| ▲ | Arnt 6 days ago |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | holowoodman 6 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Well, yes, Flag of Convenience is a thing. But there is a "but", which is that in the articles of war, the flag of a ship does have quite a few implications. E.g. when two nations are at war, stopping ships flagged as belonging to the opposition gives certain rights of stopping and searching them, blockading their passage, seizing the vessels and cargo, etc. And the relevant characteristic in that case is the flag, not the captain's nationality:
> Art. 51. Enemy character. The enemy or neutral character of a vessel is determined by the flag which it is entitled to fly. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/1913a.htm |
| |
| ▲ | Arnt 6 days ago | parent [-] | | If you want to be formal about it, none of the countries with Baltic coastlines are formally at war. | | |
| ▲ | holowoodman 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, but there is the huge other "but" that in modern use, a formal declaration of war is no longer necessary, committing acts of war is sufficient for a state of war to exist. (However, committing acts of war without a preceding declaration is of course a war crime.) Of course this isn't really automatic and triggered by the smallest thing, both sides kind of have to "agree" to be at war, e.g. by a counter-attack, a declaration following the attack or something like that. And nobody really wants to take that bait, due to the huge consequences involved. Yet, it is China playing with fire here, we all can be happy that none of the affected nations took them up on their "offer" of war. | | |
| ▲ | escape_goat 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Just to clarify again, this is a dry bulk / Panamax vessel. It is part of the shipping industry. At scale, it is analogous to a railroad car. In 2015 it was operating as the Avra under the flag of Greece. The foreknowledge of the Chinese government that a Russian officer would conduct hybrid operations from the vessel cannot be inferred from the circumstance. It is like thinking that someone with an American passport is an American spy. | | |
| ▲ | holowoodman 6 days ago | parent [-] | | It is quite the opposite from what you are arguing. China is responsible for the conduct of the vessels they allowed to fly their flag. They can later claim that the crew and captain acted on their own will, without orders from the Chinese leadership. They can duly punish the captain and crew or disavow the vessel and declare them renegade, disallow them to fly their flag. But without such a declaration, a nation such as China is responsible for the conduct of their fleets, be they civilian or military. And any vessel they allow to fly their flag is part of their (in this case civilian) fleet. | | |
| ▲ | escape_goat 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Well sure we can both make unsourced assertions all day but as far as I can see the flag state is responsible for illegal conduct of commercial vessels only insofar it has failed to meet its obligations for regulatory and legal oversight. | | |
| ▲ | holowoodman 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Well, yes. But I'd claim that having a vessel intentionally damage foreign property and then ignoring the issue and not exercising legal oversight by at least investigating what happened is such a failure in obligations. |
| |
| ▲ | WitCanStain 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Is the US responsible for any crime committed by members of ships that fly the star-spangled banner? | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | aldous 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes, good points. It's not a wild stretch of the imagination that Mr P and gang are actively trying to drag China into the Ukraine conflict and I'd imagine Beijing is pretty pissed off today about being (ostensibly) implicated in this sabotage. So the usual underhand scheming from the Kremlin imho, don't fall for it. China and Russia's relationship is very complicated of course and there's many a convincingly analysis out there that predicts conflict between them in the near future (an example flashpoint being Siberia). |
| |
|
| ▲ | netsharc 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes, this is what I'm saying, but with less words. But look around (even in these comments) and look at how many people are thinking "Chinese act of war!!!11!!" |
| |
| ▲ | jstummbillig 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Yes, this is what I'm saying, but with less words. That's really not all you are saying, and the difference is important. Maybe not to you, though. | | |
| ▲ | PhasmaFelis 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | As far as I can tell, you're both saying the same thing: that registering a ship in China does not mean China is responsible for that ship's actions. If you've got a different point to make, please make it clear. | |
| ▲ | netsharc 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Then, elaborate please, Jochen, what's the important difference? |
| |
| ▲ | Arnt 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes… A lot of them really need have it spelt out, twice, in large clear type. |
|
|
| ▲ | scrps 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| So the Russians who are at this point highly dependant on Daddy Xi to keep their economy and military afloat are gonna false flag the West to suck China into a quagmire of a war a few months before the most unpredictable and venomously anti-china president (who has thin skin, a hair trigger, and no qualms about conducting airstrikes on high-ranking Iranian generals unilaterally on a whim) in modern US history is about to take office at the head of a country with the largest functioning stockpile of nuclear weapons and a massive military? You think Chinese intelligence is asleep at the wheel and wouldn't notice given the stakes and absurd levels of geopolitical risk the entire planet is at? China may back Russia to try to shift perception of the west's military might/will or to drain resources or just to buy Russia by making them dependant to get those juicy Russian natural resources but they aren't going to start world war iii to help Putin with his fetishistic "yet another European dictator" fantasy. The Chinese know how to play the game same as the Russians and the US. All these little games are just calibrated psyops, why destroy, very publicly, comms lines when tapping it would be far more beneficial to a war effort and much quieter? Maybe to make the West look weak and unable to defend their borders which affects consequences domestically like say channeling political support to isolationist politicians who want to retreat from supporting Ukraine? Cause those politicians didn't make gains in the last European elections or nothing. |
|
| ▲ | xbar 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Well said. |
