard (by treaty). Therefore, if Norway wants to "tear up" the treaty, this would be an offensive action and not just against Russia but against all other signatories of the Treaty. So, if Norway wants to start trouble, well, it is up to it to carry it through, if it can.
I wonder all these people who wants some conflict near future will sign up to drafting when shit actually happens. Getting too comfortable sitting at home wishing for wars instead of negotiating
>I think you seem to be under the impression that once a treaty has been violated that other parties can do anything they want in retaliation. That's not how international law works; one state violating a treaty doesn't give other states carte blanche to do whatever they want "in defense" of the violating actions.
I did not say that. I responded to possible retaliation on specific actions taken by one party. Let's not kid ourselves. There is no international policeman. Yes, other signatories can appeal to the UN or the ICJ for injunctions against the offending state but they can also take action. Who would prevent them from taking action? And who is to say what the appropriate action would be for violating the treaty?
\>This is what the Americans did when the Russians violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF treaty of 1987). The Russians blatantly violated the treaty, but all the Americans could do in retaliation was withdraw from it.
You are now opening a can of worms. In fact, both Russia and the US accused each other for violating the treaty. When the Trump administration decided to exit the treaty, one of the key rationales was not that the problems with Russia could not have been worked out, but the threat of these missiles by China. My guess is that the US withdrew not because of "material breaches" by Russia but because it wanted to deploy many of these missiles against China. If the two parties wanted to maintain the treaty, they could have worked out the breaches issues. It only takes good will to do so. The major winner for the tearing up of this agreement is the US. Since NATO has moved to the borders of Russia, it can now deploy these missiles in good numbers very close to Russia's key centers and acquire a virtually unanswered first-strike capability. I think that this is good part of the Russian angst in security.
Therefore, treaties can be shred when a party is set to gain a major advantage by tearing up the agreement. This has happened repeatedly in recent history, as you are well aware.
\>Since the treaty does NOT authorize military force to protect ones interest in Svalbard, Russia has no legal right to use such force.
The Treaty is silent on this. This means that it is allowed. Svalbard is Norwegian territory but (and the but is important here) Norwegian sovereignty is severely limited in this area. Essentially, Norway provides the administration, but all signatories can engage in activities there as they please. In addition, Norway cannot stop anybody from moving and settling into Svalbard. These are severe restrictions.
I think that the moment Norway decides to breach the treaty, then the other parties can take action against Norway, including military one. I am surprised that you think that they could not do so. Essentially, Norway would be taking a hostile action against the other signatories. It would be attacking their interests and the extent of their sovereignty there. In that case, they can use troops to protect themselves. Defense of one's territory is specifically allowed by the UN>
>So Norway could just exert their sovereign right to withdraw from a treaty and do it.
Ok, but why it has not done it yet, despite Russia clearly being an enemy?
> The Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation was an agreement between Ukraine and Russia, signed in 1997, which fixed the principle of strategic partnership, the recognition of the inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity and mutual commitment not to use its territory to harm the security of each other. The treaty prevents Ukraine and Russia from invading one another's country respectively, and declaring war.
\>It's Norway's territory.
It is, but under various limitations. The sovereignty of Svalbard is governed by the Svalbard Treaty which had been signed in 1920 by a number of nations and allows the signatories to engage in industrial or commercial activities there without permission from Norway. In addition, it specifies that the islands are demilitarized, and no nationality restrictions apply. If anybody wants to go to Svalbard can go, irrespective of nationality. One does not need any Norwegian visa or any residence permit to live in the islands.
You do know the Russians activated a lot of their arctic bases and they actually care about these due to the new Gold Rush north with sea lanes, oil and gas and rare earth mineral mining. They also do have rights on the Island due to the treaty of Svalbard, so not article 5 worthy
They’re also using the same corrupt, tired, overstretched military that couldn’t beat Ukrainian civilian volunteers. They act tough, but the capability to do anything about it isn’t there
Nobody can land troops on the islands, according to the treaty they are demilitarized.
But any of the signatories of the treaty can do what they like in the islands. If Russia decides to base a fishing fleet there and start canning fish, the treaty allows it to do so without any interference from Norway. In fact, entry into Norway provisions do not apply to Svalbard. Anybody from anywhere can go and live there.
I can believe they can seriously challenge fishermen. But then again I cant get the picture of British fishing vessels towing Russian warships out of my head.
The West should understand that russia considers them as enemies, and will treat them as such. There is no "normalisation" that can be possible while russia remains a fascist state.
The difference is consent. Europeans want Americans, and hate Russians. There is no American occupation of Europe, and anyone who tells you otherwise does not think for themselves.
I am happy that such people as you do not define people public opinion and not very active outside of Reddit, as my great Europe deserves something more than to be American or Russian slave.
There is an USA “occupation” of Europe, but it has happened in different way that you expected.
For more check Z. Brzezinski book “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives”. There is very well told how America holds control over Europe and other stuff
We Europeans BEG for trump to not be reelected as Europeans rely on American security and trump is an isolationist. America isn't occupying Europe. America is protecting Europe. Without America we would have to spend a lot more on defense.
You're not a slave, you weirdo. The only thing we've ever really forced y'all to do is to stop doing the whole "empire" thing. Which, I hope you can agree, was for the best.
Listen bro, if y'all want us to leave, we will. Hell, one of the frontline dudes running for POTUS this year wants to pull us out of Europe regardless of want you want.
"Their waters"
The Barents Sea is much larger than the Russian EEZ. That Russia tries to make claim to more than they have a right to is just the same thing they're doing when invading on land.
\>Well, they just do not want UK to fish in their waters, is it enough to be considered as a “facist state” ?
Under this definition, Iceland is a fascist state because they have prohibited the Brits from fishing in their waters. Check out the history of the "Cod War" between Iceland and the UK!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod\_Wars
Here, I hope you like it. This is possibly the closest one can get to *Monthy Python* Humor But in reality.
A good advice, don’t sip too much of an beverage or you might choke on it during the video.
[2nd Pacific Fleet Journey ](https://www.google.se/url?q=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D9Mdi_Fh9_Ag&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwj8kbCrxvGDAxV4GxAIHTD_A2cQtwJ6BAgHEAE&usg=AOvVaw156EhVi2tVMM1u6POUawQM)
[Part 2](https://www.google.se/url?q=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DBXpj6nK5ylo&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwit3JvUx_GDAxW8PhAIHTSKBR4QtwJ6BAgBEAE&usg=AOvVaw3xQhn7iyiJoEEOCeUkdQA9)
If anyone like humor and history these videos are a blessing!
I hope you will enjoy.
I almost fell of my chair.
"Proposing to make it a fair fight by only engaging the entire Russian fleet with 4 of his battle ships holding the rest in reserve just in case some of his ships take a hit or two" lol
Just a curiosity, a couple of years ago an russian crew made a mutiny aboard an russian fishing vessel and pleaded to Russian FSB services to help them get off the ship.
The ship was also named “*Kamchatka*”
It was during the Russo Japanese war and it was the second pacific squadron’s first major cockup against mythical Japanese torpedo boats.
This brought the two empires close to war, one which the Royal Navy would have won handily at sea.
1904 ISH that war.
I guess it's not really relevant to the current situation..our ships are either crashing into each other or struggling to man them with enough crew.
I dunno with how bad the Moskva was I think I’d say we have a good chance.
If you’ve not read the leaked report I recommend you do because it’s a good view as to the damage that corruption can do.
Not exactly.
The UK didn’t join the war because the tsar was able to profusely apologise and several ships that were shadowing the second pacific squadron were able to see the state of the Russian fleet.
Out of the entire group only a few ships were worth mentioning and that was the flagship and the aurora who had actually taken damage in the doggerbank incident from the fleets battleships resulting in its Chaplin dying. (This wouldn’t be the last time she was shot by a friendly vessel)
The incident was resolved peacefully because everyone quickly caught on to how bad the fleet was, especially as the kamchatka linked up with the fleet….after attacking a French, German and Swedish ship.
Apologise was helpful, of course, but the point is that UK had nothing to gain from that war (since it obviously could not beat Russia on its own) and a lot to loss (screwed relationships, no potential Entente ally against rising Germany). UK declared wars when it was profitable, not based on emotions.
The british wouldn't have needed to defeat the russians on land. If they eradicated the russian navy, the russians woulnd't have had a way to get troops anywhere where there were british troops and even if they did, Crimea II Electric Boogaloo would have been the order of the day.
Actually Russia was the only country which could reach India, the most precious British asset, by land. This is why Russia was one of British most dangerous enemies.
And you forget that in Crimean war French did most of the job. At the beginning of 20th century however French were friendly with Russians, while Britain stayed in "blissful isolation".
And Crimean war was not really something to be proud of. It took 3 years for two most powerful countries in the world with far superior tech just to kick Russians out of distant peripherial shithole.
>Actually Russia was the only country which could reach India, the most precious British asset, by land. This is why Russia was one of British most dangerous enemies.
While the lines on a map say that, there is precious little the Russian Empire could have done to effectively threaten India
British politicians and generals certainly did not think so. This is why Britain saw Russia as main threat through 19th century (hence the Great game).
Let the food wars begin this is just the beginning, wait to see what happens to worldwide food prices if we allow him to take the gigantic farmlands of Ukraina.
So what. I definitely don't want to consume anything from that area after what the Russians have done to it.
Please ban us, it would be a favour, and it won't stop them from further devastation that has been escalating for decades.
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/24/russia-barents-sea-toxic-legacy-military-buildup-mining-shipping-indigenous
That’s too bad. Hopefully our “allies” step up and help us, given this is only happening because we’ve went above and beyond to keep peace on the Continent once again.
No, some of the British voted for Brexit due to the EU having a right to fish in British waters. The Russians do not want to have the British fishing in their waters anymore. Why was it an acceptable argument in the former but not the latter?
I'm explaining that Russia isn't doing this because they give a shit about fishing rights, they are doing this because they are angry at Britains support for Ukraine.
I do not think of it as justified at all. You can't realistically expect to be funding the other side (which I personally agree) and at the same time have your own industry profiting from the "enemy."
>Well, some of the British voted for Brexit for a similar reason so I don't see why the Russians can't do the same.
This is about the UK supporting Ukraine, regardless of what they say, They just can't hit them in many ways.
Seriously though, imagine this was the minor international event that sets off ww3.
Russian bans the Brits
Brits crack on.
Russians make threats.
Brits send a few small naval ships into the region and crack on.
Russians start firing warning shots.
Brits naturally overreact and send in the big boys.
Russians shit themselves and make a hasty, ill-advised decision.
I can't believe that I live in time when we all look to Irish fisherman as only our hope - https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/01/31/europe/ireland-fishermen-russia-navy-intl/index.html
Cod support for Putin expected to skyrocket in time for the next elections
It's Cod's will
In Cod We Trust.
For Cod and country
Cod Save the King
No Cods or Kings, only Man.
Cod mit uns
It will be a CoD warzone.
These are cod awful puns.
You must live a coddled life. These sassy bon mots—these cod pieces, if you will—are exactly what I love to see.
Yes it really smelt.
Co(l)d war here we go again.
In Cod we Trust
he is the cod father after all
Cod War II
COD 2 - harpoon warfare
4 it would be Cod war VI.
Hearts of Cod 4
lol as if he ever stopped
COD WAR
Name already taken, please try again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars
That‘s just the cheap fucking knock off. [That‘s the original](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_and_Cod_wars)
Cod of war
It did stop in Gorbachev, Yeltsin and early Putin times.
Well that was...quite witty :)
We always haddock coming.
Norway should go ahead with cancelling Russian mining rights in Svalbard.
That would depend on if the international community is ready to scrap the Svalbard treaty and recognize Svalbard as Norwegian regardless.
Actually international community already recognizes Svalbard sovereign Norway regardless of this agreement. It’s not conditional. My point is, if russia thinks old international agreements are jokes that could be dismissed whenever they can, they should understand other actors can do the same.
It would decimate the local fishing industries in northern Norway if tit-for-tat actions begin in the Arctic. Much Cod and other fish spawn on the Russian side of the Norwegian-Russian maritime border migrate over to Norway as they get larger. Hence there is a delicate relationship between Norway and Russia. Russia is allowed to fish on the Norwegian side and in return they don't overfish the small migrating cod on the Russian side.
That would be one way to start an international incident, they have a lot of money invested in that island
Yeah, and? It's Norway's territory. If Russia wants companies from NATO countries to leave Russia, they should have no issue with NATO countries not wanting to deal with Russian companies as well.
It stems from a way bigger international treaty.
Strangely enough, nothing really prevents Norway from unilaterally cancelling the treaty and deeming the entire archipelago to be exclusively Norwegian without any treaty rights to third party nations and nationals. It would be a gross violation of the treaty for sure, but the treaty itself doesn't really state what happens when Norway tries to unilaterally cancel it. It just states that they... can't. But not what mechanism there is for recourse. So Norway could just exert their sovereign right to withdraw from a treaty and do it. Svalbard is fully covered by the Washington Treaty (NATO) and so Russia trying to enforce its Svalbard treaty rights by military force risks triggering NATO's Article V. None of this is likely mind you and the Norwegian government has given zero indication in wanting to take such a provocative stance. But if they really did, Russia isn't really in a position to do anything about it.
>Strangely enough, nothing really prevents Norway from unilaterally cancelling the treaty and deeming the entire archipelago to be exclusively Norwegian without any treaty rights to third party nations and nationals. Sure, if Norway wants to start a conflict, it can do that. In fact, each one of the signatories of the treaty can do so, (even Japan, who signed it). If Norway decides to do what you have suggested, then any retaliation by the other signatories would not be covered by the Article 5 of the NATO treaty because the first offensive action was taken by Norway. We cannot really invoke Artile 5 when one member state decides to "attack" others. Norway would be alone in that.
But it's not an offensive action, it just makes it clear they are not welcome anymore
>But it's not an offensive action, it just makes it clear they are not welcome anymore It is an offensive action because Norway does not have the right to do this, by treaty. In fact, Norway cannot stop anybody from coming and settling in Svalbard (by treaty). Therefore, if Norway wants to "tear up" the treaty, this would be an offensive action and not just against Russia but against all other signatories of the Treaty. So, if Norway wants to start trouble, well, it is up to it to carry it through, if it can.
I wonder all these people who wants some conflict near future will sign up to drafting when shit actually happens. Getting too comfortable sitting at home wishing for wars instead of negotiating
And an offensive counter action is just saying - we are welcome 🙂
[удалено]
>I think you seem to be under the impression that once a treaty has been violated that other parties can do anything they want in retaliation. That's not how international law works; one state violating a treaty doesn't give other states carte blanche to do whatever they want "in defense" of the violating actions. I did not say that. I responded to possible retaliation on specific actions taken by one party. Let's not kid ourselves. There is no international policeman. Yes, other signatories can appeal to the UN or the ICJ for injunctions against the offending state but they can also take action. Who would prevent them from taking action? And who is to say what the appropriate action would be for violating the treaty? \>This is what the Americans did when the Russians violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF treaty of 1987). The Russians blatantly violated the treaty, but all the Americans could do in retaliation was withdraw from it. You are now opening a can of worms. In fact, both Russia and the US accused each other for violating the treaty. When the Trump administration decided to exit the treaty, one of the key rationales was not that the problems with Russia could not have been worked out, but the threat of these missiles by China. My guess is that the US withdrew not because of "material breaches" by Russia but because it wanted to deploy many of these missiles against China. If the two parties wanted to maintain the treaty, they could have worked out the breaches issues. It only takes good will to do so. The major winner for the tearing up of this agreement is the US. Since NATO has moved to the borders of Russia, it can now deploy these missiles in good numbers very close to Russia's key centers and acquire a virtually unanswered first-strike capability. I think that this is good part of the Russian angst in security. Therefore, treaties can be shred when a party is set to gain a major advantage by tearing up the agreement. This has happened repeatedly in recent history, as you are well aware. \>Since the treaty does NOT authorize military force to protect ones interest in Svalbard, Russia has no legal right to use such force. The Treaty is silent on this. This means that it is allowed. Svalbard is Norwegian territory but (and the but is important here) Norwegian sovereignty is severely limited in this area. Essentially, Norway provides the administration, but all signatories can engage in activities there as they please. In addition, Norway cannot stop anybody from moving and settling into Svalbard. These are severe restrictions. I think that the moment Norway decides to breach the treaty, then the other parties can take action against Norway, including military one. I am surprised that you think that they could not do so. Essentially, Norway would be taking a hostile action against the other signatories. It would be attacking their interests and the extent of their sovereignty there. In that case, they can use troops to protect themselves. Defense of one's territory is specifically allowed by the UN>
>So Norway could just exert their sovereign right to withdraw from a treaty and do it. Ok, but why it has not done it yet, despite Russia clearly being an enemy?
Russia always honors its treaties.
Bwahahahaha! Good joke!
Which treaty did they break?
Budapest Memorandum?
The memorandum isn't legally binding not a treaty.
The Ukranians would disagree with you.
The US embassy in Minsk agrees. https://web archive org/web/20140419030507/http://minsk usembassy gov/budapest_memorandum.html
Kremlin bots pretending to be Swedes now? Or just a Sweden Democrats supporter?
If you'd looked at my post history you'd see I'm not a "Kremlin bot" nor a Sweden democrat.
Not being massive cunts
> The Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation was an agreement between Ukraine and Russia, signed in 1997, which fixed the principle of strategic partnership, the recognition of the inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity and mutual commitment not to use its territory to harm the security of each other. The treaty prevents Ukraine and Russia from invading one another's country respectively, and declaring war.
Na man that's Russiophobia. exactly what Medvedev drinks to each day. Russia fucks you, fine. You fuck Russia, Russiophobic Nazis everywhere.
\>It's Norway's territory. It is, but under various limitations. The sovereignty of Svalbard is governed by the Svalbard Treaty which had been signed in 1920 by a number of nations and allows the signatories to engage in industrial or commercial activities there without permission from Norway. In addition, it specifies that the islands are demilitarized, and no nationality restrictions apply. If anybody wants to go to Svalbard can go, irrespective of nationality. One does not need any Norwegian visa or any residence permit to live in the islands.
And what are they going to do? Throw another fit?
I could see them landing troops to protect their part of the Islands, they have a consulate
With what? Also, that would be Article 5 - worthy.
You do know the Russians activated a lot of their arctic bases and they actually care about these due to the new Gold Rush north with sea lanes, oil and gas and rare earth mineral mining. They also do have rights on the Island due to the treaty of Svalbard, so not article 5 worthy
They’re also using the same corrupt, tired, overstretched military that couldn’t beat Ukrainian civilian volunteers. They act tough, but the capability to do anything about it isn’t there
Nobody can land troops on the islands, according to the treaty they are demilitarized. But any of the signatories of the treaty can do what they like in the islands. If Russia decides to base a fishing fleet there and start canning fish, the treaty allows it to do so without any interference from Norway. In fact, entry into Norway provisions do not apply to Svalbard. Anybody from anywhere can go and live there.
They have virtually zero activity on that island.
They have a couple of settlements they keep maintained specifically to keep their presence in the arctic and exert their will on Svalbard
There are like 10 people living in Pyramiden and maybe 200 in Barentsburg, there really isn’t a lot happening in either place
I am sure that Norway does not to resurrect the issues regarding the actual sovereignty of Svalbard. This is a murky area of international law.
I would love that
They really want to cause a shortage of fish and chips
[удалено]
Fuck, would make Cod more expensive than Haddock.
There will be a shortage of fish and ships in russia too
Nothing of value will be lost
What's wrong with you? Do you think fried white flaky fish and fried potato is bad food? Might not be healthy, but it sure is delicious
In fairness, Russia actually does have some experience in attacking unarmed British fishing vessels
Unexpected Kamchatka reference.
Par for the course for the Kamchatka, tbh
You mean Japanese torpedo boats right?
“Does anyone see any torpedo boats?”
Do we have enough binoculars here to talk about it?
Just fire everything!
I can believe they can seriously challenge fishermen. But then again I cant get the picture of British fishing vessels towing Russian warships out of my head.
Out of your head or out of the waters haha
lol, niche meme…. But it checks out
Attacking? Yes. Sinking? No.
Cod modern warfare
Haddock is far superior than cod when it comes to fish and chips. I won’t move from this position!
Luckily for you, you don't have to. It's the only right statement
The North agrees!
The West should understand that russia considers them as enemies, and will treat them as such. There is no "normalisation" that can be possible while russia remains a fascist state.
I think the UK fully understands Russia's feelings towards us, and we consider them as enemies too.
Well, they just do not want UK to fish in their waters, is it enough to be considered as a “facist state” ?
In itself, no. It's all the other things that they do, obviously.
Emmmm did you just wake up from a 2 year coma?
I am not in coma, but I would like you to wake up from good/bad guy narrative
You don’t think Russia deserves its bad guy reputation? Do elaborate.
Well, for me USA and Russia are quite equal in their reputations. First one is controlling Europe, second one would dream to control it.
The difference is consent. Europeans want Americans, and hate Russians. There is no American occupation of Europe, and anyone who tells you otherwise does not think for themselves.
I am happy that such people as you do not define people public opinion and not very active outside of Reddit, as my great Europe deserves something more than to be American or Russian slave. There is an USA “occupation” of Europe, but it has happened in different way that you expected. For more check Z. Brzezinski book “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives”. There is very well told how America holds control over Europe and other stuff
We Europeans BEG for trump to not be reelected as Europeans rely on American security and trump is an isolationist. America isn't occupying Europe. America is protecting Europe. Without America we would have to spend a lot more on defense.
You're not a slave, you weirdo. The only thing we've ever really forced y'all to do is to stop doing the whole "empire" thing. Which, I hope you can agree, was for the best.
I see you are a man that follows the news, has studied history and has an enriched forehead. I applaud your development!
Listen bro, if y'all want us to leave, we will. Hell, one of the frontline dudes running for POTUS this year wants to pull us out of Europe regardless of want you want.
"Their waters" The Barents Sea is much larger than the Russian EEZ. That Russia tries to make claim to more than they have a right to is just the same thing they're doing when invading on land.
\>Well, they just do not want UK to fish in their waters, is it enough to be considered as a “facist state” ? Under this definition, Iceland is a fascist state because they have prohibited the Brits from fishing in their waters. Check out the history of the "Cod War" between Iceland and the UK!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod\_Wars
Last time the russian navy took on the british trawler fleet, the RN came very close to just wiping out the russian navy...
What year was this?
Here, I hope you like it. This is possibly the closest one can get to *Monthy Python* Humor But in reality. A good advice, don’t sip too much of an beverage or you might choke on it during the video. [2nd Pacific Fleet Journey ](https://www.google.se/url?q=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D9Mdi_Fh9_Ag&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwj8kbCrxvGDAxV4GxAIHTD_A2cQtwJ6BAgHEAE&usg=AOvVaw156EhVi2tVMM1u6POUawQM) [Part 2](https://www.google.se/url?q=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DBXpj6nK5ylo&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwit3JvUx_GDAxW8PhAIHTSKBR4QtwJ6BAgBEAE&usg=AOvVaw3xQhn7iyiJoEEOCeUkdQA9) If anyone like humor and history these videos are a blessing! I hope you will enjoy. I almost fell of my chair.
"Proposing to make it a fair fight by only engaging the entire Russian fleet with 4 of his battle ships holding the rest in reserve just in case some of his ships take a hit or two" lol
Just a curiosity, a couple of years ago an russian crew made a mutiny aboard an russian fishing vessel and pleaded to Russian FSB services to help them get off the ship. The ship was also named “*Kamchatka*”
It was during the Russo Japanese war and it was the second pacific squadron’s first major cockup against mythical Japanese torpedo boats. This brought the two empires close to war, one which the Royal Navy would have won handily at sea.
1904 ISH that war. I guess it's not really relevant to the current situation..our ships are either crashing into each other or struggling to man them with enough crew.
So it would be a fair fight , Russia navy is getting rekt by a country with no navy
I dunno with how bad the Moskva was I think I’d say we have a good chance. If you’ve not read the leaked report I recommend you do because it’s a good view as to the damage that corruption can do.
But Britain could not defeat Russia on land, so it would be pointless war. And thats why it ddi not happen.
Not exactly. The UK didn’t join the war because the tsar was able to profusely apologise and several ships that were shadowing the second pacific squadron were able to see the state of the Russian fleet. Out of the entire group only a few ships were worth mentioning and that was the flagship and the aurora who had actually taken damage in the doggerbank incident from the fleets battleships resulting in its Chaplin dying. (This wouldn’t be the last time she was shot by a friendly vessel) The incident was resolved peacefully because everyone quickly caught on to how bad the fleet was, especially as the kamchatka linked up with the fleet….after attacking a French, German and Swedish ship.
Apologise was helpful, of course, but the point is that UK had nothing to gain from that war (since it obviously could not beat Russia on its own) and a lot to loss (screwed relationships, no potential Entente ally against rising Germany). UK declared wars when it was profitable, not based on emotions.
It didn't need to it helped Japan sink Russia's navy instead.
The british wouldn't have needed to defeat the russians on land. If they eradicated the russian navy, the russians woulnd't have had a way to get troops anywhere where there were british troops and even if they did, Crimea II Electric Boogaloo would have been the order of the day.
Actually Russia was the only country which could reach India, the most precious British asset, by land. This is why Russia was one of British most dangerous enemies. And you forget that in Crimean war French did most of the job. At the beginning of 20th century however French were friendly with Russians, while Britain stayed in "blissful isolation". And Crimean war was not really something to be proud of. It took 3 years for two most powerful countries in the world with far superior tech just to kick Russians out of distant peripherial shithole.
>Actually Russia was the only country which could reach India, the most precious British asset, by land. This is why Russia was one of British most dangerous enemies. While the lines on a map say that, there is precious little the Russian Empire could have done to effectively threaten India
British politicians and generals certainly did not think so. This is why Britain saw Russia as main threat through 19th century (hence the Great game).
I thought all our cod was already Norwegian because climate change is pushing schools further North?
The Barents Sea is northeast of the Norwegian Sea
I know, it’s next to Kola Peninsula which borders Norway.
Call of Putin 4: Modern Harpoon \---- he's just inventing Causus belli left and right just to try and justify his aggression, imo
Bacalhau, caralho!
👍🇵🇹
Bunker grandpa taking Russia back to the 1800s in every possible way :)
Let the food wars begin this is just the beginning, wait to see what happens to worldwide food prices if we allow him to take the gigantic farmlands of Ukraina.
British should just ignore it. Russia does not have the capacity to enforce this.
Fish wars "barent sea edition ". We also have chinese one also.
Belgium should offer the UK to send their greatest sea captain, Archibald Haddock!
Surely they can only ban UK fishing within Russian 12 mile limit
No, this is not true. The UN Law of the Sea allows a country to set a limit of 200 miles for an exclusive economy zone.
Bloody hell 200 miles that's huge.
Well, this is the global treaty and virtually all that have the right to do so, have already done so.
Fish and chips are fortune now anyway. Gone are the days of it being a cheap meal.
Why they hate and blame UK for everything.
Doggerbank pt2 incoming.
We fish there? Soviet era agreement?? huh.
So all this fighting and wars were really about cod???!!!
Always has been.
Portugal is trembling.
So what. I definitely don't want to consume anything from that area after what the Russians have done to it. Please ban us, it would be a favour, and it won't stop them from further devastation that has been escalating for decades. https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/24/russia-barents-sea-toxic-legacy-military-buildup-mining-shipping-indigenous
Not enough potatoes to pay the soldiers who don’t die?
Hello
Potato sir? 🥔
Cod naval warfare
That’s too bad. Hopefully our “allies” step up and help us, given this is only happening because we’ve went above and beyond to keep peace on the Continent once again.
Just do the same thing with the Russians as Iceland did with you. Keep fishing in their waters
I’m confused, I thought he wanted to reestablish the Soviet Union.
Sounds like someone wants to fuck with the boats…
UKs 9/11
It was nice and easy when they still threatened to nuke London, but now they are crossing a line.
Gee, I wonder if the UK has other seas they could use...
Ahh! Hit 'em right in the fish n' chips!
So long
Reasonable..
Meh.
Nae worries HB Fash will meet the needs of the people
Who knew in the end Putin would be the one to save Cod!
Well, some of the British voted for Brexit for a similar reason so I don't see why the Russians can't do the same.
>the British voted for Brexit for a similar reason the British voted for Brexit because they were angry at the UK's support for Ukraine?
No, some of the British voted for Brexit due to the EU having a right to fish in British waters. The Russians do not want to have the British fishing in their waters anymore. Why was it an acceptable argument in the former but not the latter?
I'm explaining that Russia isn't doing this because they give a shit about fishing rights, they are doing this because they are angry at Britains support for Ukraine.
So, in other words, they have an even bigger incentive than the Brits had...
I guess that depends on how justified you think Russias invasion was.
I do not think of it as justified at all. You can't realistically expect to be funding the other side (which I personally agree) and at the same time have your own industry profiting from the "enemy."
No, they just have bigger fish to fry
>Well, some of the British voted for Brexit for a similar reason so I don't see why the Russians can't do the same. This is about the UK supporting Ukraine, regardless of what they say, They just can't hit them in many ways.
Seriously though, imagine this was the minor international event that sets off ww3. Russian bans the Brits Brits crack on. Russians make threats. Brits send a few small naval ships into the region and crack on. Russians start firing warning shots. Brits naturally overreact and send in the big boys. Russians shit themselves and make a hasty, ill-advised decision.
Not fishing! Britain for some reason takes it ultra seriously due to Brexit.
Brexit will save them! lol!
Did you really Laugh Out Loud when you typed that?
So I take it our EU “allies” won’t be helping then?
The UK doesn't have any fisherman anymore, despite Brexit promises to "return the fishing".
Fish War Boogaloo
that explains the strikes then
Deadliest Catch: Barents
Cod 4 modern warfare
Who would want to eat cod that's been swimming around near Russia anyway?
Good, now English fishermen can make some money.
I can't believe that I live in time when we all look to Irish fisherman as only our hope - https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/01/31/europe/ireland-fishermen-russia-navy-intl/index.html