Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

The water problem in Crimea is very exaggerated, local sources are enough to cover basic drinking water needs. Agriculture and industry will suffer as they did during 2014-2022 but people won't start dying of thirst.

Iirc Crimea has enough water to provide for its population, or for its agriculture, but not both, unless the additional wafer is supplied. And if I remember correctly there was already one draught in the pre-2022-invasion times (2018 was a terrible draught here, was it that year maybe?) where they showed they already prefer to ration the industry over the populace.

[Strongpoint]

Watching Crimean droughts was one of my entertainment in 2014-2022 period (spring 2020 was especially fun) but it never was that bad. At worst, it was rationing to prevent the population from doing stuff like washing their cars. Russia also invested in various projects to store more water coming from the Crimean Mountains. And they poured a lot of water from the channel last year. And this summer is on the rainy side. And no, Russians didn't use the bridge to transport water in significant quantities.

In the short term, there will be no major water problems there. X more years without water from the channel will likely cause an ecological disaster (or rather return to the natural pre-1950s climate of semi-desert for Northern Crimea)

[MaxTheFox]

L

[King Zultan]

I'm sure they'll be fine, it's not like people need water to live.

[Strongpoint]

Russia announced it will consider all ships sailing in the Black Sea to Ukrainian ports will as carriers of military cargo from July 20th onwards.

Will Russia dare to attack non-Ukrainian civilian ships? I think it will. 
Will the world swallow what is essentially an act of piracy? Yeah, it will. I am 99.9% sure of that.

[Random_Dragon]

On the other hand, I've seen this one before...

Spoiler: meme (click to show/hide)

[EuchreJack]

It's far more likely than Russia will "accidentally" destroy non-Ukrainian vessels.

Now, if they "accidentally" sink a Somali Freighter, who gives a fuck? But what happens if they attempt to interfere with a British vessel?

I expect naval mines and shore bombardment, since it avoids naval battles.

[Strongpoint]

It is also a game that two can play. Ukraine proved that we have rather successful naval drones. They managed to damage the Kerch Bridge, a rather well-protected target.

What if some "Bermudian" tanker carrying Russian oil will mysteriously go boom?

[bloop_bleep]

It is also a game that two can play. Ukraine proved that we have rather successful naval drones. They managed to damage the Kerch Bridge, a rather well-protected target.

What if some "Bermudian" tanker carrying Russian oil will mysteriously go boom?

That may be problematic for international standing.

[Madman198237]

It is also a game that two can play. Ukraine proved that we have rather successful naval drones. They managed to damage the Kerch Bridge, a rather well-protected target.

What if some "Bermudian" tanker carrying Russian oil will mysteriously go boom?

If Ukraine starts destroying vessels under foreign flags you lose. There's no way it doesn't end international support. Russia is playing with nuclear fire by suggesting that they will destroy any vessel making for Ukrainian ports; one shot and they're at war with NATO. There's not a snowball's chance in hell that a nation lets such a provocation go unanswered because doing so would leave EVERY SINGLE ONE of their ships at great risk.

[Strongpoint]

I took Bermudian in quotations for a reason. There are plenty of vessels with Russian crews and Russian owners with random flags. And suddenly go boom means no admitting who did it.

[King Zultan]

I don't think the world will go after Russia for blowing up a random civilian ship, I mean no one really did anything to Russia when they blew up that civilian plane awhile back.

[Strongpoint]

Navigation in the areas of the northeastern part of the Black Sea and the Kerch-Yenikale Strait is prohibited as dangerous since Thursday, the relevant navigation information has already been made public, the Ukrainian Defense Ministry has announced.

As I said, two can play this game. If some of those vessels will go boom for no apparent reason, they were warned.

[Jopax]

Russia doesn't need to actually sink any ships tho (and if they do they'll probably blame it on Ukraine anyways). This type of statement works real well in putting a damper on any sort of civilian shipping in the region even if it doesn't lead to ships getting sunk or even captured. Because which private company wants to call the bluff and potentially lose a super expensive ship, its crew and any valuable cargo it might've been hauling?

The solution is very simple tho, have NATO or any of the EU states, or hell any significant third party pledge to escort ships to ports to ensure critical goods like food make it to the global market. Hey presto, hopefully the russkies have some sense left and won't fire at ships that could drag someone with a bigger stick more meaningfully into the conflict (because you don't need to declare war to make them bleed as such, can you imagine Ukraine getting long range cruise weapons so it can keep the sealanes clear as it were?)

[Loud Whispers]

Russia announced it will consider all ships sailing in the Black Sea to Ukrainian ports will as carriers of military cargo from July 20th onwards.

Will Russia dare to attack non-Ukrainian civilian ships? I think it will. 
Will the world swallow what is essentially an act of piracy? Yeah, it will. I am 99.9% sure of that.

Anyone flying over or sailing nearby a warzone should take heed that objects on radar may look like wartime targets; it's more unusual to keep commercial shipping open between two belligerents and their trading partners than it is to just keep this blockade. If this was like China trying to claim the SCS and establish illegal control over open waters during peacetime there might be more point in complaining, but as it is the illegality of Russian actions is moot when this is all in the context of an already illegal war. Despite the Russian government maintaining that this isn't a war, this is fairly standard stuff for a war. It may not be in Russia's strategic interest as like you say, shooting a 3rd party nation's ship is politically disastrous, but look at the Falklands war - another one of those wars that never was openly declared, where the UK warned any ship within a certain radius of the Falklands would potentially be considered a combatant vessel. Noticeabley, even Ukraine is now suggesting they will retaliate with the same measures:

The defence ministry in Kyiv issued a statement saying that from midnight on Thursday, all shipping plying Russian-held ports “may be considered by Ukraine as such carrying military cargo with all the associated risks”. The announcement mirrored a threat from Moscow on Wednesday against all ships using Ukrainian ports.

“The fate of the cruiser Moskva proves that the defence forces of Ukraine have the necessary means to repel Russian aggression at sea,” the ministry said, in a reference to the sinking of the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet last year.
“Ukrainian-made maritime drones are capable of destroying stationary and moving targets anywhere in the Black Sea,” a Ukrainian interior ministry adviser, Anton Gerashchenko, said on Twitter.

While we haven't seen a war involving commerce raiding since WWII, we have seen three blockades in modern times. UK-Argentina, Falklands war and Iran-Iraq Gulf War, as well as the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar in 2017. In the former two both wars never saw an official declaration of any blockade, but did see this declaration of an "exclusion zone" where civilian ships were warned they could be mistaken for military ships, but it is in practice the same as a blockade. In terms of precedence, the Russians and Ukrainians are in the clear here