Russia - 11; Somali Pirates - 0

[MeMyselfAndI]

Or, 'Fighting Piracy, Russian style'

Have you heard how, recently, Somali pirates took a Russian ship, and then Russian marines retook it from them, killing one pirate and taking 10 others prisoner? And than it was said they let them go?

Well, I knew that was not true.


I thought, 'No way! That is not the Russia or the Russian Navy that I know and, sometimes love, sometimes hate...'

This clarifies things. Yeah, they would do that. The Morpekh, the Russian marines, you mess with them, they will kill you. And spit on you after.

http://pierrelegrand.net/2010/05/12/russia-executed-all-somali-pirates.htm

<“The Russians never released the young men instead they shot them point-blank range then loaded their lifeless bodies back on the boat,” [the pirate spokesman] added.>

[Donkey]

Murder, imho.

[MeMyselfAndI]

Murder, imho.

Hey, the pirates would have done the same to our people if given chance. Somali pirates do kill many innocent sailors. I agree sometimes Russian government goes a bit extreme. But this is just justice, in my opinion. These bastards killed a Russian sailor last year, maybe not them, but like them.

[Michael]

Murder, imho.

I'll take the Russian policy over the European "catch and release" program any day.

The Europeans are just wasting time, money and resources.

Technically speaking, there is no legal jurisdiction on the high seas.

[Americano]

What about those countries illegally ravaging Somali fish stocks and dumping environmental destruction in Somalian waters? By the aforementioned reasoning shouldn't they also be shot on sight by foreign powers?

[Michael]

What about those countries illegally ravaging Somali fish stocks and dumping environmental destruction in Somalian waters? By the aforementioned reasoning shouldn't they also be shot on sight by foreign powers?
I can't see any reason that would compel them to do so. Russian, Chinese, European and American navies are just protecting their civilian shipping interests in international waters. The Russian navy is merely treating pirates the same way pirates have always been treated - with summary execution.

However, I wouldn't object if the Somalis were shooting at those other types of targets since that would be Somalia's business. That wouldn't be piracy.

[Americano]

I can't see any reason that would compel them to do so. Russian, Chinese, European and American navies are just protecting their civilian shipping interests in international waters. The Russian navy is merely treating pirates the same way pirates have always been treated - with summary execution.

However, I wouldn't object if the Somalis were shooting at those other types of targets since that would be Somalia's business. That wouldn't be piracy.

No plunder in fishing or trash ships. Only the US attacks countries with no gain potential.

[Michael]

No plunder in fishing or trash ships. Only the US attacks countries with no gain potential.

If the Somalis were making war against illegal fishing fleets or illegal dumping ships, that would be a different matter entirely (and I'd support that).

But they are not doing that.

[Michael]

For what is worth, I've been long expecting that China would treat any captured pirates in exactly the same way as Russia has apparently done.

[MeMyselfAndI]

I agree that this incident is... unfortunate. But, I think the fact that Russian Pacific Fleet is involved in fighting these pirates is a very good thing, overall. It was the Pacific Fleet that, in the Soviet days, in the 70s and 80s, basically put an end to piracy is the South-East Asian region. And there are still many senior command officers left over from then, with a lot of experience in this field. So, I think if anyone can do this, the Pacific Fleet can.

As for protecting their fishing or whatever, you do not attack unarmed, innocent sailors with AKs, take their ships, hold them hostage, demand millions dollars for ransom, for that. Pirates, criminals, do that. I know many sailors, good, honest people, they, most of them, are not any more rich than those pirates. Many have families to feed too. And they do not break the law to do it.

[Americano]

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."

~Albert Einstein~

[Donkey]

I'll take the Russian policy over the European "catch and release" program any day.

The Europeans are just wasting time, money and resources.

Technically speaking, there is no legal jurisdiction on the high seas.
So what? That makes perfunctory execution ok?
I agree that this incident is... unfortunate. But, I think the fact that Russian Pacific Fleet is involved in fighting these pirates is a very good thing, overall. It was the Pacific Fleet that, in the Soviet days, in the 70s and 80s, basically put an end to piracy is the South-East Asian region. And there are still many senior command officers left over from then, with a lot of experience in this field. So, I think if anyone can do this, the Pacific Fleet can.

As for protecting their fishing or whatever, you do not attack unarmed, innocent sailors with AKs, take their ships, hold them hostage, demand millions dollars for ransom, for that. Pirates, criminals, do that. I know many sailors, good, honest people, they, most of them, are not any more rich than those pirates. Many have families to feed too. And they do not break the law to do it.
The idea of "law" and "Somalia" in the same sentence is laughable.

[MeMyselfAndI]

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."

~Albert Einstein~

I agree. But I am not being nationalistic here.

The idea of "law" and "Somalia" in the same sentence is laughable.

Exactly.

[Michael]

So what? That makes perfunctory execution ok?
Interesting question. What does one mean by "ok"? :D

Are you asking me to pronounce moral judgement upon the Russians?

Or are you asking me to pronounce a political judgement upon the situation?

My answer would be different to each question.

The idea of "law" and "Somalia" in the same sentence is laughable.
Yes, this is true. And this is the problem that anti-piracy naval squadrons are attempting to deal with in support of the international shipping economy.

Anarchy is always dangerous.

[Americano]

I agree. But I am not being nationalistic here.

I don't think the majority of citizens of any country would condemn military action against piracy. The implications of why Somalia condones piracy, common and approved in the past by now developed nations, is not a consideration most citizens care to review.

It's a ruined country, of little value to any world power for other than ensuring it doesn't interrupt commerce. I seriously doubt murdering a few pirates will end their activity, but it does give credence to military spending supported by the public, those citizens who support murder in the name of defense. The US recently had a similar incident, but practiced catch and try, surprising even me. It does help prolong the positive public relations program for military spending.

I'd prefer insurers demand ships defend themselves in such circumstances and reflect the cost in premium, which would be passed on to consumers of valuable cargo. Far more cost and ongoing threat deterring effective than using military resources sucking up public resources.

[Michael]

I'd prefer insurers demand ships defend themselves in such circumstances and reflect the cost in premium, which would be passed on to consumers of valuable cargo. Far more cost and ongoing threat deterring effective than using military resources sucking up public resources.

I agree completely with this policy. Taxpayers subsidizing private shipping companies (or shipping insurance companies) is insane.

[Americano]

I agree completely with this policy. Taxpayers subsidizing private shipping companies (or shipping insurance companies) is insane.

Insanity condoned by taxpayers, hence my reference to nationalism.

[Non Sequitur]

Insanity condoned by taxpayers, hence my reference to nationalism.

I don't think the majority of citizens of any country would condemn military action against piracy. The implications of why Somalia condones piracy, common and approved in the past by now developed nations, is not a consideration most citizens care to review.

It's a ruined country, of little value to any world power for other than ensuring it doesn't interrupt commerce. I seriously doubt murdering a few pirates will end their activity, but it does give credence to military spending supported by the public, those citizens who support murder in the name of defense. The US recently had a similar incident, but practiced catch and try, surprising even me. It does help prolong the positive public relations program for military spending.

I'd prefer insurers demand ships defend themselves in such circumstances and reflect the cost in premium, which would be passed on to consumers of valuable cargo. Far more cost and ongoing threat deterring effective than using military resources sucking up public resources.

wait wait, how is private shipping companies shooting at Somalis a good thing? That's what is going to happen if the we ask the shipping companies to defend themselves. Seems like a recipe for just as much chaos if not more.

Plus, it's not like using the military to fight piracy is anything new. It seems a well established function of navies is to protect sea lanes.

[Americano]

wait wait, how is private shipping companies shooting at Somalis a good thing? That's what is going to happen if the we ask the shipping companies to defend themselves. Seems like a recipe for just as much chaos if not more.

Seems obvious that even combined military efforts can't do more than occasionally run down a few pirate ships for PR purposes and they certainly aren't going to form convoys with military escorts. Let protection be privately supplied and funded as a cost of doing business. When compared to paying ransoms, certainly no more chaotic and definitely far more cost effective than using taxpayer monies.

Plus, it's not like using the military to fight piracy is anything new. It seems a well established function of navies is to protect sea lanes.

When populations and shipping were, compared to contemporary numbers insignificant, yes. Thousands of ships now ply the waters off Somalia. I wonder what the daily cost was for American and Russian Navel vessels to hunt down two lousy pirate groups?

[Non Sequitur]

Seems obvious that even combined military efforts can't do more than occasionally run down a few pirate ships for PR purposes and they certainly aren't going to form convoys with military escorts. Let protection be privately supplied and funded as a cost of doing business. When compared to paying ransoms, certainly no more chaotic and definitely far more cost effective than using taxpayer monies.

So your argument is that it costs too much to protect our ships and would rather we let people solve the problem themselves :erm: I mean besides that it's callous and (and in my opinion border line immoral) to say "oh, well just let people get kidnapped and pay the ransom because we don't want to pay for the ships" it seems like a recipe for disaster to say "just protect yourselves. We don't want to protect you." Effectively that's giving private companies the ok to use deadly force just because it's too expensive. I'm uncomfortable with that precedent and I will gladly pay the tax money to prevent it.

When populations and shipping were, compared to contemporary numbers insignificant, yes. Thousands of ships now ply the waters off Somalia. I wonder what the daily cost was for American and Russian Navel vessels to hunt down two lousy pirate groups?
Whether it costs a lot or not it has been one of the primary functions of navies throughout history to protect sea lanes. I'm sure if we looked at the numbers it has always cost a substantial amount. That shouldn't stop us from letting the Navy do it's job.

[Americano]

So your argument is that it costs too much to protect our ships and would rather we let people solve the problem themselves :erm: I mean besides that it's callous and (and in my opinion border line immoral) to say "oh, well just let people get kidnapped and pay the ransom because we don't want to pay for the ships" it seems like a recipe for disaster to say "just protect yourselves. We don't want to protect you." Effectively that's giving private companies the ok to use deadly force just because it's too expensive. I'm uncomfortable with that precedent and I will gladly pay the tax money to prevent it.

Sorry, I don't make any decisions based on emotion regarding commerce or money. Nationalism is a favored ploy of the ruling elite in using tax money to subsidize the private sector.

Whether it costs a lot or not it has been one of the primary functions of navies throughout history to protect sea lanes. I'm sure if we looked at the numbers it has always cost a substantial amount. That shouldn't stop us from letting the Navy do it's job.With only 465 out of 33,222 heavy merchant ships flying the US flag the bloated US Navy (287 active warships, 331,682 personnel on active duty and 3700 aircraft) could assign an escort for each one if the problem bothered anyone enough.

[Non Sequitur]

Sorry, I don't make any decisions based on emotion regarding commerce or money. Nationalism is a favored ploy of the ruling elite in using tax money to subsidize the private sector.

That's nice, but my disagreement is with effectively authorizing companies to use deadly force because we don't want to pick up the bill. I do have an ethical disagreement, but that's not what I mean to focus on here.

With only 465 out of 33,222 heavy merchant ships flying the US flag the bloated US Navy (287 active warships, 331,682 personnel on active duty and 3700 aircraft) could assign an escort for each one if the problem bothered anyone enough.

sure we could deploy an entire Aircraft carrier task force and solve the problem but that would be over kill. I'm not advocating for the deployment of the entire pacific navy, just that what we have there seems fine and within the historic and current job of the navy.

[Michael]

sure we could deploy an entire Aircraft carrier task force and solve the problem but that would be over kill. I'm not advocating for the deployment of the entire pacific navy, just that what we have there seems fine and within the historic and current job of the navy.

In case anyone is curious, the 'anti-piracy' naval operation going on near the coast of Somalia is a rather remarkable show of international military co-operation and unity. The operation originates with, and is formally run by NATO. The US Navy is just one of the partners in the operations here, providing a minority portion of the forces. The Chinese Navy has officially taken over the fuel supply line from the Japanese (a few months ago).

The Russian Navy and the Chinese Navy do not take orders from NATO of course - but they are there as 'partners' with intra-fleet liasons in a joint task force.

Last I heard the Chinese contribution was the largest in number of ships, though the US ship tonnage contribution was higher (fewer but larger ships).

Oddly enough, the US Navy is poorly equipped with the type of naval ship that is most useful for this type of operation. I've mentioned this fact before - the US just doesn't have many ships in the 'fast frigate' category. This category of ship dominates the navies of most of the '3rd tier' NATO countries (Canada, Netherlands, Germany, Italy). Frigates are often called 'destroyer escorts'. Each ship usually carries a helicopter in addition to the usual ship-based weaponry. They are small fast and relatively cheap to build and operate - this apparently defies Pentagon military procurement rules! :lol:

Oddly enough, the two navies that I haven't seen mentioned operating there is France and the Royal Navy ('2nd tier' NATO powers - US is '1st tier' alone).

It is interesting how NATO continues to 'grow' in stature as an organization - operating far from its North Atlantic origins - even as the experts pronounce it to be moribund. :shrug:

I do think NATO will continue to expand into an ever larger (world-dominating) military-political alliance. I do hope/expect Russia to eventually join up (still a decade away at least though).

[MeMyselfAndI]

wait wait, how is private shipping companies shooting at Somalis a good thing? That's what is going to happen if the we ask the shipping companies to defend themselves. Seems like a recipe for just as much chaos if not more.

Plus, it's not like using the military to fight piracy is anything new. It seems a well established function of navies is to protect sea lanes.

Exactly. Well, some shipping companies here are now talking of hiring former Sea Infantry (Marines) and Specnaz men to guard their ships in the Aden. That'll cost them more though. Those men will have to be paid, like $500 US a month at least; they will have to be armed with at least AKs and UZIs; they will have to be fed; and they will have to get a place to sleep on the ship. All costs money.

[MeMyselfAndI]

Oddly enough, the US Navy is poorly equipped with the type of naval ship that is most useful for this type of operation. I've mentioned this fact before - the US just doesn't have many ships in the 'fast frigate' category. This category of ship dominates the navies of most of the '3rd tier' NATO countries (Canada, Netherlands, Germany, Italy). Frigates are often called 'destroyer escorts'. Each ship usually carries a helicopter in addition to the usual ship-based weaponry. They are small fast and relatively cheap to build and operate - this apparently defies Pentagon military procurement rules! :lol:

You cannot chase pirate boats with aircraft carriers :) Sorry, but it is truth.

As for Russian join NATO... After Putin died, maybe ;)

[Americano]

Exactly. Well, some shipping companies here are now talking of hiring former Sea Infantry (Marines) and Specnaz men to guard their ships in the Aden. That'll cost them more though. Those men will have to be paid, like $500 US a month at least; they will have to be armed with at least AKs and UZIs; they will have to be fed; and they will have to get a place to sleep on the ship. All costs money.

In the US it costs $250,000 to maintain a combat trained military force member. A US Navy Seal classification costs $500,000 dollars just to train one and an additional $500,000 each year to service their special requirements.

US enlisted military members with combat experience and specialized combat training who have their military retirements vested who still need the warrior game will take any protection job for $75,000 yearly. Arm them with automatic weapons, RPGS and combat conditions technical equipment for an impressive bottom line savings over paid ransoms and sovereign military navel forces chasing pirates.

Hopefully Russia will implement private sector anti-piracy crews on cargo vessels plying waters infested with pirates. It could be a logical and cost-effective trend. NATO doesn't have the capability, mandate or desire to eradicate the root problem and all they'll do is suck more wealth out of taxpayers, costs that should be borne by the involved private entities. Let them adjust their margin requirements.