DECEMBER 22, 2018

NEWS AND VIEWS

UNKIND FEMALE FOX NEWS RIGHTIST LAURA INGRAHAM IS PROVEN WRONG. DAVID HOGG, ONE OF THE STUDENT LEADERS FROM PARKLAND HIGH SCHOOL WHO WAS MOCKED FOR HIS WORRIES ABOUT BEING ACCEPTED TO COLLEGE HAS NOW BEEN ACCEPTED BY HARVARD. PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT, VIXEN!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/22/parkland-survivor-david-hogg-harvard-mocked-fox-host/2396762002/
Parkland survivor David Hogg, who was mocked by Fox host over college rejections, finds Ivy League comeback
Doug Stanglin, USA TODAY Published 12:16 p.m. ET Dec. 22, 2018 | Updated 5:36 p.m. ET Dec. 22, 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- David Hogg goes after Laura Ingraham and her advertisers. Buzz60
(Photo: (AP Photos. Scott Applewhite, left, and Rich Schultz)
In this combination photo, Fox News personality Laura Ingraham speaks at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland on July 20, 2016, left, and David Hogg, a student survivor from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., speaks at a rally for common sense gun legislation in Livingston, N.J. on Feb. 25, 2018. Some big name advertisers dropped Ingraham after she publicly criticized Hogg, a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas school on social media. ORG XMIT: NYET415
(Photo: (AP Photos. Scott Applewhite, left, and Rich Schultz)

David Hogg, the gun control activist and Parkland high school massacre survivor who was razzed by Fox News host Laura Ingraham after being rejected by several colleges, has found the perfect comeback: He's going to Harvard.

Hogg, a founding member of Never Again MSD, a gun control advocacy group, announced his plans Saturday on Twitter, where he has more than 900,000 followers:

“Thank you all for the well wishes, I’ll be attending Harvard in the fall with a planned major in Political Science,” Hogg tweeted.

Another survivor, Jaclyn Corin, a co-founder of the March For Our Lives movement, said on Twitter last week that she was also accepted at Harvard.

Hogg, 18, rose to prominence with his steely account of the horrific ordeal at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School where a former student killed 17 people on Valentine's Day. A TV production major and son of a former FBI agent, Hogg coolly taped a real-time video of the incident on his cellphone from inside a classroom as the killer stalked the halls.

In numerous appearances in the media, Hogg took on the National Rifle Association and lashed out at politicians he charged were in the pocket of the gun lobby. He was also one of the main speakers at a huge March for Our Loves [sic] rally by young people in Washington in March.

Hogg's academic travails started one day after the Feb. 14 killings when he got his first college rejection letter, from California State University at Long Beach. He was also turned down by UCLA, UC Santa Barbara and UC San Diego.

“Sure, it’s disappointing and annoying, but not surprising. There are a lot of amazing people who do not get into or go to college,” Hogg, who claimed a 4.2 GPA and 1270 score on the SAT, said at the time. “I wanted to make a difference through storytelling and political activism, but I am already doing that now.”


David Hogg
✔
@davidhogg111
Thank you all for the well wishes, I’ll be attending Harvard in the fall with a planned major in Political Science.

178K
8:16 AM - Dec 22, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
22.3K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

His expression of disappointment prompted Ingraham, host of "The Ingraham Angle," to tweet: "David Hogg Rejected by Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it."

Hogg who opted for a gap year in 2018, fired back at the conservative commentator on Twitter, calling for a boycott of her advertisers. More than a dozen companies — including Johnson & Johnson, Liberty Mutual, Office Depot, Expedia, Nestle and Hulu — responded by pulling their ads.

Laura Ingraham
✔
@IngrahamAngle
David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA...totally predictable given acceptance rates.) https://www.dailywire.com/news/28770/gun-rights-provocateur-david-hogg-rejected-four-joseph-curl …

21K
10:45 AM - Mar 28, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Gun Rights Provocateur David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied

David Hogg, a self-appointed spokesman for a generation, revealed on Tuesday that four universities he has applied to have rejected his application.

dailywire.com
50.7K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

As the backlash grew, Ingraham apologized, again on Twitter, writing "Any student should be proud of a 4.2 GPA,” including Hogg. “On reflection, in the spirit of Holy Week, I apologize for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland.”

Hogg rejected her overture. “I’m not going to stoop to her level and go after her on a personal level,” he said at the time. “I’m going to go after her advertisers,” he said.


I’LL BET YOU THOUGHT LIKE I DID THAT THIS WOULD BE TWO 16 YEAR-OLD BOYS, DIDN’T YOU? NO. THEY’RE POSSIBLY GOING INTO THEIR “SECOND CHILDHOOD,” THOUGH. I WONDER WHAT THE PENALTY IS FOR CAUSING CHAOS FOR A DAY OR SO AND RISKING HUMAN LIFE. WHY DO PEOPLE DO SUCH SILLY AND DANGEROUS THINGS? THE OTHER STORY LIKE THIS THAT I HEARD LAST YEAR OR SO IS ABOUT PEOPLE STANDING ON THE GROUND AND SHINING LASERS INTO THE COCKPIT OF THE PLANE. THE COUPLE SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED FOR POSSIBLE TERRORISM ACTIVITIES, THOUGH.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-46657505
Gatwick drones: Two arrested over flight disruption
22 December 2018

EDDIE MITCHELL
Image caption -- Police remain at the airport to "detect and mitigate" any further drone threats

Two people have been arrested in connection with a string of drone sightings that brought Gatwick Airport to a standstill.

A 47-year-old man and a 54-year-old woman, from Crawley, were arrested in the town at about 22:00 GMT on Friday.

Flights had been grounded for more than a day, affecting about 140,000 passengers, after drones were seen near the runway.

The airport has since reopened and flights are operating on schedule.

Sussex Police said it was continuing to investigate the "criminal use of drones" and appealed for information.

The airport said it aimed to run "a full schedule" of 757 flights on Saturday, carrying 124,484 passengers.

Ben Schofield, BBC News at Gatwick Airport
Passengers are flowing reasonably well through the South Terminal.

Coming in through arrivals, it's a different story. Passengers are talking of delays of many hours involving road and ferry diversions.

More than 1,000 flights were cancelled or diverted during the 36 hours of disruption and that knock-on effect is still being felt.

Image caption -- The disruption lasted well into Friday evening

But a spokesman added: "Passengers should expect some delays and cancellations as we continue to recover our operations following three days of disruption."

They also urged passengers to check the status of their flight before travelling to the airport.

Supt James Collis said officers remained at Gatwick, ready to "detect and mitigate" further drone flights by deploying a range of tactics.

'Desperately trying to get back'
How can a drone cause so much chaos?

He asked passengers and people living nearby to remain vigilant and report any suspicions.

"Every line of inquiry will remain open to us until we are confident that we have mitigated further threats to the safety of passengers," he added.

Image copyrightEPA
Image caption -- Passengers were left waiting in the departure areas

Gatwick reopened on Friday morning, although the runway was closed again for a short time after a further confirmed drone sighting at 17:10.

A spokeswoman for the airport said military measures put in place at the airfield made it safe to reopen.

Eleven inbound flights were diverted to other airports during the latest suspension and, while outbound flights would experience a "knock-on delay", none had been cancelled, she said.

However, the BBC has been contacted by people claiming their flights were cancelled.

A small number of flights due to arrive into Gatwick on Saturday were cancelled, according to the airport's website.

They include an Easyjet service from Milan and a TUI flight from Barbados.

A Gatwick spokesman said: "Safety is Gatwick's top priority and we are grateful for passengers' continued patience as we work to get them to their final destination in time for Christmas."

Have you been affected by the suspension of flights at Gatwick Airport? You can get in touch by emailing haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk.

Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a BBC journalist. You can also contact us in the following ways:


A FRIEND OF MINE ASKED WHETHER LYING TO THE FBI IS A CRIME AND WHETHER THEY SHOULD HAVE TO WARN THE TARGET ABOUT IT. THAT WAS THE QUESTION BEING ARGUED LAST WEEK BY THE CONSERVATIVES ABOUT THE “PERJURY TRAP.” GIULIANI AND THE OTHER WHITE HOUSE ENTITIES HAD COMPLAINED THAT MUELLER WAS UNFAIR TO FLINT. WHAT I SEE WHEN I READ THIS IS THAT THERE IS NO SAFE TIME TO LIE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING THE FBI, EVEN TO DENY A CHARGE. JUST ASK MARTHA STEWART.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements
Making false statements
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) is the common name for the United States federal crime laid out in Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which generally prohibits knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements, or concealing information, in "any matter within the jurisdiction" of the federal government of the United States,[1] even by merely denying guilt when asked by a federal agent.[2] A number of notable people have been convicted under the section, including Martha Stewart,[3] Rod Blagojevich,[4] Michael T. Flynn,[5] Rick Gates,[6] Scooter Libby,[7] Bernard Madoff,[8] and Jeffrey Skilling.[9]

This statute is used in many contexts. Most commonly, prosecutors use this statute to reach cover-up crimes such as perjury, false declarations, and obstruction of justice and government fraud cases.[10]

Its earliest progenitor was the False Claims Act of 1863. In 1934, the requirement of an intent to defraud was eliminated. This was to prosecute successfully, under the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA), the producers of "hot oil", i.e. oil produced in violation of restrictions established by NIRA. In 1935, NIRA was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Pursuant to the decision in United States v. Gaudin, the jury is to decide whether the false statements made were material, since materiality is an element of the offense.

Overview

The statute spells out this purpose in subsection 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), which states:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331),[11] imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both....

Even constitutionally explicit Fifth Amendment rights do not exonerate affirmative false statements.[12] In the 1998 case Brogan v. United States, the Supreme Court rejected the "exculpatory no" doctrine that had previously been followed by seven of the courts of appeal, which had held that "the mere denial of wrongdoing" did not fall within the scope of § 1001.[13][2] The Brogan court stated:

Our legal system provides methods for challenging the Government's right to ask questions — lying is not one of them.[13]


I’M GLAD BRITAIN HAS STEPPED IN, AT LEAST TEMPORARILY, BECAUSE THE RIVALRY IS DANGEROUSLY HIGH RIGHT NOW. WE NEED AN HONEST WITNESS ON THE SPOT TO SEE, SPEAK, INFORM THE WORLD AND DO MORE IF NECESSARY. WOULD THE UN GETTING INVOLVED HELP I WONDER? SEE ALL OF THESE SEVERAL ARTICLES ON THE SUBJECT. IT’S VERY INTERESTING. ONE ARTICLE ESPECIALLY GOES INTO THE LAW OF THE SEA, IF RUSSIA CARES ABOUT SUCH THINGS AS LAW.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46657470
Gavin Williamson: UK ship in Ukraine 'sends message to Russia'
DECEMBER 22, 2018 9 hours ago

REUTERS
Image caption -- HMS Echo docked in the Black Sea on Friday, before Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson visited

A Royal Navy warship which has been sent to Ukraine will send a strong message to Russian President Vladimir Putin, the UK's defence secretary says.

HMS Echo was sent into the Black Sea earlier this month, after Russia seized three ships belonging to Ukraine's navy and their crews.

Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson has visited the ship in the port of Odessa.

He said the presence of the British ship shows support for Ukraine in the face of increased Russian aggression.

It will be followed by other warships as part of a more constant British presence, he said.

Nato has recently stepped up its operations in the Black Sea with increased warship patrols.

Russia-Ukraine sea clash in 300 words
Nato's dilemma in the Black Sea
There are increasing tensions between Russia and Ukraine over access to the area off the coast of Crimea.

Crimea used to be part of an independent Ukraine, but it was annexed by Russia in 2014. The Ukrainians say that Crimea remains their territory.

Mr Williamson paid a pre-Christmas visit to HMS Echo soon after it docked in Odessa on Friday.

Image copyrightREUTERS
Image caption -- Mr Williamson met with Ukrainian sailors in Odessa

He said the ship was there to send a message to President Putin that Britain stands in solidarity with Ukraine.

"What we are saying to Russia, what we are saying to President Putin - they cannot continue to act with no regard or care for international laws or international norms," he said.

Image copyrightREUTERS
Image caption -- Mr Williamson talks to his Ukranian counterpart, Stepan Poltorak, standing on his right

The defence secretary made a point of meeting the families of the 24 Ukrainian sailors who are still being held and are now awaiting trial in Moscow.

HMS Echo is not expected to sail through the Kerch Strait near Crimea - close to where the Russian Navy rammed, shot at and seized the three Ukrainian Navy vessels in November.

Moscow has described the Royal Navy vessel - which is used to collect data about the ocean - as a spy ship.


I HAVE BEEN HOPING FOR A NATO INTERVENTION BECAUSE PUTIN OF RUSSIA IS PURSUING HIS SHOVING MATCH UNTIL IT COMES TO WAR. THEY ALSO DESERVE TO HAVE SOMEBODY COME IN AND SIT ON THEM. I WAS SO HAPPY TO SEE ENGLAND GO IN THERE. RUSSIA NEEDS TO KNOW THAT BEING A REPROBATE WON'T ALWAYS BE A WINNING STRATEGY.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46425777
Ukraine-Russia clash: Nato's dilemma in the Black Sea
Jonathan Marcus
Diplomatic correspondent
@Diplo1 on Twitter
4 December 2018

AFP
Image caption -- Ukrainian forces took part in a tactical exercise near the Russian border on Monday

Does crisis beckon in the Black Sea? Could Russia and Nato even come to blows?

That - at least for now - is probably unlikely. But the recent seizure of two Ukrainian gunboats and a tug in the approaches to the Kerch Strait, by vessels of the Russian Border Guard, has inevitably brought security in the Black Sea to the forefront of Nato's agenda at their meeting in Brussels on Tuesday.

The Black Sea has long had strategic significance.

It was, after all, the theatre for a major conflict between the Western powers France and Great Britain and Imperial Russia in the mid-19th Century. During the Cold War, it was the Soviet Union's shortest route to Iran and the Middle East. Turkey - a Nato ally - stood astride the Black Sea's southern exit to the Mediterranean, facing Russia across the Black Sea to its the north.

For the Russians this was always seen as their "back yard". And the end of the Cold War and the break-up of the Soviet Union greatly complicated relationships.

Incursion, or deterrence?

Russia has engaged in armed conflict against two independent states that were formerly part of the Soviet Union - Georgia and Ukraine. It has annexed Ukrainian territory - Crimea - and continues to support armed rebels in eastern Ukraine. And it backs separatist enclaves that have broken away from the Georgian government.

Russia is alarmed at what it sees as Nato's growing incursion into the region. Three nearby states, Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria, are members of the alliance. Nato conducts air policing operations out of Romania, helping them to defend their territory by intercepting Russian jets approaching their air space.

RELATED: Russia-Ukraine sea clash in 300 words

Ukraine country profile

Similarly, Nato warships have stepped up patrols in the Black Sea. Romania is hosting a US-built ballistic missile defence site. And Nato - along with individual Alliance members - is developing military ties with its partner countries Georgia and Ukraine.

Viewed from the Nato headquarters in Brussels, this is simply helping to provide stability and a measure of deterrence in the face of a more assertive Russia. Ukraine, for example, is eager to ensure that the Sea of Azov does not become a Russian-controlled lake. And Nato as a whole is intent on challenging Russian dominance of the Black Sea itself.

However, viewed from Moscow, this is all part of what they see as Nato's broadening land grab; its desire to push the borders of the Alliance ever closer to Russia. And given that this is an area of historic significance for successive Russian regimes, the stakes are very high indeed.

Russia remains unmoved

Nato has a problem.

On the one hand, its member governments' rhetoric calls for stability and de-escalation while they take steps - such as military exercises and economic sanctions - that the Russians are bound to see as provocative. Judging the balance between deterrence and provocation is not easy, especially when pressure alone is often unlikely to change Russia's behaviour.

Image copyrightAFP
Image caption -- Military drills near the port city of Mariupol took place last week

Take the Ukraine crisis for example. Sanctions show no sign of changing President Putin's mind, nor are they likely to secure the return of Crimea any time soon. Russia appears willing to accept the pain of sanctions because its interests in the "near-abroad" matter more.

This calculus makes Nato's response to the latest crisis between Russia and Ukraine more difficult. Analysts have called for a variety of measures, from the deployment of Nato vessels in the Sea of Azov - which would probably be illegal since it is an inland sea not an international waterway, and impractical because Russia could easily seal the Kerch Strait; to stepped-up economic sanctions; or even efforts to compensate Ukraine for the economic losses it is suffering from what is effectively a semi-blockade of its ports.

There will be those in Ukraine and among its more strident supporters in the US who see this as adding to the case for stepping up arms supplies to Kiev. While Nato countries do lots of training for the Ukrainian military, they have largely baulked at providing lethal weaponry. The Trump administration has supplied a limited number of Javelin anti-tank weapons to redress a significant defensive shortcoming in Ukraine's ground forces. But some experts have suggested, for example, that Kiev should be given shore-based anti-shipping missiles to help even up the naval balance in these enclosed waters.

There is no perfect solution to this strategic stand-off separate from a more fundamental recasting of the relationship between Russia and the West. The immediate task is to ensure that things do not get worse.

War is ever-changing

And this raises another fundamental problem for Nato. Warfare is changing.

Indeed, the once-clear boundary between war and peace is dissolving. We hear a lot about military demonstrations, exercises, cyber attacks and information operations. Traditionally, these have been seen as a prelude to conflict.

But what if they are actually the war itself, as one senior US commander recently asked?

In other words, you no longer have to risk full-scale warfare; you just use a variety of tools to apply pressure to achieve the same ends. In this light, Russia is already having some success against Ukraine.

It has seized Crimea and shows no sign of relinquishing it. It is exacting an economic cost from Kiev by interfering with shipping in the Sea of Azov.

It has, as it might argue, weakened the Ukrainian president at a time when he faces a difficult re-election campaign, by seizing three vessels and their crews. All at a price that Moscow seems willing to pay.

This, then, is Nato's dilemma: how does it reassure friends and allies in the Black Sea region without simply making matters worse?

Related Topics
Russia Crimea Nato Crimea crisis Ukraine

UKRAINE ASKS FOR NATO SHIPS. I HOPE THAT HAPPENS SOON, BEAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN AGGRESSIVE ENOUGH OFTEN ENOUGH FOR AN INTERVENTION.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46381166
Ukraine-Russia sea clash: Poroshenko urges Nato to send ships
29 November 2018

GETTY IMAGES
Image caption -- Ukrainian forces have been mobilised in the port of Mariupol on the Sea of Azov

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has urged Nato to send ships to the Sea of Azov following a naval confrontation with Russia off Crimea.

He told Germany's Bild newspaper he hoped the ships could be relocated "to assist Ukraine and provide security".

On Sunday, Russia opened fire on three Ukrainian ships and seized their crews in the Kerch Strait between the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.

Nato has expressed "full support" for Ukraine, which is not a member state.

Amid worsening relations on Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Mr Poroshenko of creating the naval "provocation" to boost his ratings ahead of 2019 elections.

RELATED:
Why Ukraine-Russia sea clash is fraught with risk
Who controls the waters?
Russia-Ukraine sea clash in 300 words

President Poroshenko has implemented martial law across Ukraine's border regions for 30 days in response to the crisis.

What did Poroshenko say?

In the interview with Bild, Mr Poroshenko said Vladimir Putin wanted "nothing less than to occupy the [Azov] sea".

"Germany is one of our closest allies and we hope that states within Nato are now ready to relocate naval ships to the Sea of Azov in order to assist Ukraine and provide security," he said.

Image copyrightAFP
Image caption -- President Poroshenko inspected tank crews during a visit to Chernihiv, northern Ukraine

"We cannot accept this aggressive policy of Russia. First it was Crimea, then eastern Ukraine, now he wants the Sea of Azov. Germany, too, has to ask itself: What will Putin do next if we do not stop him?"

A Nato spokeswoman would not comment directly on Mr Poroshenko's request, but stressed that "since Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, Nato has substantially increased its presence in the Black Sea."

Earlier this week, Nato chief Jens Stoltenberg called on Russia to free the Ukrainian ships and sailors and said the bloc would continue to provide "political and practical support" to Ukraine, which is a Nato partner country.

'Hardly likely'
Analysis by Jonathan Marcus, BBC Diplomatic correspondent

The call for Nato to deploy warships to the Sea of Azov raises a variety of diplomatic and practical problems.

In strict legal terms Russia and Ukraine share access to its waters under a 2003 treaty. This though specifically states that warships from third countries can only enter the Sea or make port visits there with the express permission of the other party.

Russia is hardly likely to give such permission. In practical terms it could easily block the Kerch Strait as it did earlier this week by placing a merchant vessel across the channel.

Nato in any case might see such a visit as more likely to inflame tensions.

It's more likely that Nato might seek to boost its naval deployments to the Black Sea where its members - Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey - are uneasy about Russia's more assertive behaviour.

Indeed the alliance says that its vessels have already spent some 120 days on patrol or exercises in the Black Sea this year, compared with 80 in 2017.

BBC – MAP SHOWING THE SHIP SEIZURE EVENT

What happened off Crimea?

At least three Ukrainian sailors were wounded when Russian FSB border guards opened fire on two Ukrainian gunboats and a tug off Crimea.

The peninsula was annexed by Russia in 2014, but officially remains part of Ukraine.

The naval boats had been sailing from Odessa to Mariupol, a Ukrainian port on the Azov sea, when they were confronted by the FSB vessels.

Ukraine says Russia is deliberately blockading Mariupol and another port, Berdyansk, preventing ships from getting through the Kerch Strait.

The 24 captured Ukrainian sailors have now been given two months in pre-trial detention by a court in Crimea.

Russia's decision to open a bridge across the Kerch Strait earlier this year had already exacerbated tensions.

What did Putin say?

The Russian president said the incident was "undoubtedly a provocation".

He said that it had been organised by Ukraine's authorities "and, I think, the incumbent president in the run-up to the Ukrainian presidential election in March 2019".

Mr Poroshenko has low popularity ratings. Recent polls suggest that only about 10% of the electorate plans to vote for him next year, with nearly 50% saying they would not vote for him under any circumstances, the Kyiv Post newspaper reported.

Media caption -- Why tensions between Russia and Ukraine are so high

Mr Putin added that the Ukrainian president's decision to impose martial law after a mere "border incident" was extreme, because martial law was not even imposed at the height of the conflict with pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine in 2014.

Mr Putin insisted that Russia's military response was appropriate as the Ukrainians had "trespassed" into Russia's territorial waters.

Ukrainian officials published a map on Wednesday, placing all three Ukrainian boats just outside Crimea's territorial waters at the time they were seized.

What other reaction has there been?
Western governments have backed the Ukrainian government.

On Wednesday the EU strongly condemned Russia's actions but failed to agree on new sanctions against Russia.

After three days of debate, the EU issued a statement expressing "utmost concern about the dangerous increase of tensions" and dismay at the "unacceptable" use of force by Russia.

It called on Russia to release the ships and their crews and respect Ukraine's sovereignty. Poland had wanted new sanctions on Moscow while Germany and France stressed the need to ease tensions.

US President Donald Trump has also said he may cancel a planned meeting with Mr Putin on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Buenos Aires later this week.

BBC MAP OF UKRAINE AND AREAS UNDER MARTIAL LAW
Related Topics


THIS VIDEO SHOWS COMPELLING FOOTAGE OF THE CLASH BETWEEN UKRAINIAN AND RUSSIAN VESSELS, AND GIVES THE AUDIO ALSO, SWEAR WORDS BLEEPED OUT. THERE’S CLEARLY NO LOVE LOST BETWEEN THE TWO. 1:07 DURATION. UNLESS THE UKRAINIAN CAPTAIN GAVE THE RUSSIAN A HOSTILE HAND SIGN ON THE WAY THROUGH THE PASSAGE, IT IS PRETTY CLEAR TO ME THAT RUSSIA IS THE AGGRESSOR. NUFF SAID! YOU GUYS COMPORT YOURSELVES BETTER NOW!

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-46345317
Ukraine-Russia sea clash: Who controls the territorial waters around Crimea?
By Reality Check team & BBC Monitoring
BBC News
27 November 2018
Related TopicsReality Check

VIDEO – Footage of the collision was posted by the Ukrainian interior minister

Russia and Ukraine have accused each other of breaking international law after a Russian border patrol seizure of three Ukrainian ships.

The naval vessels - two artillery ships and a tug boat - were bound for the Ukrainian port of Mariupol in the Sea of Azov.

This required them to pass through the Kerch Strait, a narrow strip of water being blocked by a Russian cargo ship.

Both sides are blaming each other and there has been a flurry of claims and counter-claims.

Growing tensions

Ukraine has criticised the Russian authorities, which this year started imposing checks on ships travelling to and from Ukrainian ports in the Sea of Azov.

Under a 2003 treaty, Russia has the right to inspect any vessel sailing to or from the Sea of Azov. Ukraine has accused Russia of abusing that right.

Ukraine has also opposed a Russian-constructed bridge that crosses the Kerch strait and connects Russia and Crimea.

Neither Ukraine nor the European Union nor the United States recognise Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea.

Kremlin-backed forces seized control of the Crimean peninsula and the territory voted to join Russia in a referendum that Ukraine and the international community deem illegal.

Why sea clash is fraught with risk
Russia-Ukraine sea clash in 300 words
Russia 'bigger threat than IS' - Army chief
Eastern Ukraine: A new, bloody chapter

Russia's claims

Russia says it had temporarily closed the area for shipping and that the Ukrainian vessels entered its territory illegally carrying out "provocative actions".

The Kremlin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, says: "Foreign military ships entered Russia's territorial waters without responding to any requests made by our border guards. Therefore, all actions were taken in strict compliance with the law."

Russia also says the Ukrainian vessels had not submitted the correct transit applications to "ensure safe navigation".

The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) accused Ukraine of violating Article 19 and Article 21 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which "outline the right of a coastal state to provide maritime security".

Ukraine's claims

Ukraine says Russia violated international law because the Black Sea is free for all shipping.

It cites the fact Ukrainian vessels have free access to the Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait under the 2003 treaty with Russia that effectively makes these waters shared territory.

"Therefore, with its actions, the Russian Federation has confirmed that bilateral agreements on the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov are null and void. We understand that Russia has never had any intention to follow them," said Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin on the 112 Ukrayina TV news channel.

Two Ukrainian ships were escorted without incident by Russian tugs under the bridge several weeks ago.

Ukraine says it also warned Russia of its plan to move the ships to Mariupol through the Kerch Strait.

It maintains that Russia rammed one of its boats in an "act of armed aggression".

Mr Klimkin told journalists Russia's actions constituted a violation of "the freedom of maritime traffic" and of Articles 38 and 44 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which "clearly and strongly bans the obstruction of peaceful transit across the Kerch Strait".

Image copyrightREUTERS
Image caption -- Russia moored a cargo ship under the bridge and flew jets over it

Whose territory?

In saying that the Ukrainian ships were seized in its territorial waters, Russia is arguing that the vessels were in Russian "territorial sea", which extends up to 12 nautical miles from a country's coastline.

Ukraine considers Crimea as its own and could therefore argue that travelling in waters off the coast of Crimea is effectively moving through Ukrainian territorial waters.

Under the 2003 agreement between Russia and Ukraine, regardless of the status of Crimea itself, Ukraine argues, it has "freedom of navigation" in the Sea of Azov as well as access to it through the Kerch Strait.

The law of the sea

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) sets out various scenarios that give a state freedom of passage, irrespective of a state's territorial waters.

All ships, including foreign warships, enjoy the right of "innocent passage" within another state's territorial sea under international law.

Russia has disputed whether the passage was innocent. The UN law states that a passage is innocent "so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state". That includes threat or use of force, exercise or practice with weapons or any act of propaganda affecting the security of the state.

Russia would need to prove that the passage of the Ukrainian vessels was not innocent and that Ukraine had showed "some form of hostile intent", says Mr Muller, to act against them.

According to the Russian FSB's account, Ukrainian vessels entered "combat readiness" in contravention of the innocent passage rules.

A country does not need to ask for permission before exercising that right but can be asked to follow certain rules once doing so.

This may include measures to protect security interests, says Dr Wim Muller, an international law expert at Chatham House.

Russia has pointed to a section of this UN convention that requires a warship to leave its territorial waters if it fails to comply with the laws of that country.

Under international law, a country would have the right to seize another warship only if the warship was acting in a hostile manner, says Valentin Schatz, a research associate in public international law at Germany's University of Hamburg.

Ukraine has also highlighted provisions (Article 38 and Article 44) of the convention, which require all ships to be given the freedom to travel through a strait from one part of the high seas to another - known as transit passage.

There are also rules within the UN convention that "ensure that ports which can only be reached by a single route through the strait, as is true of all ports in the Sea of Azov, always remain accessible", says Andrew Serdy, director of the Institute of Maritime Law at Southampton University.

Want to know more?
Tensions spark Ukraine martial law talks
Crimea history and politics
Eastern Ukraine: A new, bloody chapter
Five soldiers killed in Ukraine clashes


THE HIGHER POWER IS NOT, I AM SOMETIMES REMINDED, DEAD.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/natalie-barnes-milwaukee-bus-driver-homeless-man_us_5bf58477e4b0eb6d930ab35a
U.S. NEWS 11/21/2018 02:33 pm ET
Milwaukee Bus Driver Honored For Helping Homeless Man Get Food And Shelter
Natalie Barnes spent her breaks getting a passenger a meal and a place in a temporary shelter.
headshot
By David Moye

A Milwaukee bus driver is being praised for the way she helped a homeless passenger get some needed assistance.

In October, bus driver Natalie Barnes started talking with a passenger named Richard, who told her he has been homeless for a week, since the place where he had been living was condemned.

When he asked if he could ride along for the night to stay out of the cold, she agreed.

“At some point in our lives, everybody needs help,” Barnes said in a Milwaukee County Transit System blog post. “I wanted to do what I could to help Richard in some way.”

At one point during her shift, she took a break at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and offered to get her passenger a bite to eat.

Surveillance video shows Richard was touched by the gesture.

“Now I don’t know what to say but to say thank you,” he said to Barnes and promised to pay her back somehow.

She refused, saying, “I want to help you.”

But one act of kindness wasn’t enough for Barnes.

During another break, she reached out to a friend, who helped get Richard into a temporary shelter.

Barnes and Richard became friends during that six-hour bus ride. Now he has her cellphone number, and they keep in touch.

“We talk every couple of days and he thanks me every time he talks to me for helping him,” she said, according to ABC News. “He calls me his little guardian angel. I’m happy to say that he’s progressing well.”

Helping others comes second nature for Barnes, who has received three commendations for outstanding service since being hired by the MCTS two years ago.

MILWAUKEE COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTEM

She regularly takes peanut butter and jelly sandwiches on the bus to share with people in need, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele praised Barnes in a ceremony last week.

“Natalie’s kindness, compassion and respect for this man in need are what MCTS excellence is all about,” he said. “Natalie demonstrated what we all need to do to fight homelessness: to look out for each other, to care for each other and to work together. I’m deeply grateful for Natalie’s actions.”