51
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2026
51 points (100.0% liked)
worldnews
3732 readers
89 users here now
Welcome!
We strive for high-quality standards on the latest world events.
The basis of these standards comes from the MBFC, which uses an aggregate of methodologies, including the IFCN and World Freedom Indices, to rate the Bias and Factual Reporting of News.
Does your post fit the standards? Check this thread!
Rules:
Rule 1: No Further Gaza/Israel war posts
Rule 2: No US internal news/US politics
Rule 3: Editorials, opinions, analysis, blogs, gifs, memes, etc non-serious news sources
Rule 4: Non-English articles require a translation in the post or comments (mark the title with the source language eg. [FR] for French)
Rule 5: Petitions, advocacy, surveys
Rule 6: All-caps titles
Rule 7: Old news (≥ 1-Month-old) articles
Rule 8: Unlabeled NSFW images/videos
Rule 9: URL shorteners
- The general rules of the sh.itjust.works instance apply!
Thank you.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Wait, why are France and England even allowing Russian warships to pass through the channel?
Because it's an international waterway
Being transited by a nation that is under sanction…. Doesn’t really matter if it’s international.
Do you actually think the sanctions involve stopping warships in international waters, a literal act of war against a sovereign country?
So I decided to go look up this stuff and you’re wrong on literally all counts.
First thing. It’s not even a fucking international waterway. It’s French or British territory. The entire North Sea, Baltic Sea, and English Channel are within 200NM of land.
Second thing: it’s not an act of war. It would not be with the intent to start a war, it would be with the intent to enforce sanctions, agreed upon by a large group of nations. Not only that, but it would be with the intent to stop warships from transiting your territory. Finally, it could literally be done in international waters because Russia has purposefully damaged underwater national property in places like the Baltic Sea, like cables and pipelines. Oh and it’s also to prevent a country that started a war against another country from transiting your territory.
Good fucking grief, any fucking knob can say whatever they want that would be disproved by five minutes of research and people upvote it. This took me two minutes to look up.
You know, you're right - a better term might've been freely navigable waters.
But that actually doesn't make much difference. The 200 nm range you mentioned is the exclusive economic zone, which relates to stuff like oil rigs and fishing. Outside of specific situations, a country's jurisdiction extends at most to 24 nm (the contiguous zone), which would make most of the English Channel and Baltic and North Sea usable to anyone.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what to say about the rest of your comment because we're talking about a warship firing at a civilian vessel. This isn't a shadow fleet tanker or hauler of stolen Ukrainian wheat, there's no plausible way to interpret interfering with them as sanctions enforcement.
…. The channel is 17NM wide at the narrowest.
Uh what? We’re talking about stopping a Russian warship that is leading shadow tankers through the straight. That’s literally exactly what the sanctions are there to stop. Did you read the article?
At this point it is very very clear you’re talking out of your ass. The channel is very narrow, well within the 24 NM YOU referenced. And the sanctions are literally there to stop exactly this, which is a Russian warship leading shadow tankers to avoid sanctions.
And 130 at its widest, and substantially wider than the Strait of Dover throughout most of its area, so again there's tons water outside of their jurisdiction.
"Net, ship is there for unrelated reasons." I think you're being a bit naive. (accidentally hit post) Nobody is going to sanctions to warships, even if they're escorting a sanctioned ship.
…. Uhhh no it’s ~78 at its widest. Meaning that there’s only about 30 NM at its widest to be in the area you are talking about. And the article literally says it was within 20 NM shore when this happened, so once again, talking out of your ass.
And yet Turkey did exactly that to Russian warships:
https://www.marinepublic.com/blogs/marine-law/325096-naval-operations-maritime-law-guide-warship-rights-at-sea
That link has several other tidbits about how this would play out. Essentially, Russia is under sanctions, their companies owe debts, Russia has committed war crimes, the president is wanted by the IOC, there’s a bunch of reasons why the warships could be prevented passage, but not only prevented passage but taken control of and their crew detained and tried.