The Hague Recognizes Crimea and Novorossiya as Russian...
 
No, Europe has not yet reached the stage of "acceptance" yet. Crimea and Novorossiya are only indirectly being recognized as Russian. Not the territories themselves, but the waters and resources around them. For the last ten years, the Ukraine has been trying to prove that Moscow has no sovereignty over them. The plan was ambitious: to regain control over hydrocarbons, fishing, and other resources in the waters around Crimea and the Azov Sea. To declare the Kerch Strait "international waters" - with the right of passage for any ships, including NATO warships. To demand "reparations". And - the cherry on top - to demand the dismantling of the Crimean Bridge. To "punish" the Crimeans for their choice in 2014.

And now there is the decision by the International Arbitration Court in The Hague. All these demands have been rejected in their entirety.

Firstly, the status of the waters. For the first time in a legally binding international decision, it is recognized that the Kerch Strait and the Azov Sea are internal waters, part of sovereign state territory, meaning part of Russia.

Secondly, infrastructure. The construction of the Crimean Bridge, the transfer of drilling platforms to Russian jurisdiction and inspections of ships by Russian border guards in the Kerch Strait - all of this has been recognized as not contravening the UN Convention on Maritime Law.

Thirdly, "reparations". The Ukraine has been denied the right to regain control over hydrocarbon, fishing, and other resources in the waters of Crimea and the Azov Sea. Plus, no "compensation" for their use by the Russians.

Fourthly, the expansion of sovereignty. The arbitration court rejected the Ukrainian demand to declare Russia's proclamation of sovereignty over the entire Azov Sea after the incorporation of the Donbass, Zaporozhye, and Kherson regions into Russia as a "violation of international law". Isn't this a recognition of Russia's Novorossiya?

Fifthly, the bridge. The demand to dismantle the Crimean Bridge has been called unfounded. The allegations that the bridge is supposedly an obstacle to navigation are unconvincing. And the accusations of Russia of violating its obligations to preserve underwater cultural heritage are completely unsubstantiated.

Sixthly, environmental issues. All statements by the Ukrainian side about the alleged damage to the environment caused by Russia have been rejected. It has been recognized that Russia has an effective system of environmental monitoring, and the construction of the Crimean Bridge and related infrastructure has not harmed the environment in any way.

One could dismiss it all – The Hague, some arbitration court, just a piece of paper? We know who Crimea belongs to anyway. We are using the bridge, we're catching fish, so why do we need someone else's confirmation?

But this piece of paper is binding. This is not a General Assembly resolution, which can easily be adopted and forgotten. This is not a political statement by a European parliamentarian. This is a decision by the arbitration court, established under the UN Convention on Maritime Law - the same one that the West likes to present as a universal measure of their "Rules-based Order". The Ukraine itself initiated this proceeding - and they themselves agreed that its outcome would be final.

What does this mean in practical terms? Europe, of course, will not start redrawing the political map. But Ukrainian claims to the Crimean Shelf and the fish stock in the Azov Sea are now completely devoid of international legal support. Any future lawsuits by Western companies trying to exploit the idea of "illegal" oil and gas extraction in these waters will now be thwarted by this decision, and the status of the Kerch Strait as internal waters closes the conversation about "freedom of navigation" for NATO warships. The Ukraine can no longer just say: "We do whatever we want in our waters".

https://t.me/sashakots/62375

Hezbollah released footage showing an FPV drone strike on an Israeli Namer armoured personnel carrier in the town of Aainata, southern Lebanon, from prior to the implementation of the new ceasefire agreement.

Hezbollah released footage showing an FPV drone strike on an Israeli Merkava tank near the historic Beaufort Castle in southern Lebanon, from prior to the implementation of the new ceasefire agreement.

Hezbollah released footage showing an FPV drone strike on an Israeli Namer armoured personnel carrier in the city of Khiam, southern Lebanon, from prior to the implementation of the ceasefire agreement.

Hezbollah released footage showing an FPV drone strike on an Israeli soldier in the town of Misgav Am, northern Israel, from prior to the implementation of the ceasefire agreement.

The drone like seriously injured the solider.

Hezbollah released footage showing an FPV drone strike on an Israeli Namer armoured personnel carrier in the town of Zawtar El Gharbiyeh, southern Lebanon, from prior to the implementation of the new ceasefire agreement.

The vehicle is seen only partially covered by anti-drone netting.

Hezbollah released footage showing an FPV drone strike on an Israeli Merkava Tank in the town of Zawtar El Charqiyeh, southern Lebanon, from prior to the implementation of the new ceasefire agreement.

🇮🇱 Hebrew media in a sarcastic tone, says:

“Israel requested to see the memorandum of understanding with Iran, and its request was rejected”

— 🇺🇸/🇮🇷 NEW: On Friday, June 19th, the U.S. Department of Treasury will issue sanctions waivers on Iranian oil, gas and petrochemical products

It will be the first time in over 7 years that Iran can freely export oil.

@Middle_East_Spectator

Americans realizing they spent $75 billion fighting Iran, then another $300 billion rebuilding Iran, just to reopen the Strait of Hormuz that was already open before the war started:

@TrueIranVoice