France says it has seized an oil tanker in the Mediterranean suspected of being part of Russia’s sanction-busting “shadow fleet”.
French President Emmanuel Macron said the tanker, named the Grinch, was “subject to international sanctions and suspected of flying a false flag”.
The French navy, with the assistance of allies including the UK, boarded the vessel on Thursday morning between Spain and Morocco. French maritime authorities said that a search of the vessel had “confirmed the doubts as to the regularity of the flag”.
Russia’s embassy in Paris said it had not been informed of the seizure.
Well technically it’s embargoed oil so not quite the same as the Venezuelan fiasco (and Venezuela just got a $300M cheque from Trump for some of that oil).
If you beat up someone and then leave some money in their pocket, this is still an assault, not a boxing match.
The difference is that the US is beating up someone who was sitting quietly in a corner, while the EU is beating up someone who has been beating Ukraine to a bloody pulp for the past 4 years.
I do agree, and tbh I am trying to work through what a world without a “rules based order” looks like.
I do not want to defend Russia by no means, but why when Russia invades a neighbor it is bad, but when the US kidnaps a president it isn’t(at least portrayed in the news as bad)?
Especially when both are threatening to invade Europe and allegedly sharing information?
It’s still bad when the US illegally invades a country (without congressional approval) and abducts its head of state. The only people who don’t seem to mind that are magas, and they don’t seem to mind fascist russia violating international law either.
This juxtaposition is a bit of a strawman, because both examples are bad and anyone with a moral conscience understands that.
Tell me you are an American without telling me you are an American…
And what exactly do you mean by that?
Is saying “What trump did is bad, and the only people who support it are maga lunatics” something only an american would do?
No, saying that the problem with invading another country is that it is done without congressional approval is.
Way to butcher what I said for the sake of argument.
Adding what basically amounts to a footnote that he acted without congressional approval doesn’t imply that the only reason it was bad was because it lacked congressional approval. It only means that he acted without the consent of the governed, and thus was an unconstitutional overstep of presidential authority.
You must be king of the scarecrows to have so many strawmen at your disposal…
What he did was bad, AND he lacked congressional approval. Not “what he did was bad because it lacked congressional approval.”
Kidnapping foreign presidents is also bad. Maybe not quite as bad as 4 years of bombing and killing, but still bad. I’m no fan of Maduro, and I think Venezuela will be better off without him (but maybe only if it’s also without his VP and her family’s extensive control of the government apparatus), but this is not a good way to accomplish that.
So reality is complicated and nuanced, and media doesn’t handle that very well. Especially not when they’re increasingly becoming propaganda outlets for a fascist regime.
Not at all better off. What just happened, since the news is not going to tell you apparently, is the administration made a deal with the military to give up maduro and stand down on the operation to become the de facto power, directing the selling out of concessions through their now puppet civilian leadership.
There will be resistance when they start moving oil out, the army will commit abuses, likely including paramilitary death squads financed with drug and gun sales on black markets.
Exactly what I said: not like this. Not with his VP in charge. It should become a democracy where the mineral wealth is used to help the people.
For your information, Russia invaded European country. This would be closer to Venezuela seizing US tanker, not US seizing Venezuela’s
You’re stretching it - it’s not highway robbery when you catch someone driving a car with fake plates and smuggled goods in the back
Your scenario makes sense only from the perspective of basically the police and in international relationships there is no police.
Flying false flags is a valid reason for a country to board a ship, according to UNCLOS.
And america painted their planes as civilian ones.
This is a war crime. I am pointing it out because my point is that international law doesn’t exist. The only differentiating factor is wether you are strong enough avoid being judged.
The existence of crime is not a proof of the inexistence of law. Not that I disagree with the general sentiment that international law is applied to the convenience of whoever is stronger, but the US doing something wrong and not getting punished for it has very little to do with France doing something specifically allowed