Russian destroyer threatens to ram US destroyers - What is the background

Yesterday, Russian media reported that a US destroyer had entered Russian waters and left them only after a Russian destroyer threatened to ram it. I was curious to see how the reports would be published in Germany and, as expected, mainstream media did a "great job" in concealing the important background information.

Russian destroyer threatens to ram US destroyers - What is the background

Lets look first at the incident itself and then at the background:

On Tuesday the US destroyer John McCain entered Peter the Great Bay, the name of the large bay where Vladivostok is located.

In response, a Russian destroyer threatened to ram the US destroyer if it did not leave Russian territorial waters, whereupon the US destroyer left the area - accompanied by the Russian destroyer and an additional Russian corvette.

So much for the facts, now we come to the point of contention.

Peter the Great BayThe Soviet Union declared the whole bay a Russian territorial sea in 1957, on the basis of historical claims, thereby extending its territorial waters beyond the usual 12-mile zone.

It is arguable, but if you look at the map, you can understand the logic of the Soviets (and today Russia) who have drawn a straight line between their coasts at the entrance to the bay, because the bay is completely surrounded by Russian territory and there are no foreign claims on the waters. The USA (and the West as a whole) likes to play the role of protector of free navigation and thus repeatedly provoke conflicts, for example when US warships demonstratively cross between Taiwan and mainland China.

No one there disturbs free navigation, but the USA provokes under the pretext of China pouring oil on the fire of the Taiwan issue.

The West, on the other hand, always makes a big fuss when Russian ships cross international waters in the English Channel, for example.

Shipping should be free for the West, but not necessarily for others.

The USA has never recognised that Russia claims the whole of Peter the Great Bay as its territorial waters, citing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The problem is that the US has never acceded to the agreement.

So you are asking Russia to honour an agreement that the US does not recognise.

And whether Russia's move is actually in breach of the agreement is the next question.

That would have to be dealt with in the UN, but not by the US, which is not even a member state of the agreement.

The US and free navigationThis year, the US raised four Iranian tankers to bring Iranian oil to Venezuela.

The reason was that the US imposed sanctions against both countries.

Such US sanctions have no international validity. International validity only applies to sanctions adopted by the UN Security Council.

What the US did when it hijacked foreign ships in international waters is nothing more than piracy.

The oil that the tankers loaded was then sold by the US, in the tradition of the privateers.

So the USA's interpretation of free navigation is very one-sided and completely different from the interpretation of international law.

What Spiegel readers learnAn article titled "Japanese Sea - Russian warship threatens US destroyer with ramming manoeuvre" has been published in Spiegel on the incident.

The headline alone distracts from the fact that the incident could have taken place in Russian waters.

Instead, the headline suggests to all those who only read the headline that a Russian ship threatened a US destroyer with a ramming manoeuvre in the Sea of Japan - i.e. in undoubtedly international waters - and the mainstream reader only thinks "The evil Russians once again. If a reader clicks on the article and reads it, he or she will find an article in which mainstream correctly reports on the incident, but about the core problem, the background of Peter the Great Bay, the Spiegel reader only learns the following: "Russia still claims the enormous bay as its own sea area from Soviet times.

However, the US side does not accept this, as Keiley further explained: "The Soviet Union claimed more of its own waters - and waters further away from the coast - than it would be entitled to under international law at the time".

And whether Russia's move actually violates the agreement is the next question.

That would have to be dealt with in the UN, but not by the USA, which is not even a member state of the agreement.

The US and free navigationThis year, the US raised four Iranian tankers to bring Iranian oil to Venezuela.

The reason was that the US imposed sanctions against both countries.

Such US sanctions have no international validity. International validity only applies to sanctions adopted by the UN Security Council.

What the US did when it hijacked foreign ships in international waters is nothing more than piracy.

The oil that the tankers loaded was then sold by the US, in the tradition of the privateers.

So the USA's interpretation of free navigation is very one-sided and completely different from the interpretation of international law.

Instead, the headline suggests to all those who only read the headline that a Russian ship threatened a US destroyer with a ramming manoeuvre in the Sea of Japan - i.e. in undoubtedly international waters -  west media readers only thinks "The evil Russians once again. If a reader clicks on the article and reads it, he or she will find an article in which Spiegel correctly reports on the incident, but about the core problem, the background of Peter the Great Bay, the Spiegel reader only learns the following: "Russia still claims the enormous bay as its own sea area from Soviet times.

However, the US side does not accept this, as Keiley further explained: "The Soviet Union claimed more of its own waters - and waters further away from the coast - than it would be entitled to under international law at the time".

McCain", the USA would have demonstrated that these waters do not  belong to Russian territory and that the USA does not accept Russia's historic claim to Peter Great Bay," Is the USA above international law? What exactly is the USA's approach to Russia's claims to waters that are not in dispute, that are enclosed on three sides by Russian coasts and that are many thousands of kilometres away from the USA? Mainstream dont give a fu** of that

Imagine the reverse and a Russian warship would cross the US maritime borders off San Francisco.

The USA would perceive this as an aggressive act and the media would report about an unfounded Russian provocation, because what is a Russian destroyer armed to the teeth doing off the US coast? Why did the USA presume to tell other countries where their borders should be? Especially when it has not even acceded to the relevant international agreements.