I was genuinely surprised by the Starmer regime’s refusal to state that the Israeli boarding of the Global Sumud flotilla on the High Seas was illegal. I did not realise it was because the UK was planning to undertake similar illegal seizure itself.
The Gaza Flotilla seizure was illegal: while for obvious reasons freedom of navigation had been the undisputed basis of UK maritime policy for centuries. The UK is a set of islands whose population is dependent on food imports to stay alive. Freedom of navigation is a core strategic interest of the UK. The relevant provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea were very heavily UK driven, including on passage through straits.
Abandoning the primacy of freedom of navigation is absolutely a radical policy departure for the UK – driven, like so many other changes to traditional British legal positions, by the Starmer regime’s extreme support for Israel.
It is not generally understood how profound a change this is. Even the Tory government of David Cameron, with William Hague as Foreign Secretary, had opposed the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza and particularly Israeli seizure of vessels on the High Seas. William Hague stated in 2010 to the House of Commons of the boarding of the Mavi Marmara:
We are seriously concerned about the seizure of British nationals in international waters,
This is a long-term British legal position now directly repudiated by Starmer, Lammy and Cooper.
I had not realised that not only was the UK now supporting the campaigns of illegal blockade and seizure of vessels being openly pursued by Israel and by Trump, but Starmer was actually intending to abandon freedom of navigation and join the Trump/Netanyahu doctrine.
That is what the UK has now done by its seizure of the Smyrtos as it had passed through the Straits of Dover en route to Sikka in India.
The Dover Strait is a strait. The clue is in the name. The UK has absolutely no right to close it to Russian shipping. This is in Article 39 of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea:
Transit of international straits “shall not be impeded” is pretty plain. This is the applicable legal regime for both the Strait of Dover and the Strait of Hormuz. Obviously in time of war different considerations apply, and commercial shipping of belligerent states – and to and from belligerent states – becomes a legitimate target. Iran is fully justified in also treating states permitting attacks launched from their territory as belligerent states.
If hostilities end, this Article 39 regime should apply again in the Strait of Hormuz.
It is worth a footnote to say that Iran had, until the recent illegal aggression by Israel and the United States, always strictly observed the international law on straits even though Iran did not sign the Convention and actually had entered a formal reservation on passage through straits. Even during the war, Iran had attempted, in extremely difficult circumstances, to establish a system for passage of genuinely neutral vessels.
It is astonishing that at this moment, when navigation of the Strait of Hormuz is arguably the single most live question in all of international politics, the UK has decided to abandon the principle of free transit through straits.
It takes hypocrisy to an entire new level – it truly beggars belief – that the day after closing the Dover Strait to Russian shipping, Starmer issued a joint statement with Germany, France and Italy insisting on “Freedom of Navigation” in the strait of Hormuz.
Even if you don’t care about international law and believe that Trumpian realpolitik is better, to act against freedom of navigation now would seem an unwise decision. The UK is now copying actions like the United States naval blockades of Cuba and Venezuela, and the Israeli genocidal blockade of Gaza. These are gross violations of the Law of the Sea.
UK Government minister Lisa Nandy was on television news last night as the government pumped out militaristic propaganda. The Royal Navy’s action in boarding and capturing an entirely unarmed and peaceful merchant vessel was portrayed as an act of Nelsonian brilliance. Nandy justified the seizure on the grounds that Russia’s oil sales pay for its war with Ukraine, and that the UK was enforcing sanctions against Russia.
Neither provides an atom of legal justification for seizing the vessel. The UK is not at war with Russia. Ukraine is, and the Ukrainian navy would have been entitled to seize the vessel. For reasons of cheap popularity and to increase the massive amounts of public money swirling around the corruption honeypot of military spending, UK ministers seem determined to move us to the brink of war with Russia. But we are still not at war, and the UK accordingly has no right to seize peaceful and innocent Russian bound, owned or flagged commercial vessels.
The UK is legally entitled to put whatever sanctions it wishes on Russia. But it can only enforce those within its legitimate jurisdiction. A foreign vessel, even when engaged in innocent passage or transit passage through a UK strait or other territorial waters, is not under UK jurisdiction. The Smyrtos was in fact in international waters south of the UK when seized.
In fact this attempt to enforce Western sanctions in areas where Western powers have no jurisdiction is a classic example of the current aggressive resurgence of imperialism, where the “rules-based order” – meaning rules imposed by the imperialists – replaces international law.
Nandy also stated that the Smyrtos was a member of the “Russian shadow fleet”. This is a term that the Starmer regime and their client mainstream and corporate media have relied upon repeatedly to demonise the Russian owned or directed merchant fleet.
Russia sells oil to countries like India and China perfectly lawfully. That this oil is carried in ships bearing flags other than Russian is perfectly normal.
Nil or close to nil of those ships carrying hydrocarbons to and from the UK are UK registered and flagged.
It has been a sad truth of international shipping for many decades that commercial vessels bear flags of convenience, and that jurisdictions compete to offer the very lowest standards of crew salary and welfare regulations, officer and crew training, vehicle condition, and maritime safety and inspection regimes.
Most of the registries of well-known international flag of convenience states such as Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands, do not really exist in the sense of being government departments of those countries, as they should be. They are private companies with almost no real-world footprint, which pay a fee to the government to operate the registry, and collect the fees from the shipowners registering. The register is just names in a laptop – and very often that laptop is in London.
UK colonies often have substantial such fake registries. The UK is a strong opponent of the International Transport Workers Federation, which has struggled against this system to improve mariners’ rights.
The system evolved for wealthy shipowners to avoid all maritime safety, environmental and welfare regulation, and the UK and other Western countries which pander to the needs of the ultra-wealthy have always been complicit. The incredible hypocrisy of Western states pointing fingers at Russia for running “Flags of convenience” is breathtaking.
The West has spent decades building and profiting from the global flags-of-convenience system. Russia is simply using the same system that Western companies created and still dominate.
Incidentally the MOD’s own propaganda footage, shown by all UK mainstream media yesterday, proves that the Smyrtos is a modern, clean, well-equipped and comfortable vessel and all the propaganda about an ancient rustbucket is completely untrue.
I have finally managed to pin down the alleged legal basis of the seizure of the Smyrtos, and it is that the vessel was stateless and thus subject to boarding under Article 110 of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea.
The UK is claiming that the Smyrtos fell foul of Article 110.1 (d) that it was “without nationality”.
We will inspect that claim more closely in a moment. But, assuming it for a moment to be true, note that you only have a right to visit and inspect on the High Seas a ship that is without nationality. Article 110 absolutely does not confer any right to seize a ship on the High Seas not found on inspection to be in unlawful activity. The UK has seized the Smyrtos, brought it into UK territorial waters and then claimed it is under UK jurisdiction.
Nowhere is that allowed in the Convention.
Now let us look at the claim that the Smyrtos is without nationality. This is an astonishing story which the media will not tell you.
When the Smyrtos set sail from Russia it was flying the Cameroonian flag, and on the Cameroonian register. That is not in doubt.
While the ship was on its voyage, on 10 June Cameroon withdrew its registration. It did so because the EU and UK threatened to halt development aid to Cameroon unless they removed Russian vessels from their shipping register.
So the UK blackmailed Cameroon into deregistering the ship. Then, before the ship could reach a friendly port, the UK boarded it because it had been deregistered.
Now doubtless there are chortling people in the UK security and military industries self-congratulating themselves over how clever they are. But while this may be a clever ruse de guerre, it is hardly a ruse de paix. It is not going to survive scrutiny by an international court. An unexpected change of registration, forced upon the owners, is very difficult to complete instantly, but doubtless one was in train and perhaps finished. The UK actions are patently – and deliberately – unreasonable.
Politicians seek to drum up cheap popularity by stupid jingoism. Starmer has won a cheap headline. The world inches closer to the next world war. The UK loses yet more legitimacy in the eyes of the wider world.
Meantime Trump claims as a great victory a possible return of the Strait of Hormuz to the open status it enjoyed before he started an illegal war in the interests of Israel.
Freedom of navigation was a principle worth defending. It has been abandoned in favour of a return to the rule of the seas by those with the strongest navies. Fortunately Putin is neither as war hungry nor as politically desperate as Starmer. However Russia will now be obliged to send at least a frigate to keep the Strait of Dover open. The drums of war beat ever closer.
Craig Murray is a former Head of Maritime Section of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He is a former Alternate Head of the UK Delegation at the UN Preparatory Commission for the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse my work, including in translation.
My work has no funding at all except for your subscriptions. If you already, subscribe I would be grateful if you could check if your subscription is still active. Over 80% of my subscriptions lapse when debit or credit cards expire: the systems do not warn you.
Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up additional new methods of subscription payment including Patreon account and a Substack account ; if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish, subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come to this blog and read the articles for free.
I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
Hello Craig.
Britain also seized a Venezuelan tanker on behalf of Trump some months ago, I thought.
Vey interesting stuff Craig.
This was NATO stuff for the G7 meeting today – pure theatre to big up himself with Mertz and Macron.
And maybe even Trump – if Trump was bothered ?
I await the baying MSM and Gung -Hoh politicians reactions if the Russians ‘escort ‘ their ships up the The Channel/La manche and stop Norwegian ships for ‘ inspection ‘ under similar invented rules.
The ‘International Community ‘ often mentioned means the US and all the one’s who sail alongside her and try to impress her.
Got the world in a load of trouble impressing the USA.
By the way, last time I checked Ukraine didn’t formally declare the war to Russia. It would inconvenience Ukrainian cleptocrates too much.
Sergey
June 16, 2026 at 18:09
I don’t think that Russia declared war. Just the “SMO” nonsense.
A state that has been invaded is de facto at war with the invader.
Why would Ukrainian “cleptocrates” be inconvenienced by a Ukrainian declaration of war on Russia?
Ukraine was invaded by the US in 2014, I am not sure why you pretend otherwise.
Thanks for this. If the BBC had a shred of integrity they would invite you on to explain why this was an act of piracy; latest in a long succession of provocations and contraventions of international law by the Starmer regime.
Unfortunately our public service broadcaster is in lockstep with the uniparty’s most fervid war hawks – Healey, Burnham, Carns, Tugenhat et al – in the drive for a militarized Britain, the key to defeating Russia according to the great men and women of the political-media class.
I think this is the likely direction of travel for all of Europe. I think for the sake of parents of teenage children and the young people themselves that urgent consideration should be given to examining the ethical position of pacifism, which one may consider ought to be the default position for all young people in Europe (given the current political contexts) so that they can proceed on the basis of conscience to avoid military conscription, which is the trajectory of travel. There are established precedents in European societies to allow for conscientious objectors. I think that signing up now to that position may be prudent given what is likely to follow, perhaps in very short order.
In addition, here is a haiku in response to the not unexpected high court reversal reference Palestine Action.
Another retreat,
On the spiral of descent,
Of dissent. Grave news.
Good haiku!
Thanks M.J
Any call to arms based on ‘Our Values’ will struggle after the past couple of years.
Our values are those of Netanyahu, Palantir and Vance. And UK.media and politicians maintain a complicit and well remunerated silence.
Would those be the “values” we proclaim but do not uphold, or those we uphold but do not proclaim?
JohnnyOh45
June 15, 2026 at 15:51
Would you encourage the Russian authorities to allow pacifism to be the default position for all young people in Russia (given the current political contexts) so that they can proceed on the basis of conscience to avoid military conscription?
Aye right…..
Hi JK.
I believe everyone has the right to exercise their conscience no matter what their nationality.
JohnnyOh45
June 16, 2026 at 20:20
But would you encourage the Russian authorities to allow pacifism to be the default position for all young people in Russia?
Hi JK [16/06/2016 at 23:01]
I am not a citizen of Russia. As for your “encourag[ng] authorities to allow pacifism” it is for the individual conscience to determine that and it is outside the jurisdication of whichever authority (irrespective of nationailty) to determine the conscience of the individual on an ethical matter like this. As an aside your remark could be interpreted to mean that authorities should have the right to allow and thereby disallow people to conscientiously object to military deployment of the grounds of pacifism; is that right ?
“But would you encourage the Russian authorities to allow pacifism to be the default position for all young people in Russia?”
What evidence do you have that pacifism is the default position? otherwise that’s like the authorities saying that they have no objection to people walking on water.
” in the drive for a militarized Britain, the key to defeating Russia according to the great men and women of the political-media class.”
Not only that, but the advantages of war to the ruling classes are obvious: they only have to look at Ukraine. No more pesky elections, dissidents can be conscripted and sent to the front, all opposing political parties can be closed down, what scrutiny of public spending is left can be abolished, rally round the flag, etc etc. “Don’t you know there’s a war on?”.
Bayard
June 15, 2026 at 21:46
Do you really believe that life in Russia is good?
Free elections?
Imprisonment of political opponents?
Opposing political parties can be closed down?
If you could explain the relevance of what appears simply to be whataboutery, I might answer your questions. Meanwhile perhaps you would like to say if you take issue with anything I have said about Ukraine for reasons other than you don’t like it said.
Wow. Thank you for this. I had hoped Craig would comment when I read the news. But didn´t dare to expect due to the other shit going down in the courts at this very same moment.
If only we had a culture which warned of the consequences of unilateral misdeeds. Oh right, Macbeth (A1s7):
Brilliant, thank you.
👍👍
Spot on.
Thanks.
To understand this myself I needed to use an online modern English translation:
“But for such crimes there are still consequences in this world. Violent acts only teach others to commit violence—and the violence of our students will come back to plague us teachers.”
That sounds like the law of kharma, well put.
Legendary Shakespeare stage director Peter Brook once put it this way: “To this day there is at least one sentence on each page of Shakespeare that I don´t understand.”
Big, scary Russia is being used to justify spending billions and billions more on defence, at the expense of public services, yet we are quite happy to poke the bear in the eye and steal one of its ships on the high seas!
As others have pointed out elsewhere, the incident was filmed from the ship – i.e. stage managed. The so-called “fast” roping was pathetically slow and one at a time.
and Starmer stating that “Scotland is the front line …against Russia.”.. !
We could have been trading with them instead of the blowing up Nordstream 2 pipeline, and laying waste the European economies , to pave the way for total war.
benefitting the countries that want to control and sell other peoples’ natural resources and hike the prices accordingly.
and now the English resort to Privateering which of course the Scottish economy of old fell victim to,
and in the modern day Brexit, plus the continuing energy appropriation from Scotland and the crippling tithes to bandits in higher energy bills paid by Scots. And what happens to those who object? Or are in the way ?
This statement is practically suggesting where Russia might consider nuking
100 paces to the right….
X marks the spot.
Yes, blaming Russia for everything is Europe’s way of taking more of our money.
How much we have to fork out for Dutch Military nonsense is anyones guess.
“Dutch military tests camp design for Russian war prisoners in Marnehuizen”
https://nltimes.nl/2026/06/13/dutch-military-tests-camp-design-russian-war-prisoners-marnehuizen
wrt opening the Strait of Hormuz, I believe it is the case that nothing changes until signing the MoU on Friday in Geneva, and then there is a 30 day implementation delay. So, not fully open until around the 20th July. That leaves plenty of time for Israel to totall derail any agreements.
Stevie from what I’ve heard Ben Gvir has already stated that the MOU doesn’t apply to them and they’ve no intention whatsoever of complying to US wishes.
And the weight of unreleased Epstein material will prevent the US from reining it in, if indeed it was at all inclined to.
Funny really, the Oil was destined for India.
How many more pokes in the eye can two faced Modi take before he wakes up !
Since it is the time of the World Cup footballing metaphors shall abound, and certainly within this missive. Brian Clough famously argued that, in football, you do not prove that you are a man by showing your false teeth, and this injunction should likewise be extended to the political arena. Citoyen Starmer has by his late actions of piracy flashed a set of dentures that Dracula could be proud of. (Come to think of it, he hijacked a Russian ship,the Demeter…)
When the US launched its illegal invasion of Grenada in 1983, an action which outraged even that unthinking Reagonite apparatchnik Margaret Thatcher, Norman Mailer wrote an article in Vanity Fair in which he lambasted the invasion as a publicly stunt to deflect American opinion away from the recent suicide bombing of the US marines in Lebanon, where they were acting as surrogate Israelis and as such because the objects of Arab vengeance for the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, for which the unmentionable ahitty little country was culpable. Someone said that history does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme, and one has to say that the history unfolding at the present time is rhyming like Shakespeare never did.
One could also state that the US sabre rattling against Libya in 1986, which ended with the US bombing of Libya, with, on this occasion, the full connivance of the Thatcher government, involving the attempted murder of Gaddafi and the successful murder of his adopted daughter, was similarly designed to deflect attention from another event highlighting American impotence, in this occasion the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger. Again, by way of an aside, it was found that NASA had skimped in the construction and design of it’s much vaunted space shuttle program, in no small measure due to the constraints on state expenditure imposed by the Oil war of the early to mid seventies, the time of the vehicle’s development, which was itself the result of Western support for the aforementioned ahitty little regime in the Middle East.
As Craig’s articles makes clear, it is beyond hypocrisy for Starmer to decry Russian actions in the Crimea and to hold this piratical venture as striking a blow for freedom and international law when the UK state is providing weapons and all other manner of support to a state which is plausibly accused of genocide and whose leaders have been indicted in the ICC for crimes against humanity, and happily criminalizes not only those who take direct action to deprive Israel of the tools of genocide but also those who display any vestige of support for the same, even to the extent of placidly holding banners in the street.
Starmer is a man bereft of ideas, compassion or any conception of international law, let alone the conception of justice which must underpin it if it is to endure, and he forms a lawless triumverate along with Trump and Netanyahu in making the world a far more dangerous place
Starmer is abundantly aware that he is a hypocrite. He does not care.
“Starmer is abundantly aware that he is a hypocrite.”
I very much doubt it. Most people like Starmer believe that they are upright citizens doing the right thing. Hypocrisy is something that other people suffer from.
Once you understand that most business and political rulers are but high-functioning sociopaths (in that they are capable of faking empathy when they need to do so), everything they do makes perfect sense.
For the British, hypocricy is natural.
Thank you for reminding us that Margaret Hilda Roberts, proud to destroy the independence of the police and to impose education cuts, and proud to pretend her father never took in an Austrian refugee, was the womb which gave us Boris Johnson and Tony Blair.
I keep wondering why Russia is acting so incredibly slow and weak (as usual), for every ship the EU hijack, Russia should respond with some type of similar measurement against the EU. If not, well of course the EU piracy will go on and probably escalate.
Are you familiar with the saying, ‘give your enemy enough rope’ ?
This will piss off India and Russia probably has been paid or is insured. Win Win !
My SWAG is that the Russia does not want to make war on the West, but to be allowed to join it.
Dumb scrotes.
FF: I’d put it rather differently. As I see it, the Russian leadership is trying hard to avoid direct conflict with western Europe. Their priority is to neutralize Ukraine. They may still hope, or dream, that normal, peaceable relations with western Europe can be re-established, once Ukraine is out of the way. So they continue to ignore, or not react to, indirect provocations by Nato states, such as drone attacks plausibly attributable to Ukraine, or the hijacking of a vessel registered in a third country.
Open war with a Nato state would entail Russia running the gauntlet of hostile states lined up on either side of the Baltic, particularly Denmark and Sweden. It would also complicate relations with Nato member Turkey, which controls the Bosporus. But if western provocations become too severe to ignore, Russia will have little option but to take robust military action. Most Nato states take this possibility seriously and are themselves in no hurry to get into a big war with Russia, although they may pretend otherwise. I’m not so sure about the Baltic mad dogs, or the nostalgic imperialists who currently run the UK.
But which Nato state would choose to get militarily involved, if, say, as a result of Lithuania (hypothetically) blocking Russian traffic on the railway linking mainland Russia via Belarus with Kaliningrad, Russia invaded Lithuania to re-open the railway? Certainly not the USA, which could simply point at the relevant wording in Article 5 of the Nato treaty. Many people suppose or imagine that this treaty obliges other member states to respond with military action if a Nato member reports being attacked. It does not – it only obliges each member state to ‘…take such action as it DEEMS NECESSARY (my emphasis)….to restore the peace and security of the North Atlantic area’. Such action could include ‘the use of military force’, but it would be up to each other member state to decide what, if anything, it would do about the attack on its fellow member. There is no further obligation.
Believe me, I’ve heard all the excuses for Russian dithering and indecision already.
Pretend anyone were to try such a stunt with the US. The response would be immediate, brutal and unmistakable. Which is why nobody tries it.
Yes, wouldn’t the world be a better place if all countries were like the US?
Apart those who suffer from the reckless courage of the non-combatant, most sensible people realise that war is something that it is worth going a long way to avoid.
Lol, that line would’ve been easier to peddle years ago.
The USA’s loud hyperaggression just ended in the most abject defeat imaginable to Iran. Which bye-the-bye was *also* highly cautious & calculated in its responses.
You basically call for Russia to emulate the failed stratagems of it’s foes. As a form of shitshirring.
I doubt many Russians want to join the West now, we are doing an excellent job of deterring everyone. The West has fallen into the financialisation of everything, trying to draw as much profit out of the economy as possible, instead of building things.While China is following the development path of improving production, Russia has the materials, China the processes and labour.
So until we have moral and intelligent leaders, our economy will spiral into oblivion. At least we will have plenty of millionaires.
What are Russia’s and China’s response to Western belligerence? They avoid head on war, unsurprisingly. It looks like they try to present themselves as the reasonable followers of international law. With the biggest exception being Russia’s attack on Ukraine. Though considering US or Israeli crimes, not noteworthy.
Maybe in a few decades time there will be a cold war like before, but unlike before where the West and allies were 2/3 of the World economy, we will be 1/3 and China/Russia will have the rest of the World on their side.
“for every ship the EU hijack, Russia should respond with some type of similar measurement against the EU. ”
So Russia should become just like the EU, should it?. Please explain how that would make Europe a better place to live.
What we have here is basically bullying, by doing nothing Russia assure more provocations are on their way but for bullies to stop, you need to put up some response because otherwhise you will end up a permanent punching bag.
Same logic in Ukraine, where Russia keep doing nothing (of substance) on the battllefield and therefore invite Ukraine to escalate things. Just today Zelensky threatened to “burn Moscow”.
I refer you to Urban Fox’s reply: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2026/06/the-uk-joins-the-pirates/comment-page-1/#comment-1099737
The answer to a bully is not to become a bigger bully. If you adopt the tactics of the enemy, you become indistinguishable from them.
It is the other way around and it is a question of simple reciprocation.
Russia should set up a similar sanctions regime: board ships related to EU nations that fund, arm Ukraine. I bet the EU will stop short their piracy if that were to happen.
When a state becomes an Israeli asset, as has the UK, it inevitably acquires its rules of engagement. The rules of engagement for the Zionist occupying force are simple and well-known: “Everything is legitimate. Nothing is forbidden.” That is now the UK stance. There is no shame in violating every UN convention or settled principle in international law for a Zionist-led government. Legal process is there to be abused, both nationally (Filton) and internationally (Gaza, Ukraine). The trajectory from Starmer’s Ten Pledges to his current behaviour is horrifying and there is no visible end to it. But as TS Eliot put it, “Sweeney shifts from ham to ham / Stirring the water in his bath.” Have a cuppa, Vicar. I’m sure this will all blow over. Or up.
Israel has founded on this philosophy and could not have developed into its present Judeo-fascist form otherwise. Major powers write laws designed to consolidate their power , not to hand it over to the likes of China, Iran or Indis. When their power is challenged the laws are ditched until a new set can be agreed upon. That is what is happening now.
Apparently, the recent fire bombing of Herr Starmers properties was the work of the evil russians and nothing to do with non payment of rent boys for sexual favours.
Phew, I’m glad the BBC has cleared that up.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r2l352z2do
Stevie
The BBC version of the Starmer rent bot incident is, if possible even more pathetic and child like than the Skripal story
Of course the story is ridiculous on its face.
However, it happens to be convenient to the TPTB at the moment, so it will be treated as gospel.
Sounds like it was conceived by Chris Donnelly, with input from Luke Harding and Steve Rosenberg.
Westminster has neither the man power – nor the equipment to play the piracy on the high seas game – in sheer desperation due to two – defence politicians resigning – Starmer decided to illegal hijack a defenceless ship – England’s reputation of being a democratic nation has taken a further hit as it slides into full blown imperialism mode.
The Russian Bear is already covertly and sometimes openly taking on the whole of Nato over Ukraine, and holding its own.
I’m rather surprised to see ships that the Yookay might decide to attack or steal going through the English Channel at all. A glance at the map shows that, while it might be a trifle longer, a ship coming from Russia could go North of the Shetlands and round the West of Ireland.
Of course the obvious answer is, “Why should they?” On the other hand, sending warships to escort tankers so close to the Yookay seems too provocative for Mr Putin. It might just give the hotheads in London ideas. What if a Russian frigate passing through the Channel got the same treatment as “Moskva”?
I expect the Russians to pursue legal remedies first. Messrs Zircon, Kinzhal, Oreshnik and their friends are patient.
There’s nothing to stop Royal Navy ships from seizing ships carrying Russian cargo, wherever they may be found.
For Russia to resort to law is pointless. Law in a british court is meaningless .Surely you know that.
And for Russia to respond with force would require the Russian government to act far more proactively than they have to date.
It’s about 360 nautical miles further. It is also the open North Atlantic which is not somewhere to go if you don’t have to.
I don’t think the boarding of the Russian ship has much to do with Israel. The common thread throughout the events of the past decade, from Brexit onwards, has been the British subservience to United States foreign policy. As I see it, Israel is just a US-funded and controlled attack dog in the Middle East, a convenient cover for stifling opposition to the United States around the world, a sneaky way to close down critics as ‘racist’. Ukraine is another vile regime funded by the United States, and, like Israel, propped up by mainstream media propaganda and censorship.
As to Starmer, it’s hard to know what to make of his recent actions, to be honest – whether he is demob happy or alternatively trying to show his mettle in the hope he can stay on. Either way, and even though I didn’t vote Labour under Starmer, there is plainly something very sinister and undemocratic in so blatantly trying to parachute Burnham into Parliament and towards the leadership, without a general election, and under what will presumably be a very different manifesto from what Labour voters in 2024 thought they were agreeing to.
Yes, the Burnham move cynically manipulated by the Labour Together trickster Symons, is just another symptom of the rotten state of Britain today.
“there is plainly something very sinister and undemocratic in so blatantly trying to parachute Burnham into Parliament and towards the leadership, without a general election,”
At least he isn’t being brought into the government via the House of Lords, like Cameron, a path that is still open for Burnham. That may not be sinister, but it sure as shit ain’t democratic.
Pick a card ..any card ..
The conjurer’s trick
Yup, Isreal is the spear-tip of NATOs west Asian colonial plans, it always was. Zelenski signed Ukraine up to be more of the same, a colonial front against Russia. I initially assumed that all the Ukrainian Nazi stuff was just propaganda (and to a certain extent a lot of it is), but there really are a lot of absolutely detestable humans in that country and they are at the helm (much like our country). Starmer is just a compliant face of US empire, as was every UK leader in my lifetime. They must grow these freaks in a lab they are so compliant to Transatlantic power, I genuinely can’t figure out if they are cowards, Neoliberal fundamentalists, bought, or just incredibly dumb. Either way, not having any real choice in who you get to vote for kind of puts the lie to democracy, it’s statistically impossible that every single one of out leaders in the last 80 or so years is a sniveling lapdog of the USA. There is a term “Transatlantic pipeline” which refers to the training our media and political elites receive in the USA (or funding from the USA) . There are a lot of them, it’s similar to how Britain colonised India, elite capture (the Princely states) and a standing Army composed of it’s own citizens (the British Raj). NATO is controlled by a US general (legally), what a coincidence.
The nazis in Ukraine are quite real.
Here is a good review of nazism in the Ukrainian army: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/nazis-in-ukraine-military/
Exactly, the EU and UK is acting against its own self interests because our leaders are working for America’s. Though not Trump, but more the CIA/Pentagon axis of before and I assume continuing. The Epstein emails hint at many terrible things, but one thing is clear, a clique of rich, powerful people working together for their own ends. Often in league with politicians and governments.
Starmer came out of nowhere politically, obviously a safe pair of hands who could be trusted by Mandelson (very friendly to Epstein, oh the emails, Mandelson is a sick puppy to Epstein). Starmer, worthy of being appointed to the Trilateral commission. Starmer is compromised and works for others.
One day it would be nice to have a leader who is there to help the people and not just protect the powerful.
“This is a long-term British legal position now directly repudiated by Starmer, Lammy and Cooper.”
3 truly legendary political titans who bestride the Westminster scene like colossi (yes, I am being sarcastic).
Starmer – the ultimate empty suit; Lammy – a man who, if brains were illegal, wouldn’t be breaking the law; Cooper – married to Balls, talks mainly balls, craven, odious FOI supporter, instigated the proscription of a certain pro-Palestinian group whose name we dare not speak (or type).
Of course Starmer, Lammy and Cooper are non-entities at best, detested by their own populace and aiders and abetters of genocide to boot.
So what? Their words still have the force of law, and the police and army follow their orders.
That turns out not to be the case. The law has the force of law. The words of apparatchiks have no legal force.
An armed robber already knows full well that “Thou Shalt Not Steal!” and he doesn’t care. In fact, he will laugh, delighted in your impotence.
Should you have the gun to his head, he will be the one tearfully quoting Scripture to you, and it will not matter a whit to his brains whether or not you have the legal right to spatter them on the wall. He will still be just as dead.
Your rulers already know this. Time to get wise.
The uk has no priority other than The War On Russia, namely, in getting the Americans to fight that war for them. This is why the british are so subservient to Israeli interests.
At the same time, of course the british actions are illegal as a matter of written law. But so what? As a practical matter, law, in a british court, simply means whatever powerful and connected people say it means at the moment. The law only protects friends (e.g., Israel) and is only a stick with which to beat enemies (Russia).
This raises the question – what does Russia propose to do about it? A strongly worded email? A request to stop? Of course, were Russia to respond forcefully, the british will run screaming “Article Five! Article Five!” to the Americans.
“As a practical matter, law, in a british court, simply means whatever powerful and connected people say it means at the moment. The law only protects friends (e.g., Israel) and is only a stick with which to beat enemies (Russia).”
As Frank Wilhoit put it:
Conservatism* consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
*or what in the UK we would call Toryism. Starmer is a Tory. The usual saying about ducks applies.
That proposition applies to the left as well as the right. It is actually a truism about power, and power is famously indifferent to ideology, except as it can be weaponized at the moment.
The left/right divide is pretty obsolete these days.
You have it back to front. The USA is NATO, they pay for it and they control any army it forms. Europe is the next proxy getting thrown at Russia now that Ukraine is depleted. We have a nuclear deterrent that relies on a US software lease to work, i.e, it requires US permission to work. We have GCHQ (signals) running entirely on US infrastructure, we have planes and submarines that again, require US targeting software to use, our health service, policing and government departments are being harmed out to US military contractors (Palantir and Oracle), our colony, which we are legally required to hand back to Mauritius and which we agreed to pay 10 billion to lease it for the US (a deal worked out alongside the US and which was at its final stage in parliament) had to be scrapped because Trump told us to scrap it….10 billion we pay, for them, but we still have to break our own law and international norms on Trump’s say-so…. They have a name for us, it’s vassal. All NATO countries are Vassals to the US and the US is an oliogarghy.
” the US is an oliogarghy.”
Oligarchy or oliogarchy (rule by the few or rule by (those with the) oil)?
And yet the british wail like teenaged girls getting dumped at any suggestion that The War On Russia be wound down.
British strategy since 1917 has been to get Americans to do their fighting for them.
Mossad agent co-ordinates with the Met (all but instructing them) on who to arrest (protestors against genocide, and the sale of Palestinian lands in the West Bank) on the Edgeware road.
This video is truly unbelievable.
https://nitter.poast.org/doctor_rahmeh/status/2066556423945818357#m
Well, it is certainly a bad news day all round with one British State spokesman and spokeswoman after another arguing white is black and black is white, breaking the law with evident impunity and hurtling the country with Dr Strangelove like glee into a nuclear war with Russia. No one should feel any sense of obligation towards this country as it is. With all this flag raising nonsense going on it would be no surprise to see the skull and crossbones flying over the House of Parliament, and PMQ with Starmer in a tricorne hat and a parrot on his shoulder and the Speaker screaming “Avast, Avast” while the MPs argue about how best to divvi up their ill- gotten pieces of eight.
And wearing an eye patch!
Hilarious!!
“With all this flag raising nonsense going on it would be no surprise to see the skull and crossbones flying over the House of Parliament, and PMQ with Starmer in a tricorne hat and a parrot on his shoulder and the Speaker screaming “Avast, Avast” while the MPs argue about how best to divvi up their ill- gotten pieces of eight”
AI is your friend here.
The blackmailing of Cameroon is interesting. I read that the ship is Chinese owned, Indian managed and was on its way to Egypt. Cameroon certainly does seem to receive the usual draft of USA, EU and UK so – called development and humanitarian funding much of it by the usual NGO suspects. It is also subject to considerable Chinese infrastructure investment via the Belt and Road initiative. If the UK and its western partners continued with their foolhardy piratical tactics against countries like Cameroon, they may be deluded into thinking they have gained a performative short term victory, but in the long run they will be answering to China as well as Russia. Short sighted and stupid.
From above, “Most of the registries of well-known international flag of convenience states such as Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands, do not really exist in the sense of being government departments of those countries, as they should be. They are private companies with almost no real-world footprint, which pay a fee to the government to operate the registry, and collect the fees from the shipowners registering. The register is just names in a laptop – and very often that laptop is in London.”
Thus it is relatively easy for the UK government to make sure that Cameroon suffers little inconvenience from this move and that the registry company is adequately compensated.
So what? I’m sure that neither the Starmer regime nor anyone else would care about ownership, management or flags of convenience, were Russia to seize a ship bound to or for the uk.
As a reminder: To this day there is no European call to investigate into why Russian vessel Ursa Major sunk in the Mediterranean on Dec. 24th 2024.
Some Russian public sources suggested that it was a British submarine torpedoing and committing a casus belli. If true this could explain the silence of the Russian government to avoid an unnecessary crisis.
Since all of this, seizing tankers, causing damage to hulls of tankers, or sinking an entire ship is designed to cause just that: provocation of Russia into a war. As it already happened with Ukraine.
Although I don´t believe any of this will bear fruit as intended by British intelligence. Why should Russia let itself be dragged into a direct war with NATO.
Since neither the UK nor the rest of Europe truly want to be direct belligerents they are trying to commit all these criminal acts in covert fashion to ensure deniability. Maybe this cowardice vis-á-vis the embarrassing way official Europe is boasting and claims moral high ground is so infuriating. At least step into the light of public scrutiny and admit to your crimes. Russian secret service knows it anyway.
I can’t recall any instance known to history in which a government has conspired to get itself and its nation incinerated. But nothing would surprise me with those creatures.
Just don’t call them “the UK”. They are an unpleasant clique that has seized control of the UK government by taking advantage of the lack of checks and balances, and anyone willing to enforce them.
If Russia doesn’t respond to the provocations, all good, provoke more.
If Russia does respond, Starmer will run screaming “Article 5! Article 5!” to the Americans.
I think that´s the problem everyone is kinda a upset about.
But it´s one reason why I do not share Sergey Karaganov´s views of the use of nukes.
“If Russia does respond, Starmer will run screaming “Article 5! Article 5!” to the Americans.”
and the Yanks will point out that Article 5 does not bind them to retaliate on the UK’s behalf, pat Starmer on the head, turn him round and send him back with best wishes for a successful war.
Yet it seems the English Parliament is at war with Russia indirectly as part of NATO. The Ukrainian regime receives billions in military aid and logistical support from NATO; NATO troops are in the Ukraine under the legal cover as advisors. The English Parliament’s bellicose, aggressive stance towards Russia echoed by its fully aligned state media, just because we don’t see a stereotypical declaration of war doesn’t mean that they aren’t at war. The last two world wars didn’t start as court historians would have us believe, they started earlier with exactly the same levels of design as we are witnessing now. The Starmer led government isn’t doing this in isolation nor is it being led by external forces, history shouts the answer although few of us like to acknowledge nor how we allow ourselves to be represented by the stupid.
You keep referring to how surprised you are Starmer did something wreckless. Starmer does not run this country, the US does. We are a vassal and our branch managers behaviour is directionally proportional to whatever puppet is being driven around the Whitehouse by the oligarchy of the day. The sooner people grow out of this fantasy that we are a democracy, or that we are sovereign, the sooner we can actually move towards attaining those things. Nice vid, it’s good to see all those elderly cardboard sign wielding terrorists standing up to the popo:)
Now more than ever I urge you all to read William Penn Peace in Europe and the account of his trial. Starmer and Cooper have read neither or don’t give a f**k for the rule of law. To vote labour is as plainly to support corruption as it was to vote for the party of Boris the lying philanderer. Alex Burghart Emily Thornbury, where is your conscience. We live in Leopoldstadt.
Indeed. Even outside the Israel-owned cabinet, there is ubiquitous personal corruption among Labour MPs. All openly recorded on the various Register of Interests sites – Electoral Commission, They Work For You, UK Parliament etc. Exorbitant sums of money in dodgy donations, perks etc being raked in on top of their salaries and expenses.
And what are Labour offering in any positive sense? Even things like Starmer’s ‘altruistic’ banning of young people from social media .. was that even being discussed before young people recently began discovering the truth en masse about a certain country?
Labour is just the latest clown show in our non democracy, there are NO democratic parties in the UK.
Labour, in particular is stuffed with zionists and has a higher number of pedophiles than would be expected statistically, go figure the two are not unrelated.
The banning of young people from social media is digital ID by the backdoor because now everyone will have to provide ID and prove who they are to use social media – time to install that VPN, before they are made illegal.
Of course, if you don’t like what’s happening with Israel you could write to your MP (a la @MJ). But again beware:
“MP Peter Kyle and state prosecutors have been humiliated today after a constituent resoundingly defeated Kyle’s attempt to criminalise her for emailing him about Israel’s Gaza crimes.”
https://www.thecanary.co/skwawkbox/2026/06/15/gaza-emails-peter-kyle/
Hard to see where this oppression and madness will end.
‘persistent misuse of a communication system to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety’, for emailing her MP???
Ms.Kerrison emailed her MP on arious other issues, mainly local, as He is Her apparent representative and she has got the right to do so as a voter.
That he is acting out his Zionist allegiance by informing Starmer, who then sent in the early morning Met Raiders, trying to shut her up by having her arrested on trumped up charges, fell foul of magistrate Goldring, as the prosecutors did not prepare their inpropable case.
A small victory, but another nail in Ziolabours coffin one hopes.
Please God he only initialises his correspondence and qualifies any mild concern about Gaza with strong praise for the prime minister.
” there are NO democratic parties in the UK.”
Hardly surprising as political parties are, by their very nature, anti-democratic.
Starmer’s most fundamental characteristic is an incredibly short time horizon. He’s displayed it over and over and if he ever did play chess with any of those young men, he must have lost very quickly. In the case of this ship, he’ll have thought of the gung ho jingo headlines but not at all of the precedent set and its ongoing consequences. Any more than he considered what would be left after the active members were driven out of his party, for example.
Lisa Nandy was on the television recently. Clearly not at all bothered by all the people who will die as vaccination programmes are cut to hand out a cash bonanza to the arms companies.
Harriet Harman: The next generation.
So Gormless having satisfactorily wrapped up that little inconvenience of the 3 ” male models ” who were jolly rogered by him and his other keen chess-playing chums up in a nice ” it was the Ruskies wot dunnit ” bow – dutifully reported by Their BBC, of course, now takes the pirate theme further by indulging in a bit of High Seas theatre starring himself as a modern day Drake ” singeing the Russia Tsar’s nose hair ” : in his imagination, at least. In reality that preposterous buffoon is more accurately comparable to a Capt Pugwash/Seaman Staines character. ” All aboard the Skylark. Set sail for Oblivion Island “
The BBC mournfully notes today that only 30% of Brits now trust the news. The day after it told us Russia hired a couple of young Ukrainian male prostitutes to torch the PM’s motor.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgq1py92eko
Starmer – just gave Zelensky the makings of a dirty bomb, watch this space.
“The UK will supply enriched uranium to Ukraine’s state nuclear energy company, Energoatom, under a £210 million ($280 million) deal aimed at supporting Ukraine’s power grid, the British government has announced.
The arrangement, backed by UK Export Finance, will enable British-based Urenco to supply enriched uranium to Energoatom for the next two years, London said on Monday. The deal was agreed to by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky at Downing Street last week.
According to the British government, the agreement is intended to “power Ukraine’s nuclear plants” and strengthen the country’s energy security.”
Sounds reasonable. An explanation they would certainly accept themselves if Moscow was supplying enriched uranium to Iran.
zoot.
Ah, so its alright for a Neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine to have enriched Uranium, but not Iran – what do you think the Neo-Nazi dictator Zelensky will do with the Uranium?
Here’s a clue – a dirty bomb must surely be on the cards.
” Ukraine’s survival can only be ensured by joining NATO or giving Kyiv nuclear weapons, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said.
Zelenskyy recalled that his country agreed to give up the Soviet nuclear weapons stored on its soil in exchange for security assurances from Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.
“Which of these major nuclear powers suffered? All of them? No. Ukraine [did],” Zelenskyy said at the European Council summit in Brussels on Thursday.”
“Zelenskyy recalled that his country agreed to give up the Soviet nuclear weapons stored on its soil in exchange for security assurances from Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.”
They were not Ukraine’s nuclear weapons and Russia could have simply demanded them back, as I am sure the USA would if the UK was still sitting on their nukes once they had withdrawn their forces from British soil. I very much doubt they would pay the UK for them once, let alone twice.
Bayard
June 16, 2026 at 17:58
They were the USSR ‘s nukes.
I suppose you argue that as the successor state to the USSR, Russia gets all the goodies that it wants from all the former USSR subsidiary states?
Bayard.
Yip, I suppose that’s not first lie the wee dictator has spewed out – since he was placed in office.
“I suppose you argue that as the successor state to the USSR, Russia gets all the goodies that it wants from all the former USSR subsidiary states?”
Sorry, only you would make such a facile argument. Just as in the US, there is federal property and there is state property, so it was in the USSR. Russia, as the successor state to the USSR, retained title to all the federal property, including its nukes. That would not entitle it to help itself to “all the goodies it wants”.
How long before some company like Centrus Energy issues a press release something like this …
“Centrus Energy, based in Bethesda, Maryland, has won a $300 million contract to supply gas ultracentrifuges to Ukraine. …”.
Townsman
There’s no time for the Neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine to wait for all that – a dirty bomb can be quickly assembled using a conventional missile etc, Russia had already complained abut this possibility to the UN four years ago, and now with Ukrainian forces which are on their last legs in a military sense, the transfer of Uranium to Zelensky could, if not even the score a bit – it could at least cause a major incident in Russia.
Would the little comical dictator use a dirty bomb, for me he absolutely would.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-63373637
If Ukraine still has nuclear power stations, it already has the material for a dirty bomb. It doesn’t need the UK to supply it with more.
That may well be, but that doesn’t mean he won’t create one using Uranium from England – of course the little dictator has tried on several occasions (and thankfully failed each time) to cause a major leak from Europe’s largest nuclear powered facility the ZNPP – and he also attempted to compromise the nuclear reactor in the Russian region of Kursk.
So the little Hitler does have form – of course it should come as no surprise to anyone that England is offering this material, its security service fingerprints are all over this – and much more that’s happened in Ukraine.
“That may well be, but that doesn’t mean he won’t create one using Uranium from England”
I think we are getting dangerously close to those angels on the pin head here.
I can’t see anything particularly odd about this supply of uranium. Ukraine has a number of nuclear power stations which Russia leaves alone for obvious reasons as it blows the non-nuclear ones to bits. These stations, like all large light water reactors, run on low-enriched uranium. Russia is a major supplier of that, even to the USA, but Ukraine now needs to get it from somewhere else.
I’m surprised that you’re surprised. The “rule of law” has been a dead letter in the UK for years now. The UK has no written constitution, so the party with an impregnable majority in the HoC can do whatever it likes. If it wants to do something that’s against the law, all it has to do is change the law.
For a long time, probably up to Blair and certainly up to about the mid-1980s, there was a certain sense of ethical restraint on senior politicians. No longer.
Mr. Murray
I’ve just posted in the discussion forum re. Ukraine ‘s claims about Azov sea, Kerch strait and Crimean bridge.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague has issued a final ruling in favor of Russia.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/forums/topic/ukraine-date-nov-2023/page/52/#post-106867
But I find this blog like appropriate to post here too.
Also, it looks like BIG news.
If i could ask you to please have a look and comment?
So far in the West it´s totally ignored. I mean totally.
Even the good alternative platforms are currently too busy with Iran or other things, be it just the World Cup.