Russian navy could sink Norwegian warships.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Oct 18, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. From formal point of view Russian navy has right to attack and sink Norwegian warships.

    http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1136441.ece

    At this point I strongly doubt that Nowegians have right to use force in Russian economical zone.

    Suppose that Norwegian bordergurds would try to detain someone on Russian side of the border. Whatever 'someone' did the borderguards could be lawfully killed by Russian borderguards. However

    http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/10/17/elektron.shtml

    According to international law Norwegians have only one option: ask Russian authorities to detain and check the trawler.

    Now imagine for a second that reaction of Russian navy would not be so calm.
     
  2. It would certainly put article five to the test.
     
  3. 'Now imagine for a second that reaction of Russian navy would not be so calm'
    Sergey.
    Imagine for a second a Russian trawler actually fishing!
    And also Russia not playing the bullyboy against Norway for a change!
    'Suppose that Norwegian borderguards would try to detain someone on Russian side of the border. Whatever 'someone' did the borderguards could be lawfully killed by Russian borderguards.'
    Sergey
    Or you could simply shoot down one of their airliners,that usually does the trick.
    Russia whining about Norway picking on them does'nt really cut it.
     
  4. was that a trick the Russians learnt from the Americans or did the Ruskies do it first and the septics copied them?
     
  5. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    I thought it was the North Koreans who pioneered that particular form of aviation navigational error correction!
     
  6. Sergey, in case you missed the subtle point Biscuits is making, Norway is a member of NATO. Article V refers to the collective defence agreement inherent to the North Atlantic Treaty.

    In simple terms you'd be taking on:
    Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Rep, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States (and perhaps the France, if they feel like it.) It's rather odd that all your "old friends" from the Cold War have swapped side, don't you think? After all the good things the Soviet Union brought them- how ungrateful!

    Fortunately you country's leadership has rather more sense than you evidently do. Even short of war, just an economic embargo will leave Russia absolutely fcuked. We can buy our gas and coal elsewhere for a while if need be. We can offset the cost with what we'll save on foreign aid once we cut that off too. It'd be better for all concerned if Russia accepts that the waters in question ARE DISPUTED and try and hammer out a legal resolution to the argument rather than strut around like it's in a position to do something about it by any other means.
     
  7. Really situation is very complex. There is a treaty between Norway and Russia (actually it was signed by Soviet Union) about Spitsbergen arhipelago. According to it Russia has special rights there. Norway has right to check Russian ships but without any punitive actions. Recently Norway unilaterally declared full rights over the aquatory. So even first arrest of Russian ship contradicted to signed treaty from point of view of Russian government.

    As to attempts to detain the trawler in Russian economical zone then it is absolutely unlawful. So reaction of Russian government was wise. Solution was found by diplomatic means, without demonstration of power. Now (very small) Russian coast guard ship goes toward the trawler (surrounded by 4 Norwegian ships) to excort it to Murmansk. I doubt that our Norwegian friends would shoot it.

    Morale: problems among friends should be resolved without demostration of power, but in friendly atmosphere according to laws and signed treaties.

    No of course.

    Probably you mean Korean airliner that was shot down more than 20 years ago.

    http://www.rescue007.org/

    They were times of Cold war. It is over now.
     
  8. I accept that sometimes I look silly but not at this degree. I would understand a phrase 'It would certainly put article anynumber to the test' in the right way of course.

    Be sure these "friends" would be ungrateful toward Western Europe too.

    Taking into account that Russian 'leadership' (to begin with Putin) is a gang of semi-fools, morons and dullards, you obviously estimate my mental abilities very low.

    I rather disagree with you. Our Chinese, Indian friends would buy Russian oil anyway. And if it would be cheaper on 1 cent than on market, then they would be happy.

    As to EU then imaginary 'embargo' would not be a tragedy too but shares would fall sharply no doubt and you would be surprised by new prices on petrol stations soon.

    In this case gas would be golden. Some countries in EU depends on Russian gas on 90%.

    Say it to our Norwegian friends. Namely they try to establish their vision by force (more right by imitation of force). Russian position is reasonable.
     
  9. Sorry if I came across as Patronizing. It is clear from your initial statement however, that you'd completely forgotten about NATO.

    Huh? They asked to join us. The closest the Warsaw Pact countries came to consenting to the situation was through the Vito Corleone approach to diplomacy.


    Hard to tell. While your English is infinitely better than my Russian there are some statements you make that, I hope for your sake, get lost in translation.

    When exactly did the Chinese become your "friends"? A marriage of convenience, nothing more. Just look into the foeign assistance, trade credits, CTR etc. that Russia receives. You can bet your arrse that China won't offer up that sort of cash.

    Firing upon a NATO vessel would be an act of war. The North Atlantic Alliance would respond, not necessarily the just the EU.


    Not sure about that precise percentage. Certainly, there are some countries that are very big customers. In the short term at least, Russia does not have a monopoly .


    You make it sound like they're still running around with horned helmets and battle axes!

    This whole debate is academic in any case. Neither Norway or Russia want a scrap over this. No-one is dumb enough to start shooting over fishing boats. (Oh, err,umm, hang on a sec, stand-by one :oops: .)
     
  10. You make it sound like they're still running around with horned helmets and battle axe-crabtastic.
    Visions of Olaf the Gangbanger and crew in longboats rowing into Murmansk!
    Hey Sergey referring to your Leaders as a gang of semi-fools 20yrs ago would have had got you a trip to Siberia would it not or worse?
     
  11. Not at all. But if NATO ship would attack Russian ship in Russian waters using gun-fire then NATO ship would be attacked too (with predictable result). In this case it would be not an agression against NATO's member but a selfdefence.

    So what was a reason for 4(!) Norwegian naval ships to surround Russian trawler in Russian waters? Have you any version?

    ...and waited for golden rein from the West. As I understand clouds are not ready for it.

    In some situations it would not be an act of war. And it should be not only 'an act of war' but aggression. As I remember several NATO vessels were firing (and even been sank) in 1982 without any reaction from NATO.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4225736.stm

    but even now, without this pipeline

    Of course.
     
  12. Can anyone say cod war ? we tried one of those with the icelandics it all ended rather badly for us best settle it ove a glass of vodka .


    Second thoughts make that tea Drunken scandnavians are not a good idea :lol:
     
  13. Still best not to upset the Russian fleet though eh?

    Especially if you're a fisherman, lets not forget the Imperial Russian navy's robust reponse to a blatant act of fishing by the Hull trawler fleet in 1904
     
  14. in late 70's and early 80's, Canadian Navy regularly arrested Soviet trawlers and dragged them into Halifax. shots were fired.

    now the Canucks did this in the knowledge that:

    a. International law on their side
    b. so were the yanks!

    norgies probably don't give a flying kipper about the Russian response.
     
  15. FYI, UK BBC Radio 2, 1500

    A Russian Trawler has just kidnapped 2 Norwegian sailors

    ........ and is hot footing it back to Russia

    .........with 4 Norwegian Frigates and the Norwegian Airforce in tow!!!!!