Have seen very little discussion of this strange hijacking case of the Russian freighter, the Arctic Sea
Latest reports, including this NY Times article are claiming the cargo was nuclear instead of the lumber listed.
Whatever this vessel was carrying, is it still in the hold? If not, what happened to it? If Yulia’s suspicions are correct, how big of a concern?
Well, I have no answers to your questions, and there are surely many relevant questions regarding this event. However, claiming that it is “anti-aircraft or nuclear” related is pure speculation and sensationalist journalism, not supported by evidence.
I’d wait for some official report and then see how much sense it makes. I believe a few more governments are involved in the investigation and have access to classified material. Yulia knows as little as any of us about what actually happened or what was on that ship, so for now, her article is just another conspiracy theory. Other presented ideas are Kh-55 cruise missiles or aliens.
Perhaps speculaton, but hardly sensationalism. Strikes me that there is much peculiar about the event, including the supposed cargo relative to the destination.
Never mind the manner which the Russians handled his.
From Russia, you can count it not adding up.
Her article or this article.
Given the destination, arms or other funny things makes a great deal of sense (and would make the hijacking - if it was one - make rather more sense than wood).
Aliens is outlandish.
Funny arms dealing by Russians, either corruptly or under official cover, however is hardly an outlandish bit of speculation nor indeed given either official destination or its place of capture off of West Africa, particularly a stretch.
So there was no hijacking in the Arctic Sea, just the hijacking of a freighter with that name.
The thread title made it sound more interesting than it was.
It’s sensationalism in the sense that it puts more weight behind speculation than there is evidence for, in order to put Russia in bad light. Maybe there’s a better word than sensationalism in this case.
I meant mostly comments like “To put it plainly: The Arctic Sea was carrying some sort of anti-aircraft or nuclear contraption intended for a nice, peaceful country like Syria, and they were caught with it, …”, that make their speculation it appear much more certain that it actually is.
What specifically do you mean?
I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s the case, but it’ll be interesting to see anyway. As well as what the Swedish, Finnish, Estonian and Maltese governments say.
I’m interested in what the supposed hijackers’ plan actually was. It’s a very strange place to hijack a ship. What was their goal? Here peoples’ speculations go all the way from Mossad or CIA to FSB or Russian mafia.
Nuclear weapons is too.
It is still pure speculation. I’d revisit the issue after the international investigation is complete. Then we’ll see how well/poorly the story fits together.
Article in Time* Magazine on the subject.
Uhuh.
In short, you’ve got some Russia fetish and anything that puts them in a bad light is “sensationalism.”
Mate, if you don’t know what I refer to… Let’s say that just about all observers found Russian handling of this to date “less-than straightforward.” And given Russian habits…
Mmmm. No. Aliens don’t exist. Nuclear weapons do. And Russia has them. And lots of reasonable people have expressed concern about Russian handling of their technology. A stretch then and unlikely, perhaps - if we’re talking actual nuclear weapons versus material, but if we are talking nuclear technologies, not even a stretch, in fact makes a great deal of sense.
Pure speculation?
Perhaps, actually feels like well-founded speculation.
[quote=“Alessan, post:6, topic:508300”]
Article in Time* Magazine on the subject.
Heh.
Nice move, making the issue about me. Call me a fetishist and I’ll call you a phobic; now how does that help the discussion? What is often the case is that European and American media do their damndest to turn anything Russia does into great evil. In that vein, I think it’s sensationalist to jump on such speculation when there is yet no evidence to suggest so.
I don’t discount the possibility of something shady going on there, but getting worked up about nuclear weapons and other conspiracies does nothing but sow distrust, which is exactly why the “opposition journalist” makes such statements.
What does Russia have to gain from increased nuclear weapon proliferation?
Russia isn’t just one person. *Individual *Russians may have a lot to gain from nuclear proliferation.
Incidentally, are you implying that anyone who criticizes Russia is anti-Russian?
OK, the plot thickens - Israeli media is reporting that the ship contained S-300 misslies supplied by rogue Russian elements, without the Kremlin’s knowlege. Some nation’s intelligence service (maybe the Mossad) caught wind of the operation and informed Moscow, who sent the “hijackers” to seize the ship before it left the Baltic. Everything past that point was pure theater.
I’ll link to a translation as soon as one shows up on line.
That’s true. I was commenting more regarding the Russian government angle. Maybe I misinterpreted the speculation.
No I do not, there are countless things to criticize.
That’s interesting. What sources do they have?
Quite.
He does seem to have that tendency.
You already do so at the drop of a hat, mate. Hardly a new thing.
Eh, I’d say that in fact the European media (ex the frontier countries) don’t make any particular effort at all at spinning Russia. It just so happens the Russians in the past 5-10 years have been damned good at bad behaviour.
Rather telling, your quote marks.
Alessan got that one. I mean bloody hell man, it was fucking obvious.
They’re saying “knowlegable sources in Russia, Europe and the Middle East” The article (on ynet.co.il, the Yediot Aharonot website) was written by Ron Ben-Yishai, one of Israel’s most respected journalists.
Ah, the Russians. I figured it had to be someone besides us, because the operation didn’t evolve into a complete clusterfuck.
It’s nice to see how things work when competent intelligence agencies do their thing.
That’s the subject for another thread. I disagree though. Many things have been spun at high velocities. By that I don’t mean everything, as there is surely legitimate criticism too.
Telling? I quoted the linked article.
Here’s a little blurb about it, not much useful info yet though:
Henrichek is adamant that there’s nothing believable about the allegations that have been made.
Well, this is like deja vu all over again, only not quite deja vu.
We had another thread here in just the past week (started by Henrichek) regarding flimsy claims printed in a top Swedish newspaper that Israelis are stealing the body parts of Palestinians, and oddly enough Henrichek is a lot more ambivalent about that story.
Can you say “double standard”?
Maybe the lesson here is that speculation and rumor, no matter how short on facts, is defended much more easily if it fits one’s biases. 
I wasn’t aware that we needed that lesson again. 
The corollary to that lesson, of course, is that some will see bias even if some refuse to use speculation and rumor. Here it’s about having a “Russian fetish”, other places it’ll be “American exceptionalism” or “nationalistic pride”, or what have you.
The analysis, itself, evidently has to come to the ‘right’ conclusions or ad hom will debunk the conclusions. 
As it is the situation here was fairly basic. We knew something was a bit off, and some folks immediately justified leaping to conclusions basically by saying “But it’s Russia!!!” Looks to be that the initial assumptions were wrong(ish), the political assumptions were wrong (very) and the Russian government served as the ‘good guys’ in this little drama.