Russia vs. Ukraine in Sea of Azov

Russian forces engaged with and captured Ukrainian patrol vessels in the Black Sea as they approached the Strait of Kerch.  As you can see below, in an agreement between Russia and Ukraine dating to 2003, the Strait of Kerch and Sea of Azov are jointly navigable waterways.  The fourth statement clearly intimates that military vessels of both Russia and Ukraine have right of navigation of the strait and the sea. 

Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Ukraine on cooperation in the use of the sea of Azov and the strait of Kerch  Dec 24, 2003

The Parties, proceeding from the necessity of conservation of the Azov-Kerch defined area of water as integral economic and natural complex, to be used in the interests of the Russian Federation and the Ukraine, have agreed as follows: 1) The sea of Azov and the strait of Kerch are historically internal waters of the Russian Federation and the Ukraine. 2) The sea of Azov must be delimited by the state border in accordance with the Agreement signed by the Parties. 3) Dispute settlement regarding the issues pertaining to the defined area of water of Kerch must be regulated by agreement between the Parties. 4) Mercantile vessels and other state non-commercial vessels flying the flags of the Russian Federation and the Ukraine have free navigation in the sea of Azov and the strait of Kerch. 5) Russian-Ukrainian cooperation in the spheres of navigation, fisheries, protection of marine environment, ecological safety and life-saving in the sea of Azov and the strait of Kerch must be implemented on the basis of existing international agreements and by conclusion, in respective cases, of the new ones.

This morning I read here that Putin claims the attack was staged by Ukraine.  I also read the following statement here.  Note that this statement is dated April 2018.  

6 April 2018, 20:29 Russia is planning to carry out a violent provocation, namely a collision with Ukrainian border guards, to strengthen its military presence in the Sea of Azov under the pretext of protecting the lives of its citizens, a source in the military has told LB.ua.

"We have learnt that the FSB [Federal Security Service] is planning a provocation: using certain weather conditions (fog) to artificially cause an incident involving chase, ramming and death of people as a result of actions by our border guards. During the final stage, it is planned to provoke a collision between a Russian boat with a Ukrainian patrol boat with the use of weapons," the source said.

For my two cents, Putin’s statement does not carry logical validity.  While the content of the April report might give some cover to claims that Ukraine staged the event, do you really expect anyone to believe that Ukraine would intentionally lose military vessels and crew members to Russia?  Video footage does not indicate threatening posture on the part of the Ukrainian vessels toward the Russian vessels involved in the incident.  We have not seen the full footage of the incident and are unlikely to see the full footage of the incident.  Arguing that the President of Ukraine is orchestrating this incident to create support for re-election means we have to believe that he was willing to sacrifice expensive hardware and valuable lives to hold a political office—oh wait, historically we have seen this happen.  What then makes Putin’s statement illogical?

Putin’s statement that Ukraine orchestrated the event would mean that Ukrainian vessels left Russian vessels with no option but to attack.  What limited footage we have seen shows no agression on the part of the Ukrainian vessels and definite aggression on the part of Russian vessels.  How did Ukraine know how Russian vessels would respond?  The April statement indicated an expectation of a Russian plot in May of 2018 not in November 2018.  In totality of Russian behaviors of the last few years, Putin’s statement just does not hold up to scrutiny.

If Christmas Cartoons Counted

For my two cents the best Christmas Cartoon:

Top 10 Christmas Movies

As Thanksgiving approaches I am struck by two things.  One, how thankful I really am to be living where I live, married to my wife, raising my boys, serving in my community.  Two, boy are there way too many Christmas movies, Christmas sales, Christmas everything happening before we even celebrate Thanksgiving.   But hey, I can be shallow too.  I am pretty sure I have done this before, but can't remember or find it or something but, for my two cents, here are the top 10 Christmas Movies of all time.

10.  It's A Wonderful Life (1946)
Yes, many would rank this movie higher.  I like Jimmy Stewart, heck he was even born and raised less than 2 hours away from where I live right now.  But, this is my list.

9.  Miracle on 34th Street (1947)
Please, don't colorize this classic.  The 1994 remake stinks to high heavens, it was not necessary to remake this classic.  I still watch this movie at least once every Christmas season.  I even think this one is my sister's favorite.

8.  Scrooged (1988)/A Christmas Carol (1984)
Bill Murray at his best.  George C. Scott playing someone other than Patton.  I enjoy watching movie versions of A Christmas Carol, nothing screams hot chocolate like Ebeneezer Scrooge.

7.  Home Alone (1990)/Home Alone 2 (1992)
Kevin...need I say anything more about why these two are great Christmas movies.

6.  A Christmas Story (1983)
Ralphie is great.  But TBS/TNT whichever one of you it is...24 hours of this is way too much.

5.  The Polar Express (2004)
Ok, maybe this one calls for more hot chocolate than Scrooged, but this one doesn't call for the hot chocolate to be laced with spiced rum.

4. Lethal Weapon (1987)
I watch this on Christmas Eve regularly.  Blue and Red lights, Red and Green lights, close enough...

3.  Christmas Vacation (1989)

2.  Die Hard 2 (1990)
Nothing says Merry Christmas like airplanes blowing up in a snowstorm, while bullets and explosions rock the airport on Christmas Eve.

1. Die Hard (1988)
Alright, maybe this collection of bullets, explosions, etc. says Merry Christmas better than Die Hard 2.  But I watch both during the Christmas season just to make sure.

Nobel Peace Prize Question

Today's topic is whether or not a Nobel Peace Prize should ever be rescinded.  Plenty of controversy surrounds the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize over the years.  For instance, why was Gandhi never awarded the prize despite 5 nominations (the last shortly before his murder in 1948)?  And if the award is supposed to be for contributions to peace, why did the award go to Barrack Obama before he did anything as President of the U.S.?  (editorial comments:  nothing he did ensured or furthered the cause of peace in the world). 

Now comes the question of Aung San Suu Kyi keeping the Nobel Peace Prize despite her actions as President of Myanmar related to the vicious attacks aimed at the Rohingya population of Myanmar.  U.N. reports and a separate U.S. report argue that Myanmar's military is guilty of driving over 700,000 Rohingya from their homes in Myanmar and mass killings of Rohingya.  Collectively  these incidents present an argument for charges of ethnic cleansing and genocide to be levied against the government of Myanmar, presided over by Suu Kyi.

I blogged about this violence perpetrated by the military of Myanmar and Suu Kyi's role and statements (she even said in June 2016 to not use the term Rohingya in talking about those people because it was emotive and not representative of an noted identity in Myanmar).  Recall my two cents at that point:
"For my two cents, what troubles me most is that Suu Kyi does not even seem to grasp the level of hypocrisy in her actions and those of the government she represents.  The same people who were the opposition without a voice in civic society are now denying not just a voice, but an identity to others in civic society.  Democracy does not mean an end to problems Suu Kyi, it means the beginning of social interaction and negotiation/coercion.  Government is about allocating resources, it is about determining property rights, etc.  In a democracy this action can get messy, but to be a democracy you have to recognize the voices in your population.  Sorry Rohingya, a once great advocate of democracy and legal equality has failed you and in doing so has dimmed my hopes for Myanmar."

In an article today in Reuters, the head of the Nobel Foundation offered some thoughts regarding revocation of Nobel Peace Prizes:

Lars Heikensten, speaking days before the awarding of this year’s peace prize, said it made no sense to withdraw awards in reaction to things that happened after they were given, as judges would constantly have to discuss laureates' merits. 

"We see what she's been doing in Myanmar has been questioned a lot and we stand for human rights, that's one of our core values," Lars Heikensten, the head of the Nobel Foundation, said.

"So of course to the extent that she's responsible for that, that is very regrettable," he added.

(The above quotes are taken from an article in Reuters on October 2, 2018, Read more here).

For my two cents, it was against the spirit of the award to give it to Obama.  revoking it should not be controversial.  The granting of the award to Aung San Suu Kyi was genuine.   I am bitterly disappointed in her pandering to the Buddhist majority population and failure to control the behavior of the military in Myanmar.   I believe that the time has come for the Nobel Foundation to consider a special ad-hoc committee for the purpose of reviewing awards granted to date.  I fail to see it as controversial to rescind an award given to someone who engages in actions at a later date that are seen as crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc.  I fail to see it as controversial to say that a committee overstepped the spirit of the award and the reason for granting the award was never achieved by the recipient.  

Return to the Blog

For the past two years I have not been blogging.  A number of reasons existed for my lack of blogging.  But, I am returning to this format to throw out my thoughts on weightier matters.

I will freely admit that the biggest reason I quit blogging for a long period of time was the use of Facebook to engage with my family, friends, former students, and interested bystanders (wait, are they bystanders if they just read some random stuff that you post on social media?).  What I decided was that Facebook was not the place that I wanted to post my thoughts on the weightier matters that I had been blogging about prior to fall 2016.  While Facebook proves quite adequate for me to bemoan grading papers versus watching leaves fall from trees (I blogged about this once), I determined over the last two years that Facebook as a place to engage in thoughtful interaction over issues of importance to myself was of limited value.  The interaction turns into argumentation without the limitations of interpersonal interaction.  In other words, without personal interaction we humans tend toward great negativity and fail to even try to understand those with whom we disagree.  For my two cents, human interaction is about understanding, even when we do disagree.  So, while I intend to stay in touch with family, friends, and others on Facebook, I will now return to blogging to deal with my thoughts on issues and events of interest to me as a student of political violence.