Fifty aircraft, 70 vessels, and around 10,000 land vehicles will take part in NATO's Trident Juncture 18 drills, which are set to begin on October 25, with live field exercises continuing until November 7. Thirty-one allied countries and partners are slated to participate.

Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg described the massive military maneuvers as "defensive and transparent,"adding that all members of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), including Russia, had been invited to send observers.

The drills will simulate the defense of a member state being attacked by a "fictional" aggressor, but the drills' set locations in Norway, Finland, and Sweden leave little to the imagination. Observers have noted this setting of this year's drills may have been prompted by the growing struggle with Russia for control of the strategically-vital Arctic.

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/440443-nato-trident-juncture-russia-aggression/

MiG-31: the vehicle for the “burevestnik”, the cruise missile of nuclear propulsion?

by Valentin Vasilescu

According to US intelligence sources, the Russian tests on cruise missiles of nuclear propulsion have failed. However, the US’s ambassador to Nato has suddenly declared that the US would destroy the missiles that Russia constructed in breach of the treaty on intermediate range nuclear weapons. Explanations:

A country that has cruise missiles with nuclear propulsion can put pressure on States that are seeking to invade it. Such a drone can patrol above populated areas of an enemy state for days, without the AA defense of the enemy state seeking to bring it down. There is a rational basis for the enemy’s action: bringing down the drone could lead to only one result: a nuclear catastrophe on its territory.

The Berlin Air Show (the Air Force’s exhibition) took place in April 2018. France and Germany announced that Airbus (the company that builds the Eurofighter that weaponize the German Airforce’s army) and Dassault Aviation (manufacturer of Rafale airplanes which equips the French Air Force’s army) have commenced to conceive a new fifth generation fighter plane. Because of Brexit, the United Kingdom has not been co-opted into the plan. In July 2018, the US company Lockheed Martin has made a F-35 bearing the number 300 carry out a flight. On 2 July 2018, Yuri Borisov, Russia Federation’s Vice Minister of Defence declared that the Russian plane Su-57 was not a priority and that only 12 of them had been ordered by the Russian Army. Consequently, the mass manufacture of this plane has been slowed down. In this context, the question is posed: what equipment is a priority for the Russian Air Force?

At the beginning of 2018, one priority of the Russian army was to modernize 10 supersonic planes with long-range action. So MiG-31 BM, was transformed into MiG-31 BP to launch Kh-47M2 Kinzhal, the anti-ship missiles. This type of missile has a range of 2,000 km, and its mission is to strike airplane carriers and helicopter carriers. However, the US ABM shield in Romania, Poland, South Korea and Alaska are for sure targets for the Kh-47M2 Kinzhal missile (see the photo below). In 2017, Tarasenko, director of the company MiG, declared to Sputnik that they were planning to replace the MiG-3 with the new 5th generation MiG-41 plane, capable of flying at Mach 4.3.

Why has modernizing a plane that has not been manufactured since 1994 suddenly become a priority? The MiG-31 BM was conceived to intercept the early warning planes (AWACS), armed with R-37 missiles (with a wider range: 384 km). Following this, the plane was adapted to intercept the cruise missiles flying at low altitude. The radar on board the MiG-31 BM contains the topography of the terrain flown over in the memory of the digital card of the microprocessor. This permits comparing and distinguishing the presence of cruise missiles. The MiG-31 is limited, because it is not a multi-role plane, capable of performing air combat moves; it is a plane for two (pilot and operator of arms) capable of patrolling at a high altitude for two hours.

The Mig-31 weighs 46 tonnes on take off, has an internal tank of motor fuel, a capacity of 12.8 t, a maximum speed of Mach 2.83 (3,000 km / h), and is capable of flying at an altitude of 20.6 Km. The plane is coated in alloys containing titanium resistant to kinetic heat generated by the high speed flight. MIG-31 BM has a retractable system of refuelling in flight, in the fuselage. During a drill carried out in the summer of 2016, a MiG-31 BM flew for seven hours, from Krasnoïarsk to Astrakhan, covering a distance of 8,000 km with three refuellings in flight. The Mig-31 BM is the ideal platform to increase the range of the air-ground missiles. This is due to the initial speed and the low density of the air at the altitude at which the launch takes place.

It took everyone by surprise when on 2 October 2018, the US ambassador to NATO, Bailey Hutchison Kay, invited Russia to stop its cruise missile programme on the grounds that it violated the Treaty on Intermediate Range Missiles (INF), failing which the United States and their allies would intervene with the use of force. At the same time that this declaration was made, the Western media published photos of a MiG-31 BM, registered as “81 Blue”, carrying under its fuselage a new type of missile, of which we know nothing (see photo below). The air force has been photographed at the Joukovski airbase and is conceived to test again types of arms, and does not have a system for hanging arms under the wings, as in the configuration of the MiG-31 BP.

With regard to the new missile carried by the MiG-31, even if it is a nuclear missile of intermediate range IRBM (3 000 to 5 500 km), it is outside the reach of the INF treaty. The scope of this treaty is limited to missiles based on the ground. Due to the MIG-31’s elevated initial speed and altitude, a nuclear missile with a field of action comparable to that of an intermediate range missile (8 000 km) must not have a mass greater than 7 – 9 tonnes. By way of comparison, an IRBM launched from the ground, weighs more than 25 tonnes.

There were speculations that the mysterious missile would be a modernized version of Kontakt 79M6, the anti-satellite missile in three stages, that can reach an altitude of 600 km. The missile also has the capabilities to intercept ballistic missile in the cruise phase. From 1987, Kontakt has been tested on two modified MiG-31 D (one of which is registered “072 Blue”). The Kontakt is 7.25 m long, weighs 7 tonnes, and was launched from a height of 15 to 18 km, from a Mig-31 D flying at a speed of 2 120 to 2 230 km / h. But after the collapse of the URSS, the programme was abandoned, and the planes and missiles that formed part of it have joined a museum.

Thus the MiG-31 BM registered “81 Blue” could carry any type of missile including anti satellite missiles.

On 1 March 2018, President Vladamir Putin delivered a speech announcing that Russia had tested the Burevestnik cruise missile 9M729 / 9M730. This cruise missile has nuclear propulsion[1], and as such, is not restricted in either its ability to manoeuvre or its range. This missile has a range that would be at least ten times greater than that of the US Cruise Missile, the Tomohawk. This would allow Russia to by-pass the AA defense zones and to strike any target in the world. The US would be totally defenceless against this type of weapon because at present, the US lacks a counter force and does not have a plan to conceive this type of cruise missile in the near future”

The Burevestnik tests probably took place at the Nenoksa polygon in the region of Arkhangelsk. The 9М730 missile with a motor with solid combustibles, is launched from a ramp. Its motor starts propelling during flight. In theory, the nuclear motor is simple: it does not include any pieces that are moving and does not need massive reserves of fuels. The air penetrates the inlet of the cruise missile, reaches a nuclear reactor and is heated to a temperature of about 1 400 - 1600°C. It is then released through the buzzard and propels the vehicle.

However, the advantages of using this type of missile are downplayed by the risks that they can pose. The two main risks are: the possibility of a fissure occurring in flight and the reactor losing its isolation. As a consequence, during the test flights, the cruise missile was accompanied by two cargo planes (Il-76). These planes were put up by the company Rosatom and converted into laboratories equipped with material to detect radiation, and equipment to find the range of the trajectory of the missile (SKIP) functioning by satellite channels of communication. The plane was Il-976.

Citing anonymous sources from the Pentagon, the TV news channels Fox News and CNBC have declared that US intelligence had followed four Russian tests on cruise missiles with nuclear propulsion, carried out between November 2017 and February 2018. Every test ended up crashing in the Arctic.

There is a disconnect between the declarations made on the television stations by sources of US Intelligence and the order issued in the form of a request that Kay Bailey Hutchinson extended to Russia. It is only if Russia had succeeded in its tests on the Burevestnik missile that the US ambassador to NATO would communicate that the United States will do everything in its power to prevent this programme from developing any further. On the other hand, if the results of the Burevestnik tests had not been positive, what interest does Russia have in adapting it to the MiG-31 BM? For the mysterious rocket carried by the MiG-31 BM does not resemble the Kinzhal; the profile of its nose is not made for flights at hypersonic speed but rather for flights at subsonic speed like all the cruise missiles. At the extreme opposite, we can clearly distinguish the buzzard of a motor with solid combustible used in acceleration, immediately after separation with MiG-31 BM.

Valentin Vasilescu

Translation 

Anoosha Boralessa

Read:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article203357.html

And behind the waste heap, on the other side, on the contrary, people with hearts of stone have been destroying Donbass for four years, improving themselves with the help of America in order to do it in a more refined way.

Read more:

http://www.stalkerzone.org/i-would-whack-volker-with-a-stick-for-telling...

Read from top.

International financing has played a significant—although not always reported—role in the current conflict in Ukraine. In late 2013, conflict between pro-European Union (EU) and pro-Russian Ukrainians escalated to violent levels, leading to the departure of President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 and prompting the greatest East-West confrontation since the Cold War.

A major factor in the crisis that led to deadly protests and eventually President Yanukovych’s removal from office was his rejection of an EU Association agreement that would have further opened trade and integrated Ukraine with the EU. The agreement was tied to a $17 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Instead of the EU and IMF deal, Yanukovych choose a Russian aid package worth $15 billion plus a 33% discount on Russian natural gas. This deal has since gone off the table with the pro-EU interim government accepting the new multimillion dollar IMF package in May 2014.

Read the full report

Read more:

https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/walking-west-side-world-bank-and-imf-uk...

Read from top. See also How Monsanto has inflitrated Ukraine through the IMF...:

In this column, Frédéric Mousseau, Policy Directory of the Oakland Institute and co-author of the report ‘Walking on the West Side: the World Bank and the IMF in the Ukraine Conflict’, argues that IMF and World Bank aid packages contingent on austerity reforms will have a devastating impact on Ukrainians’ standard of living and increase poverty in the country...

Read more:

http://northsafrican.blogspot.com/2018/03/how-monsanto-world-bank-imf-ar...

Russia has made public three interrogations of Ukrainian marines taken prisoner during the Kertch incident on 25 November 2018 and a document (photo) seized on board one of the ships.

According to this document and these videos, the incident had been planned by Ukraine collaborating with foreign powers. Two officers from Ukraine’s military intelligence service were on board the ships to coordinate operations. They were the ones that forbade the marines from responding to messages from the Russians when the war ships entered Russian territorial waters, waters that Ukraine was claiming to belong to it.

Our collaborator Valentin Vasilescu thinks that prior to the incident, some US and Israeli electromagnetic reconnaissance planes flew over the area to detect Russian defences [1].

While Israel is still not a member of Nato, it does have a bureau of liaison within Nato headquarters in Brussels. During the coup d’etat in Kiev, in the context of Nato’s stay behind secret service, thirty Israeli officers and thirty one Israeli soldiers participated in the fighting that broke out in Maidan Square… yet they were fighting on the side of the former Nazi party Svoboda.

The operation at Kertch seems to have been sponsored by Nato. Any why? To create a “Russian threat” which would serve to justify Ukraine becoming a member of the Alliance. This operation was supervised by Ambassador Kurt Volker. The CIA recruited him when he was still a student at Georgetown University. After working at the Agency’s headquarters in Langley, he entered the diplomatic service and became “adviser” to Richard Hoolbroke during the wars in Yugoslavia. He became Victoria Nuland’s assistant when she was the ambassador to Nato and following her departure, stepped into this post. Today he is the ambassador to Kiev.

Translation 
Anoosha Boralessa

Read more:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article204171.html

Read from top.

US contractor accidentally revealed a US military specialist deployment in the combat zones in Ukraine via an Job Advertisement on LinkedIn.

Similarly to the Atlantic Council’s report on independence of Eastern European countries, as well as the meeting between US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin, the posting comes days before the escalation in the Sea of Azov.

Mission Essential is a government contractor, which primarily serves intelligence and military clients. It began as the US government’s leading provider of translation and interpretation services.

Screenshot provided in case the advert times out or is “accidentally” taken down...

The preemptive job advert was posted on November 16th and seeks “linguist candidates who speak Ukrainian to provide foreign language interpretation and translation services to support classified Contingency Operations in support of the U.S. Military in Ukraine.”

The formal place of work is Mykolayiv, Ukraine. The port city is also significant, because that is where the US “logistical” naval facility is currently under construction.

The advert also requires candidates to be able to fit in the local culture and customs, in addition to “the ability to deal inconspicuously with local populace if necessary.” Which simply means that the interpreter needs to be able to hide the fact that he is not a Ukrainian citizen, at least partly.

Unsurprisingly, the individual needs to be able to serve in a combat zone “if necessary,” in addition to being able to “live, work, and travel in harsh environments, to include living and working in temporary facilities as mission dictates.”

Considering repeated claims by the US leadership that the US is not involved in the Ukraine conflict, the vacancy posting is an operational security failure by Mission Essential. Most other vacancies posted by the company are for analysts and various linguistic and project management positions, almost predominantly in different military facilities in the US.

It is quite possible that these specialists would assist US military personnel deployed in or near the “combat zones” in Ukraine – i.e. Eastern Ukraine, and as it was expected since as early as November 16th – the Sea of Azov.

Read more:

https://off-guardian.org/2018/11/30/us-military-contractor-is-hiring-per...

Why is Ukraine’s Kerch Crisis Any of Our Business?

By PATRICK J. BUCHANAN

Upon his departure for the G-20 gathering in Buenos Aires, President Donald Trump canceled his planned weekend meeting with Vladimir Putin, citing as his reason the Russian military’s seizure and holding of three Ukrainian ships and 24 sailors.

But was Putin really the provocateur in Sunday’s naval clash outside Kerch Strait, the Black Sea gateway to the Sea of Azov?

Or was the provocateur Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko?

First, a bit of history.

In 2014, after the pro-Russian regime in Kiev was ousted in a coup, and a pro-NATO regime installed with U.S. backing, Putin detached and annexed Crimea, for centuries the homeport of Russia’s Black Sea fleet.

With the return of Crimea, Russia now occupied both sides of Kerch Strait. And this year, Russia completed a 12-mile bridge over the strait and Putin drove the first truck across.

The Sea of Azov became a virtual Russian lake, access to which was controlled by Russia, just as access to the Black Sea is controlled by Turkey.

While the world refused to recognize the new reality, Russia began to impose rules for ships transiting the strait, including 48 hours notice to get permission.

Ukrainian vessels, including warships, would have to notify Russian authorities before passing beneath the Kerch Strait Bridge into the Sea of Azov to reach their major port of Mariupol.

Sunday, two Ukrainian artillery ships and a tug, which had sailed out of Odessa in western Ukraine, passed through what Russia now regards as its territorial waters off Crimea and the Kerch Peninsula. Destination: Mariupol.

The Ukrainian vessels refused to obey Russian directives to halt.

Russian warships fired at the Ukrainian vessels and rammed the tug. Three Ukrainian sailors were wounded, and 24 crew taken into custody.

Russia’s refusal to release the sailors was given by President Trump as the reason for canceling his Putin meeting.

Moscow contends that Ukraine deliberately violated the new rules of transit that Kiev had previously observed, to create an incident.

For his part, Putin has sought to play the matter down, calling it a “border incident, nothing more.”

“The incident in the Black Sea was a provocation organized by the authorities and maybe the president himself. …(Poroshenko’s) rating is falling…so he needed to do something.”

Maxim Eristavi, a fellow at the Atlantic Council, seems to concur: “Poroshenko wants to get a head start in his election campaign. He is playing the card of commander in chief, flying around in military uniform, trying to project that he is in control.”

Our U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, however, accused Russia of “outlaw actions” against the Ukrainian vessels and “an arrogant act the international community will never accept.”

Predictably, our interventionists decried Russian “aggression” and demanded we back up our Ukrainian “ally” and send military aid.

Why was Poroshenko’s ordering of gunboats into the Sea of Azov, while ignoring rules Russia set down for passage, provocative?

Because Poroshenko, whose warships had previously transited the strait, had to know the risk that he was taking and that Russia might resist.

Why would he provoke the Russians?

Because, with his poll numbers sinking badly, Poroshenko realizes that unless he does something dramatic, his party stands little chance in next March’s elections.

Immediately after the clash, Poroshenko imposed martial law in all provinces bordering Russia and the Black Sea, declared an invasion might be imminent, demanded new Western sanctions on Moscow, called on the U.S. to stand with him, and began visiting army units in battle fatigues.

Some Westerners want even more in the way of confronting Putin.

Adrian Karatnycky of the Atlantic Council urges us to build up U.S. naval forces in the Black Sea, send anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles to Ukraine, ratchet up sanctions on Russia, threaten to expel her from the SWIFT system of international bank transactions, and pressure Europe to cancel the Russians’ Nord Stream 2 and South Stream oil pipelines into Europe.

But there is a larger issue here.

Why is control of the Kerch Strait any of our business?

Why is this our quarrel, to the point that U.S. strategists want us to confront Russia over a Crimean Peninsula that houses the Livadia Palace that was the last summer residence of Czar Nicholas II?

If Ukraine had a right to break free of Russia in 1991, why do not Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk have the right to break free of Kiev?

Why are we letting ourselves be dragged into everyone’s quarrels—from who owns the islets in the South China Sea, to who owns the Senkaku and Southern Kurils; and from whether Transnistria had a right to secede from Moldova, to whether South Ossetia and Abkhazia had the right to break free of Georgia, when Georgia broke free of Russia?

Do the American people care a fig for these places? Are we really willing to risk war with Russia or China over who holds title to them?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.

Read more:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/why-is-ukraines-kerch-c...

Read from top.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is engaging in insane brinkmanship with Russia and the rest of the world. But the Kiev regime's criminal game of chicken should be repudiated by its supposed allies in the United States and Europe because of the atrocious danger of all-out war.

There seems little doubt that the naval skirmish in the Kerch Strait between Ukrainian and Russian forces last weekend was a deliberate provocation by the Kiev regime.

The three Ukrainian warships detained by Russia in the narrow strait between Crimea and Russia's mainland had reportedly violated Russian maritime territory. The breach was done knowingly and provocatively, ignoring Russian requests for identification. The Ukrainian vessels were heavily armed, with secret agents onboard. Hardly innocent passage.

READ MORE: Poroshenko Wants NATO to Send Warships to Black Sea After Kerch Strait Incident

It's the way Poroshenko and the madcap regime in Kiev have reacted that raises further suspicions of a hidden agenda. Within hours of the incident on Sunday, Kiev declared martial law in parts of Ukraine which are said to be "vulnerable to attack from Russia".

Many Ukrainian citizens have been thrown into confusion by the militarization, which indicates an undue haste by the Kiev regime to escalate tensions.

Poroshenko has since gone on US news channels making sensational claims that his country is "under threat of full-scale war with Russia". As if those histrionics aren't bad enough, the chocolate-tycoon-turned-politician is demanding that Washington and NATO come to his country's "defence".

In an interview with NBC, Poroshenko said he was "counting on the US" to protect Ukraine against "Russian aggression". He also told CNN that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had assured him in a phone call that Washington was ready to "defend Ukrainian sovereignty". Whether Pompeo actually said that or not, is not clear.

READ MORE: Ex-NATO Commander Calls on Trump to 'Stand Up' to Putin Over Kerch Strait Rift

President Donald Trump has sounded a little more cautious, saying that he hoped Ukraine and Russia could "straighten things out". However, Trump did indicate he believes the version put out by the Kiev regime that Russia allegedly acted with "aggression" in apprehending the naval vessels and 24 crew members. Trump said he may cancel a planned meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the G20 summit this weekend in Argentina.

It remains to be seen over the next tense days if the US and NATO mobilize forces in support of the Ukrainian side. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has warned that Washington and Europe must rein in the Ukrainians from carrying out further reckless acts.

A perplexing question is: was the Kerch Strait incident orchestrated by the Kiev regime with its Western sponsors? Or was it the regime and Poroshenko acting alone, in a desperate bid to drag the United States and NATO into a war with Russia?

History would tell us that naval incidents are a tried-and-trusted way to create a pretext for war by the US. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 which was contrived by the Johnson administration to launch a full-scale war in Vietnam. Before that notorious false-flag event, we had the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 which triggered the US entering World War I. Also, the sinking of the Maine in Havana Harbor in 1898 which launched the Spanish-American War and subsequently unleashed US imperialist expansionism in the Caribbean and Central America.

The latest Kerch Strait incident follows months of the sinister build-up of US and NATO forces in Ukrainian territory and maritime waters. Washington began to supply lethal weaponry earlier this year in the form of Javelin anti-tank missiles to the Kiev regime, and there are increasing numbers of American, British and other NATO military personnel deployed to train various paramilitary brigades, some of whom openly espouse Neo-Nazi affiliation.

READ MORE: Putin: Standoff Over Kerch Provocation, Aimed to Impose Martial Law in Ukraine

In September, the US reportedly supplied the Ukrainian navy with two gunboats for deployment in the Black Sea.

Just four days before the Kerch clash, Britain also announced it was sending a Royal Navy warship, HMS Echo, to assist with Ukrainian special forces "against Russian aggression". That was followed by the chief of Britain's armed forces making the extraordinary statement that "Russia was a bigger threat than ISIS" — the internationally proscribed jihadist terror group.

We can look at these menacing developments in two ways. The US, Britain and NATO allies are willfully building up offensive forces with a cat's paw regime in Kiev and the incident in the Kerch Strait was then a concerted provocation. The way Poroshenko has reacted by urging the US to deliver on "pledges for protection" may suggest an orchestrated manipulation of pretext.

Alternatively, the scenario is more haphazard, albeit every bit as disgraceful and dangerous. Having indulged the Kiev regime with military support ever since it grabbed power in February 2014 through an illegal, CIA-backed coup against an elected government, the Neo-Nazi cabal around Poroshenko is of the petulant view that it has carte blanche to commit whatever crime it wants.

The Kiev cabal has been waging a terror campaign for over four years against the ethnic Russian populace of eastern Ukraine who refuse to accept its illegitimate coup — and yet the US, European Union and NATO have continued to support this vile regime with weapons and IMF financial loans.

When you have senior figures like Britain's Defense Minister Gavin Williamson only last week vowing "steadfast support in the face of Russian hostilities", then it's no wonder that the Kiev regime feels emboldened to antagonize without any restraint. Because the regime has been led to believe by its patrons in Washington, London and NATO that it has their back.

The provocation against Russia in the Kerch Strait was Poroshenko and the Kiev regime demonstrating their unhinged death wish to start an all-out war. Now this "bandit regime" — as Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova aptly called it — is pushing the world to the abyss. In this despicable game of Kiev chicken, will the US and its NATO partners step back from the brink that they have helped to create?

The views and opinions expressed by the contributor do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.

Finian Cunningham

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201811281070212284-ukraine-russia-ker...

Read from top

According to the UK Foreign Office, Russia’s continued disruption of ships attempting to access Ukrainian ports in the Sea of Azov is destabilizing the regional economy. It added that restrictions have been accompanied by the increased Russian military presence in the area.

The statement said that so far, more than 200 vessels had been affected and that the policy is damaging Ukraine's economy and undermining its sovereignty.

Radio Sputnik discussed this with Dr Erik Franckx, research professor and director of Section International and European Law at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium.

Sputnik: How legal are these calls from the UK to Russia? Could you, perhaps, give us a little bit of a background of the legal status of the Azov Sea?

Erik Franckx: I think that the Soviet Union one day in 1985 closed off the Sea of Azov. I think that was a quite acceptable move by drawing straight baselines in the mouth of the bay and declaring that all the waters on the inside became internal waters. Even the United States at that time, which is normally very reluctant to accept baselines from other countries, didn't have any problem with the Soviet Union calling this "historic waters."

The problem arises, I think, when the Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991 and the bay no longer was surrounded by one single state, because at that time the provision of international law, the convention that applied, no longer applied, because it only applies to bays that are surrounded by one single state.

READ MORE: UK Foreign Office Calls on Russia to Grant Intl Ships Access to Azov Sea

The possibility then exists, of course, that both states want to continue that kinds of relationship; and in international law we have seen certain kinds of examples, even cases before the International Court of Justice, where tribunals and courts have accepted that, indeed, if states are in agreement, they can continue that status. I think that is, indeed, what the 2003 agreement provides for.

Sputnik: The 2003 agreement between Russia and Ukraine actually saw both countries treating Azov as historical internal waters for both Kiev and Moscow. Why is that agreement being ignored by European states at this time?

Erik Franckx: To a certain extent, I think we have to be a little bit more specific, because the agreement provides for rights and obligations between the two parties, but at the same time it also provides for rights and obligations for third states. If you read the agreement, you will see that the shipping of national ships of Ukraine and Russia is certainly regulated, they have full freedom of navigation with respect to commercial vessels as well as war vessels; but at the same time, there're also rights provided for third parties.

It stated that as far as commercial vessels of third parties are concerned, they have a right to sail to a port inside the Sea of Azov and have this same kind of freedom of navigation; and as far as war vessels are concerned, the agreement is a little bit more specific and more restrictive in the sense that it will require, first of all, the acceptance or authorisation of one of the two states, and also the other state, meaning either Russia or Ukraine, has to agree that foreign war vessels enter into the area. But as far as commercial vessels are concerned, they have a right to be in that area.

Sputnik: According to an FCO spokesperson, "Russia and its security forces continue to disrupt Ukrainian international shipping calling at Ukrainian ports in the Sea of Azov. In March Russia opened an unlawfully constructed bridge across the Kerch Strait connecting Russia to the illegally annexed Crimean Peninsula." What are your thoughts about how the whole conflict between Moscow and Kiev has affected the status of the Sea of Azov?

Erik Franckx: The construction of the bridge, of course, creates a problem from an international legal perspective in the sense that if waters are to be accessed by ships and you grant the ships freedom of navigation, then, of course, it would be counterproductive by means of artificial constructions to make such constructions that the ships no have longer the possibility to enter.

READ MORE: WATCH Su-25 Jet Skim Unnervingly Close to Shore at Ukrainian Beach

There was this international case between Denmark and Finland, where Denmark wanted to construct a bridge over the Great Belt, the entrance of the Baltic Sea. At that time the two countries had a major conflict; it came before the International Court of Justice. But finally the case was settled out of court; but the fact was that Denmark had to pay Finland quite a substantial amount of compensation, $15 million, simply because the bridge was 65 meters high and the Finnish company involved were specializing in oil rigs, which are special ships having very high towers that sometimes reach 100 meters and higher.

Here we see that a bridge of 65 meters apparently gave rise to an international claim. Of course, two cases are never exactly the same; here it was international navigation which was at stake, and in the case of Kerch Strait, it's a bilateral treaty which creates these rights to the parties. Nevertheless, the number of ships is much broader and these are normal vessels that are now hindered from coming and reaching ports inside the Azov Sea. If my information is correct, about 25% of certain ships going through the ports of Ukraine no longer have this possibility to reach these ports because of the construction of the bridge.

Sputnik: There's also the issue of Russia conducting stop-and-search operations for the cargo ships arriving and leaving Ukraine's ports. What is necessary to really regulate this? Is there some kind of a mechanism available to, perhaps, regulate this? That must be quite difficult, actually, because of the status and the conflict between Ukraine and Russia right now.

Erik Franckx: That's totally correct. The only problem is, of course, is that if you look at the 2003 agreement, not much is provided. The only thing which Article 3 states is that this should be jointly undertaken by both sides; so I don't think it gives one of the parties the right to conduct random inspections, especially if those inspections have an influence on the freedom of navigation. If by your inspections you're starting to hinder the freedom of navigation to an extent above what one would consider normal, I think this might lead to difficulties between the parties.

READ MORE: Crew of Russia's Nord Fishing Vessel Forbidden to Leave Ukraine — Lawyer

The agreement of 2003 doesn't specify how this should be done; we simply say this in accordance with existing agreements or agreements that still are to be concluded. But, as far as I'm informed, I don't know whether such agreements that specify how joint operations should be conducted really exist.

Sputnik: Is it likely that there will be some changes that will be proposed to the accord? What would be the mechanism for that being regulated?

Erik Franckx: As you know, Ukraine has a large case before an arbitral tribunal exactly with respect to these issues. I would say that for the moment, both parties are totally in agreement with the 2003 treaty to settle the disputes in a peaceful manner, have seized the International Tribunal in order to clarify how these specific issues should be solved.

Sputnik: So, there is an international tribunal; is there an active case right now?

Erik Franckx: That's exactly what I'm trying to say. A case has been brought before the tribunal according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. That was done recently; and the case has just decided that they would first treat the issues of jurisdiction; this was decided in August of this year. So, now it will first be decided whether the case can be decided by this arbitral tribunal, or whether Ukraine has no reason to bring the case before the court.

Sputnik: So, this was brought to the international tribunal by Ukraine.

Erik Franckx: That's exactly true. It was a unilateral move by Ukraine which Russia has accepted to respond to. And this is quite remarkable, because you might remember the Arctic Sunrise Case, where 30 activists from Greenpeace were detained and their ship was arrested up north, in the Arctic waters. At that time, Russia refused to participate in the proceedings. Unfortunately for Russia, the decision was unanimous and held that Russia didn't comply with its international legal obligations. I think that today Russia is more careful and at least is trying to fight the case from within and to participate in the legal proceedings.

Sputnik: Based on international precedents, you mentioned the case a little bit earlier about a bridge being constructed, what do you think the outcome of this kind of tribunal would be? What is the likely decision?

Erik Franckx: It's always very difficult to predict what the decision of a court or a tribunal would be; but I think that the first hurdle that the tribunal would have to take is whether they are competent to deal with the mater or not. And I think here Russia is putting up severe arguments in order to make sure that the tribunal would not be competent to deal with this issue.

As you know, the whole problem of Crimea is, of course, very much involved and the Law of the Sea Convention, on the basis of which this tribunal has been established, has no competence to deal with these issues; it can only deal with law of the sea issues.

Sputnik: If it's decided that this tribunal is, in fact, not competent, are there any additional steps that Ukraine can take? What remains to resolve the ongoing conflict?

Erik Franckx: If you look at the treaty itself, it says that only peaceful means can be used to settle any dispute that might arise in the application of the treaty. So, the parties should then, if there's no legal solution to the issue, they should themselves try to find a practical arrangement to stop the escalating tensions within the Sea of Azov.

Sputnik: With the relationship having significantly soured in the last decade, what are the chances that there will be some kind of a resolution? There's also an increased Russian military presence; are there other military presences? What military presence do we currently have in the Sea of Azov?

Erik Franckx: As I've said, the fact is that military vessels don't have the right to enter into the Sea of Azov, at least third states' military vessels, unless they have an agreement with one of the two parties and the other party doesn't disagree with it. It means that, probably, there will be no military presence inside the sea; but, of course, the fact is that on the outside of the Sea of Azov, in the Black Sea, foreign military presence is possible.

READ MORE: Ukraine Court Authorizes Arrest of Captain of Detained Russian Fishing Vessel

I do recall that in the 1980s, the US, in their freedom of navigation program, very much made use of that right by sailing through the territorial sea of the Soviet Union, to the south of the Crimea, to test the Soviet attitude towards the innocent passage of warships through their territorial waters.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of Dr Erik Franckx and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

read more:

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201811211070007785-sea-azov-dispute/

Bad weather closed the strait as well. It has been reopened according to Russia. Read from top.

Gallup headlined on March 21st, “Ukraine’s Election: Voters Disenchanted Ahead of Key Vote”, and “World-Low 9% of Ukrainians Confident in Government”.

Might the reason for both be that no candidate in the contest is respected by the Ukrainian public, and that only three — the candidates with the least-low public approval — are the only ones who have even a remote chance of winning, and that all three of those candidates are racist-fascists, or hold the ideology of nazism? This will be documented here:

Nazism, which is the ideology of fascism but with a heavy added component of racism, has been doing well in post-‘revolutionary’, or post-2013, or post ‘Maidan’ ‘revolution’, Ukrainian politics. The form of racism that dominates today’s Ukraine is against Russians more than against Jews, and so though the ideology is the same as was Germany’s nazi ideology, its main ethnic target isn’t the same. Some of Ukraine’s leading nazis are, in fact, Jews who hate Russians. Whereas Germany’s nazis wanted to exterminate all Jews, Ukraine’s nazis want to exterminate all Russians. But this is all that Ukraine’s voters are being offered, ever since the democratically elected President was thrown out in February 2014. He was fairly unpopular, but not as despised as the politicians who replaced him and his Government are.

The three top Presidential contenders in the upcoming March 31st election, as shown in all the polling, are:

I. Yulia Tymoshenko, the former ‘gas princess’ who had been convicted and sent to prison for skimming from Ukraine’s gas monopoly, the National Oil and Gas Company of Ukraine. She had established herself as a passionately anti-Russian Prime Minister and had been the preferred candidate of the Barack Obama US Administration to win the 25 May 2014 election, but that election was instead won by a more moderate anti-Russian, the candy and shipbuilding oligarch Petro Poroshenko, who, as President, continued the ethnic-cleansing campaign that had been started by the interim leader of Ukraine who had been selected as Ukraine’s leader in a famous phone call by Victoria Nuland, who was US President Obama’s top operative planning and executing the February 2014 US coup, which coup overthrew the elected President, who hadn’t been sufficiently anti-Russian to suit US President Obama.

When I posted the transcript of that phone call years later, I noted that: “This historically mega-important phone-call, which was posted to the internet a week later, on February 4th — three weeks before the man whom she named there received (just as she had instructed) the appointment to lead the post-coup Ukraine — isn’t even being denied by Washington. Instead, it’s either ignored by them, or else totally misrepresented, in the ‘historical’ accounts by the agents of the US regime.”

The person she selected there to rule the interim government was “Yats” Yatsenyuk, Tymoshenko’s choice, who was chosen because if Nuland had appointed Tymoshenko, then Tymoshenko would have been unable to run in the 25 May 2014 Ukrainian Presidential election.

II. Petro Poroshenko, the incumbent President, and Ukrainian oligarch who had beaten Tymoshenko in the 2014 contest. He continued the ethnic cleansing campaign because unless enough of the voters in the far eastern region of Ukraine — where the elected President who had been ousted had received over 90% of the votes — were killed or else evacuated Ukraine (mostly by fleeing into neighboring Russia), Ukraine would again have an insufficiently anti-Russian Government to satisfy the US Government, which wanted Ukraine in NATO.

Consequently, both the Obama Administration and the IMF were strong supporters of continuing the ethnic-cleansing campaign. (And the US regime is also using white phosphorous to burn whole areas to death in Syria, and a French officer who complained about it was punished by the French Government.) That campaign in far-east former Ukraine had enough success so as to ensure continuation of a rabidly anti-Russian Ukrainian Government, in elections such as now are taking place.

III. Volodmyr Zelenskiy, the popular Ukrainian actor and comedian who played Ukraine’s President on Ukranian TV, in a series telecast on a TV channel that is owned by the Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi, who, as a US-appointed governor in eastern Ukraine during Poroshenko’s Presidency, had planned and overseen in Odessa on 2 May 2014 a massacre of opponents of the US coup. Subsequently, Poroshenko fired Kolomoyskyi — an oil and gas oligarch himself — because Kolomoyskyi’s personal team of thugs, which he called his “militia,” had raided the National Oil and Gas Company of Ukraine, in order to expel the new government-appointed chief. So, Kolomoyskyi hates Poroshenko, and is determined that Poroshenko not be re-elected. His preferred candidate, and employee, Zelenskiy, leads in the polling, thus far. Zelenskiy is like a Ukrainian Donald Trump, who also won because he had no plicy-making track-record and he ran against people who did.

Here are recent polling results:

On March 13th, Reuters headlined “Comedian Zelenskiy extends Ukraine presidential poll lead”, and reported SOCIS polling during 5-10 March showed 20.7% for Zelenskiy, 13.2% for Poroshenko, and 11.0% for Tymoshenko.

Wikipedia’s article “Opinion polling for the 2019 Ukrainian presidential election”shows trendlines for each polling organization and for each of the three major candidates. Zelenskiy is now around 25%, and both Poroshenko and Tymoshenko are each around 18%.

Therefore, Zelenskiy seems to be heading into a run-off against either Poroshenko or Tymoshenko.

Read more:

https://off-guardian.org/2019/03/25/three-neo-nazis-lead-ukraines-presid...

Read from top.

I believe the people of Ukraine deserve better than the thieving fascist USA as a pig-pen pal...

See also: http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/33008