18
A third tanker from the Russian shadow fleet is hit. Turkey engages in controversial explanations (www.msn.com)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/blacksea@feddit.bg
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Different sources report different planned destinations. According to VesselFinder the tanker had its AIS transponder switched off for 17 days.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 11 months ago (5 children)

OK, But how does Russia benefit from falsely claiming to have been attacked by the one country on earth that literally everyone agrees has the right to attack Russia already?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Two ways:

    1. The attack was right off the coast of Türkiye. If this were an attack from UA (which it isn't), Türkiye could claim that UA attacks were putting Türkiye's shipping, commerce, and its civilians at risk and Türkiye being a NATO member, that would carry a lot of weight. Russia wanted the idea "if another country's cargo carrier is being attacked by UA, then UA should be stopped from attacking ships".
    2. UA has been specifically targeting Russia's petroleum carriers, not agribusiness, which could have nutrition connotations. Russia claimed it was carrying sunflower oil, not petroleum. So Russia would try to claim that food shipments for the nation of Georgia were being attacked by UA, and that the UA attacks on ships should be stopped by NATO allies.

    Russia desperately wants the attacks on it main economic lifeline, cargo ships, to end as soon as possible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Wouldn't it be like a thousand times more effective for Russia to just attack a Turkish ship with a "ukranian drone" and skip the three steps of logic it would take for anyone to care about a Russian ship getting hit by Ukraine?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    Russia attacking a Turkish ship would be an unambiguous trigger NATO Article 5. That is something Russia absolutely wants to avoid. There is no Article 5 implications if Russia attacks its own ship.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    Riiiiight, except that the ENTIRE point of this is that it looks like SOMEONE ELSE attacked the ship. If they can effectively fake Ukraine attacking a Russian ship they can effectively fake Ukraine attacking a Turkish ship.

    A false flag only makes sense if provides a justification to actually DO something you couldn't do without the attack. Ukraine attacks Russia every day and visa versa. That is a pointless scenario for a false flag.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    If they can effectively fake Ukraine attacking a Russian ship they can effectively fake Ukraine attacking a Turkish ship.

    You're proving my point. They can't effectively attack their own Russian ship. They planted drone parts of a drone that can't reach the attack site. They had a tanker supposedly traveling from the port of Novorossiysk Russia in the Black Sea to Georgia travel aaaallll the way West to be on the border with Turkey when there's absolutely no reason for a ship going from where they claim to to where they claim to be in that area.

    A false flag only makes sense if provides a justification to actually DO something you couldn’t do without the attack.

    I already provided justification. You're choosing to ignore it, which is your right, but you're having to close your eyes to do it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent