The British were never attacked or threatened during the annexation of Crimea. “Warning shots were fired at UK navy in the waters where UK navy was in its right to be” would mean British navy being threatened.
Putin can call it “warning shots” all he wants. As long as the UK maintains poker face he can do zilch about it, unless he is willing to either literally attack the UK or withdraw from Crimea.
“It is what it is” and “everyone accept” are not acceptable justifications for rogue actor behavior.
The British weren't attacked here. They went into waters they don't control.
If a British boat goes into Crimean territorial waters and refuses to leave and gets sunk, the only result with be a sunk British boat, pretty much. What is Britain going to do, increase sanctions?
Wether that had a "right" to be there doesn't care. It doesn't matter if I had the right or way when I get run over by tank, I get run over anyways.
If Russia attacks the British navy in Ukrainian (according to everyone but the Russians) waters which the British navy has permission to be in, that's just an outright aggressive act of war. Britian, and/or other members of nato, might well decide to shoot back.
They might not too, it's borderline, but no one knows quite where that line is. If forced to bet on an outcome I would bet on nato sinking a Russian ship of comparable size also in Crimean waters.
> Britian, and/or other members of nato, might well decide to shoot back.
This type of fantasizing reminds me of someone getting bullied in the schoolyard and then dreaming that he is beating up his nemesis. Neither the UK nor NATO are going to start a shooting war near crimea, and the UK Navy simply isn't in a position to do anything there. Everyone knows this. Fantasizing about things being otherwise isn't a good use of anyone's time.
> Neither the UK nor Nato are going to start a shooting war near crimea, and the UK Navy simply isn't in a position to do anything there
Exactly. No one wants a war, and no one’s starting it, including Russia whose only choice is to make noise at passing UK warships and live with it. Got to admire the move by the British, who understand that well.
So let me understand your point correctly, Britain, by doing absolutely nothing useful and needlessly increasing tensions and creating a risk of war by transiting a ship that could have been blown up any second, was doing an admirable move?
Seems to me it was toxic internal propaganda and nothing actually useful. Meanwhile Russia sees absolutely no consequence, and they won't.
Exploiting the conundrum that Russian dictatorship has holed itself into, making it question own decisions without unnecessary bloodshed?
It has shown itself an aggressor and is alone against pretty much the whole developed world. It won’t start a war, since it will lose (both the war and the approval of own population, already not that far from revolution or civil war). All it can do is watch and bite its elbow.
NATO is not required to an will not reply to such a request as a matter of treaty.
Britain is not able and not interested in retaking Crimea. It will not happen. They can shoot back at useless targets, but if Britain provokes a war with Russia in Crimea it will simply be defeated.
Putin can call it “warning shots” all he wants. As long as the UK maintains poker face he can do zilch about it, unless he is willing to either literally attack the UK or withdraw from Crimea.
“It is what it is” and “everyone accept” are not acceptable justifications for rogue actor behavior.