Ships and their crews can‘t be cheap. Who paid to put the ammonium nirate on the ruby? Who paid for the ship to go somewhere? What was the original deal involving the ammonium nitrate? Did someone in another country originally plan to buy it but the deal was later cancelled?
The ammonium nitrate cargo alone is worth several million us dollar.
> It is then expected to continue through the Channel with its destination listed as Marsaxlokk in Malta. The authorities in Malta said that they would only accept the vessel if it got rid of its cargo beforehand.
There are no sanctions on Russian fertilizers. Europe's fertilizer production is down due to high natural gas prices (I wonder what happened) and import from Russia is up.
Do you want to provide sources for these claims? I see Germany's fertilizer exports are down by 10%, while its fertilizer imports from Russia fell by 80%. Fertilizer production seems to be up, but this metric is tracked by value only.
"For some types of fertiliser, such as urea, imports have even increased since Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The cheap fertiliser has helped European farmers, but the region’s own fertiliser producers have been struggling to compete.
“We are right now being flooded by fertilisers from Russia, which are significantly cheaper than our fertilisers, for the simple reason that they pay peanuts for natural gas in comparison to us European producers,” said Petr Cingr, chief executive of SKW Stickstoffwerke Piesteritz, Germany’s largest producer of ammonia.
“If politicians will not act,” he warned, Europe’s production capacity “will disappear”.
...
A third of EU imports of urea, the cheapest form of nitrogen-based fertiliser, come from Russia, with the amount imported in 2023 close to record levels, Eurostat data shows. Poland’s imports of Russian urea climbed to almost $120mn in 2023, up from just over $84mn in 2021, for example, according to customs data.
...
Other big players are leaving the market. BASF, the world’s largest chemicals group, has shrunk its operations in Europe over the past few years, including its fertiliser business, and instead focused new investments in the US and China, where costs are lower." [0]
> Lithuania refused because of the dangerous nature of the cargo. If 20,000 tons of ammonium nitrate were to detonate, it would obliterate the center of any port city — the blast would be equal to a third of the 1945 Hiroshima bomb. That would be a repeat of the devastating explosion of the same substance in Beirut in 2020, although Ruby is carrying seven times more ammonium nitrate.
You should've quoted the next paragraph too. There would be no need for it if the danger of fertilizer was enough to justify the refusal.
"While Lithuanian authorities announced there was no evidence of malicious intent against the country’s national security, they noted that when dealing with Russia, or other unfriendly international actors, states should always be cautious."
And then the article goes on trying to justify that by saying that Russia has set on fire an IKEA warehouse (wat?) and is jamming GPS. Sure, this means that Russia is going to murder tens of thousands civilians by detonating its ship with fertilizer.
> On 4 August 2020, a large amount of ammonium nitrate stored at the Port of Beirut in the capital city of Lebanon exploded, causing at least 218 deaths, 7,000 injuries, and US$15 billion in property damage, as well as leaving an estimated 300,000 people homeless. A cargo of 2,750 tonnes of the substance (equivalent to around 1.1 kilotons of TNT) had been stored in a warehouse without proper safety measures for the previous six years after having been confiscated by Lebanese authorities from the abandoned ship MV Rhosus.
This ship carries considerably more. You can critique the framing and language used if you want, but I doubt many officials would be happy to take that risk.
"Norway’s Maritime Authority told the BBC the vessel was inspected by DNV Group to ensure it met safety and environmental standards.
The group found damage to its hull, propeller and rudder, but the Ruby was still deemed “seaworthy”.
As a precaution, DNV Group, and the Maltese flag registry, insisted that a tug escort the vessel for the remainder of its journey.
The ship was bound for Klaipeda, in Lithuania, according to ship tracking firm MarineTraffic.
But despite being deemed seaworthy, the ship was denied entry to Klaipeda. Algis Latakas, the port authority's chief executive, told the BBC that this was "because of its cargo"." [0]
Seems a reasonable move having in mind the number of times that Russia said lately that they want Lithuania "returned" to them. And we all know what on Russia "liberate" means "laminate". Not helping the people that wants you dead is wise
I see in the article that an MP (well-known clown, btw) submitted a bill claiming that the recognition of Lithuanian independence was illegal. The bill went nowhere, of course.
How did that manage to become "Russia said" in your mind?
The proper title for that article should've been "Russian parliament refused to even consider the bill claiming illegality of Lithuanian independence", but instead the "journalists" decided to additionally cite some random guy to try to make it a story.
I could play that game too. Lithuania said that people living there must be shot for listening to Russian music:
“Let's imagine a family where the father loudly turns on a Russian movie and the mother loudly listens to Russian music. The question is what to do first: to take away the children and then shoot them (the parents), or already in front of the children. No, of course, first take away the children and then shoot them,” said Algis Ramanauskas. [0]
But it would be silly to pretend that this Nazi speaks for Lithuania, wouldn't it?
"The Russian defence ministry late on Thuesday laid out a plan to unilaterally expand the country’s maritime borders with Lithuania and Finland. Less than 24 hours later, it deleted the proposal from the government website"
"Another Russian hybrid operation is under way, this time attempting to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about their intentions in the Baltic Sea [...] Lithuania’s foreign minister, said on Wednesday".
January 2024. Lithuanian National Radio and Television.
Putin claimed on Tuesday that Latvia and other Baltic states are “throwing [ethnic] Russian people” out of their countries and that this situation “directly affects [Russia’s] security.”
Exactly the same narratives that were used months before to justify the Ukraine invasion.
And where is Russia saying "that they want Lithuania "returned" to them"?
For the context, by the way, consider that earlier in May Baltic NATO members were discussing naval blockade of Russia [0]. A blockade is not a hybrid war, it is an act of war.
Putin has been transparent and explicit for more than 20 years about their goal to recover as much territories from the Russian Empire as they can, either by soft or by hard means. This includes the Baltic Republics.
I think that the fact that the government of Russia were debating in 2022 about if the Lithuania independence from Russia was "legal" or not, is very revealing in itself.
But what Russia says does not matter anymore, only what they do. Putin has started one war on Georgia, two wars against Chechnya and one war on Ukraine. All his actions had been solid and consistent towards that dream of "rebuilt Russian empire again". Everybody knows that Lithuania hasn't been invaded yet because NATO. Is also of public knowledge that Russians want madly a land connection with Kaliningrad. Lithuania can't expect anything friendly or casual from the current Russian regime.
>Putin has been transparent and explicit for more than 20 years about their goal to recover as much territories from the Russian Empire as they can
Only in Western propaganda.
>either by soft
It's like saying about EU that Germany restores Third Reich or France restores Napoleon's empire.
>the government of Russia were debating in 2022 about if the Lithuania independence from Russia was "legal" or not
I literally said that the parliament wasn't even considering this bill and yet you keep inventing stories that support the propaganda that you have internalized.
We once had a bill that proposed returning to Julian calendar. Would anyone say because of that, that "the government of Russia were debating" switching to new old calendar? Of course not.
>Putin has started one war on Georgia
Excuse me? "Georgia started war with Russia: EU-backed report" [0]
>two wars against Chechnya
The first war was started by "democratic" Eltsin. And it wasn't a war against Chechnya, that was a war against the regime that embraced terrorists that were taking pregnant women and newborn children in a maternity hospital as hostages [1].
>one war on Ukraine
That was triggered by American-sponsored coup in 2014. [2]
>Is also of public knowledge that Russians want madly a land connection with Kaliningrad.
Is it? Any sources? After the Baltic states started land blockade of Kaliningrad, perhaps.
Except he isn't actually. Explicit that is. He very much prefers to keep his messaging implicit in this regard to speak through actions when the moment presents itself, and let others connect the dots.
That's why he's never explicitly said he wants to recover former territories wholesale. Instead he says things like his signature line about the collapse of the USSR being the "greatest political catastrophe of the [20th] century", what a tragedy it was that "tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory" via this "epidemic of disintegration". And then (in a different speech), how as a result of this "We turned into a completely different country. And what had been built up over 1,000 years was largely lost", and so on.
Which presents the implication that, well, to make everything good again, one of the things Russia can do is get all these territories, and not just ethnic Russians, but all these "co-citizens and co-patriots" back into the Motherland. To, you know, get back what they had built up over 1,000 years, and make the Motherland great again.
And when he approves actions to start menacing the borders of the Baltic states, and has proxies such as Medvedev issue statements reminding Poland that its borders were "a gift of Stalin", that's just his way of jerking everyone's cortisol levels, and underscoring the core message of his speeches.
Apart from what he actually says -- I don't think he even secretly has a specific plan to start retaking any of these countries (aside from of course Ukraine, about which he is thoroughly obsessed and which is of course a special case). He's just making it up as he goes along.
His main goal (aside from Ukraine) seems to be to signal to the West that he doesn't care about its ethics or norms, and certainly not its stupid fixation with borders and rule of law. He's just going to do whatever the fuck he wants and thinks is in Russia's interest, and which he thinks he can get away with. And if it comes to either invading and/or simply fucking up countries whose governments take actions he just doesn't like, or which just think ways he doesn't like, he may very well do that (as he did with Georgia).
But it's not like he has a specific plan of reconquest, necessary. And even if he were to decide to go that route, it's not like he's going to come out and announce his intention (just as he never did so in regard to Ukraine). That's just not his style.
The ammonium nitrate cargo alone is worth several million us dollar.