E.U. admiral believes the wayward Artic Sea was carrying missiles; hijacked by -

[darkjedi]

- Israel.

(click to show/hide)

EU source implies Israel behind July hijacking of Russian ship

Admiral Tarmo Kouts, who heads European Union's piracy watch, tells Time Magazine Israel was most likely responsible for hijacking of Arctic Sea in an attempt to intercept Mideast bound missile delivery

Ynet
Published:    09.02.09, 08:46 / Israel News

A European source claimed in a recent interview with Time Magazine, that Israel was responsible for the hijacking of Russian cargo ship the Arctic Sea since it was suspected of carrying an arms shipment to the Middle East, Ynet learned Wednesday.

The Arctic Sea went missing in July while en route from Finland to Algeria. Its disappearance sparked reports of a first incident of piracy in European waters in modern times.

The Russian Navy has since located the ship, arrested the alleged hijackers and charged them with kidnapping and piracy, but Admiral Tarmo Kouts, the European Union's rapporteur on piracy, now claims the Arctic Sea was intercepted by Israel as it carried a secret cargo of weapons to the Middle East.

Russia has adamantly denied the ship was carrying any kind of military supplies.

Nevertheless, Kouts told Time that only a shipment of missiles could account for Moscow's "bizarre" behavior throughout the month-long saga: "There is the idea that there were missiles aboard, and one can't explain this situation in any other way. As a sailor with years of experience, I can tell you that the official versions are not realistic."

Kouts claims that an Israeli interception of the ship is the most likely explanation. But his theory, has been vehemently denied by Russia's envoy to NATO, Dmitri Rogozin, who says Kouts should stop "running his mouth."

Too many unanswered questions

Moscow's official explanation was simple: The Arctic Sea, manned by a Russian crew, set sail from Finland under a Maltese flag on July 22. It was destined for Algeria and carried less than $2 million worth of timber. Then a group of eight Russian and former Soviet hijackers boarded the ship on July 24. The ship's tracking device was disabled in the last days of July, as it passed through the English Channel into the Atlantic, and the ship disappeared. On Aug. 12, the Russian navy sent out a search party. A week later, Russia declared that the ship and its crew had been rescued.

The explanation, however, does little to clear many unanswered questions: Why, with so many other ships carrying much more valuable cargo, would the hijackers target the Arctic Sea and its small load of timber?

Why didn't the ship send out a distress signal? Why did Israeli President Shimon Peres pay a surprise visit to Russia a day after the ship was rescued? Why did Russia wait so long to send its navy to find the ship? And why did family members of the suspects claim their kin were "hostages to some kind of political game"?

There are also several questions surrounding ship's rescue. The Kremlin apparently dispatched a completely disproportionate force, including destroyers and submarines, to look for the vessel and it took five days for them to find it, even though the Russian Foreign Ministry later claimed that it was fully aware of the Arctic Sea's coordinates the entire time.

On top of that, to fly the alleged pirates and the crew back to Moscow – a group of only 19 men – Russia dispatched two enormous military-cargo planes.

"Even from the basic facts, without assumptions, it is clear that this was not just piracy," said Mikhail Voitenko, editor of the Russian maritime journal Sovfrakht, which has been tracking unusual incidents on the high seas for decades.

"I've never seen anything like this. These are some of the most heavily policed waters in the world. You cannot just hide a ship there for weeks without government involvement."

According to Voitenko and other experts, a secret cargo could have been hidden on the ship during the two weeks it spent in Kaliningrad for repairs, just before it picked up its Finnish haul of timber. Not contiguous with the rest of Russia, Kaliningrad is the country's westernmost enclave on the coast of the Baltic Sea, and is known as a hub for Russian smugglers. "Personally, I don't care about any missiles. I care about what they're doing with those sailors."

Many governments, and Jerusalem especially, have expressed concerns about missile shipments bound for the Middle East: Israel has consistently raised alarms about Russia's plans to sell MiG-31 fighter planes to Syria and its construction of a nuclear-power station in southwestern Iran.

"The most likely explanation is that the Israelis intercepted this cargo, which had been meant for Syria or Iran," said Yulya Latynina, a prominent political commentator and radio host on Echo of Moscow, a station owned by state-controlled gas giant Gazprom.

"They will now use the incident as a bargaining chip with Russia over weapons sales in the region, while allowing Russia to save face by taking its empty ship back home."

According to the report in Time, both the Israeli Prime Minister's office and Mossad, declined comment.

Desperate to reduce Russian influence in the Middle East, I see.

[AceHigh]

Bah, Russia and Israel have been bickering about this for some time. Last time Israel came with the ultimatum "Stop selling weapons to Syria, or we will arm Georgia".

This is an interesting "war by proxy" so to speak.

Also Russians are becoming sloppy, they could easily transfer cargo through the Kaspian sea to Iran, from where it would be smuggled more efficiently to other arab countries.

[darkjedi]

I think Caspian sea is more closely watched because it's a more direct naval route to the Middle East. If Russia had a need to be covert they'll be sending their ships along paths that are less obvious.

Btw Israel has already suspended the forming new arms sale contracts with Georgia; they might withdraw the existing contracts too.

And I don't really think Iran was Russia's final destination; they have a lot more clients, like Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt; those who have reasons to have secret dealings with Russia away from the prying eyes of Israel.

Russia might be using Iran to protect the name of the clients; for example, if Israel discovered that Russia and Jordan were trading in weapons that can pose threat to Israel, then Jordan's reputation within Israel will be worsened. But if Israel thinks that Iran was the recipient of such weapons because the ships ended up in Iran, (even though the weapons eventually ended up in Jordan through other routes) Israel will not suspect Jordan.

[AceHigh]

I think Caspian sea is more closely watched because it's a more direct naval route to the Middle East. If Russia had a need to be covert they'll be sending their ships along paths that are less obvious.

If I am not mistaken, it has no international waters. So unless Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan are doing the watching, then nothing can stop Russia from transporting whatever they want... of course there are no Israel or US fleets there to stop them anyway, not to mention that the dominant navy in that lake is Russian to begin with.

[darkjedi]

Yeah. That means Russia had other reasons for skirting the Atlantic Ocean rather than going through the Caspian Sea; I'm pretty sure they didn't simply forget the existence of the most obvious naval trade route between Russia and the Middle East. Maybe they didn't intend to sell covert arms to Middle East countries after all. Maybe they were bound to somewhere else, like Africa. That will eliminate the justification for Israel to confiscate the Russian arms; what Russia sells to Africa is none of Israel's business. Or maybe Russia simply wasn't selling any weapons in the first place.

There are just so many things that we don't know of yet. xD We'll just have to watch the development over the next few days.

[AceHigh]

That will eliminate the justification for Israel to confiscate the Russian arms

If they are selling arms to countries that UN resolution has signed a ban on, then Israel can justify it's capture by stating that it interrupted an illegal trade. And when it comes to Africa, lot's of countries there are on the list.

[darkjedi]

If they are selling arms to countries that UN resolution has signed a ban on, then Israel can justify it's capture by stating that it interrupted an illegal trade. And when it comes to Africa, lot's of countries there are on the list.

Indeed. So we could assume that Russia was selling cargo that were not deemed illegal; for example, if Israel intercepted advanced RPGs and SAMs being transferred to Syria, they might push themselves and insist on keeping the weapons even though it's not illegal. But if it was heading for South Africa instead, they will just let it go. It's what UAE recently did with a North Korean cargo passing through its territory containing 'heavy machinery' such as RPG and machine guns; we don't exactly know if they are banned, because they could be considered as... 'personnel weapons', but since the ship was bound for Iran, they decided to detain it first and ask questions later.

And of course there's also the more likely possibility that the E.U. admiral was indeed correct in saying that Russia was really transferring banned weapons. But what irks me is how exactly Israel intercepted a Russian vessel in the Atlantic Ocean, when Israel's in the Middle East. @_@ Looks as if they planned it, don't you think? How could they have known that they'll be carrying banned cargo, and where it was bound to, and where they'll be located in a particular time? And if they indeed knew these things, why didn't they just divulge the information to the UN watchdogs instead?

[AceHigh]

And if they indeed knew these things, why didn't they just divulge the information to the UN watchdogs instead?

Dude, it's Israel. They have their own way of dealing with things 

[lx4]

I guess the truth will come out sooner or later. All of Israels "secret" missions seem to leak out.

[Proin Drakenzol]

And if they indeed knew these things, why didn't they just divulge the information to the UN watchdogs instead?

For the same reason that Israel neither confirms nor denies their possession of nuclear weapons.

Also: the UN is anti-Israel.

[sdedalus83]

Even if the UN were neutral, why would a rabid pitbull seek assistance from toy poodles?

[darkjedi]

From The Sunday Times
September 6, 2009

(click to show/hide)

Missing channel pirate ship carried Russian arms for Iran

A CARGO ship that vanished in the Channel was carrying arms to Iran and was being tracked by Mossad, the Israeli security service, according to sources in both Russia and Israel.

The Arctic Sea, officially carrying a cargo of timber worth £1.3m, disappeared en route from Finland to Algeria on July 24. It was recovered off west Africa on August 17 when eight alleged hijackers were arrested. The Kremlin has consistently denied that the vessel was carrying a secret cargo. It claims the ship was hijacked by criminals who demanded a £1m ransom.

The official version was challenged by sources in Tel Aviv and Moscow who claimed the ship had been loaded with S-300 missiles, Russia’s most advanced anti-aircraft weapon, while undergoing repairs in the Russian port of Kaliningrad.

Mossad, which closely monitors arms supplies to Iran, is said to have tipped off the Russian government that the shipment had been sold by former military officers linked to the underworld.

he Kremlin then ordered a naval rescue mission which involved destroyers and submarines. Any evidence that the Kremlin had let advanced weaponry fall into the hands of criminals or be sold to Iran would be highly embarrassing, so military officials believe a “cover story” was concocted.

“The official version is ridiculous and was given to allow the Kremlin to save face,” said a Russian military source. “I’ve spoken to people close to the investigation and they’ve pretty much confirmed Mossad’s involvement. It’s laughable to believe all this fuss was over a load of timber. I’m not alone in believing that it was carrying weapons to Iran.”

The alleged hijackers, four Estonians, two Russians and two Latvians, will go on trial in Moscow. According to the Kremlin’s account, they boarded the Arctic Sea in the Baltic by claiming their inflatable craft was in trouble and then took over the ship at gunpoint.

Sources in Moscow suggested Mossad may have played a part in the alleged hijacking by setting up a criminal gang, who were unlikely to have known anything about a secret cargo. “The best way for the Israelis to block the cargo from reaching Iran would have been to create a lot of noise around the ship,” said a former army officer.

“Once the news of the hijack broke, the game was up for the arms dealers. The Russians had to act. That’s why I don’t rule out Mossad being behind the hijacking. It stopped the shipment and gave the Kremlin a way out so that it can now claim it mounted a brilliant rescue mission.”

According to Israeli military sources, Israel received intelligence that weapons bound for Iran were being loaded in Kaliningrad, a port notorious for gun runners. “A decision was then taken to inform the Kremlin,” said the source.

Had the S-300 missiles been delivered, Iran would have significantly strengthened its air defences. An Israeli air force source said that in the event of an attack on Iranian nuclear installations, such missiles could increase Israeli casualties by 50%.

Since the Arctic Sea was retaken, Russia has imposed a security blackout. The hijackers, the crew and two investigative teams were flown back to Moscow in three Il-76 air freight planes. For more than a week after being freed the crew were not allowed to talk to their families. The captain and three crew are still on board the ship, which has resumed its voyage to Algeria, but they have not been able to call home.

Last week Mikhail Voitenko, an outspoken piracy expert who disputed the Kremlin’s original version of events, fled Russia, claiming he had received threats from an official angered by his statements.

Admiral Tarmo Kouts, former commander of Estonia’s armed forces and the European Union’s rapporteur on piracy, has infuriated Moscow by saying the only plausible explanation of the mystery is that the ship was transporting weapons. A spokesman for the Finnish owners denied that missiles could have been secretly loaded onto the ship.

Sources who suspect Mossad’s involvement point to a visit to Moscow by Shimon Peres, the Israeli president, the day after the Arctic Sea was rescued. Peres held four hours of private talks with Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president. Although the Israeli foreign ministry would not be drawn on the Arctic Sea, it confirmed that the two leaders had discussed the sale of Russian weapons to countries hostile to Israel. According to Israeli officials, Peres received verbal guarantees from the Russians that they would not sell advanced weapons systems to Iran or Syria.

“Clearly the Israelis played a role in the whole Arctic Sea saga,” said a Russian military source. “Peres used the incident as a bargaining chip over the issue of arms sales to Arab states, while Israel allowed the Kremlin a way out with its claims to have successfully foiled a piracy incident.”

Apparently these missiles were S-300 missiles.

Now we must ask ourselves again why Israel is so desperate to keep its Arab neighbors from getting defensive weapons.



Some dude has a conspiracy theory. According to him, the ship was actually bound for Israel, probably set up by Israeli agents, maybe agents of Mossad itself. (I thought it was a person lol) That's why the Russian-supplied S-300 shipment was considered illegal; it wasn't supposed to go to Israel. The Russians learned about it and sent destroyers and submarines to detain the ship. Peres freaked out and went to Russia and lobbied Dmitry to shush it up.

[lx4]

I was visiting my grandparents on the Gotland island when the Arctic Sea was hijacked in Swedish water just outside the island. It was first page in the local newspaper 

[mgz]

Bah, Russia and Israel have been bickering about this for some time. Last time Israel came with the ultimatum "Stop selling weapons to Syria, or we will arm Georgia".

This is an interesting "war by proxy" so to speak.

Also Russians are becoming sloppy, they could easily transfer cargo through the Kaspian sea to Iran, from where it would be smuggled more efficiently to other arab countries.

its just like the cuban missile crisis but without cuba or the us being directly involved

[darkjedi]

Except that while Cuban missile crisis was an offensive proxy warfare this sale of S-300 missiles is a defensive proxy warfare. It's just trying to make it harder for the U.S. to invade Iran.

[mgz]

Except that while Cuban missile crisis was an offensive proxy warfare this sale of S-300 missiles is a defensive proxy warfare. It's just trying to make it harder for the U.S. to invade Iran.

regardless what the weapons are being used for its weapon sales that are the issue with one party, and the suprise the US had wasnt o yea we will arm this country it was SURPISE theres already missiles there

[darkjedi]

I believe the effect of Cuban missile crisis was more of a psychological deterrence than a practical one. It showed how vulnerable the U.S. mainland is to Soviet influences. On the other hand the S-300 is more practical rather than psychological because it still doesn't scare the U.S. people enough while it's still enough to beat the hell out of the U.S. when used correctly in a realistic and practical situation. Just look at relic2279's proud replies to my Al Jazeera thread lol (no offense intended, ok?)

[mgz]

I believe the effect of Cuban missile crisis was more of a psychological deterrence than a practical one. It showed how vulnerable the U.S. mainland is to Soviet influences. On the other hand the S-300 is more practical rather than psychological because it still doesn't scare the U.S. people enough while it's still enough to beat the hell out of the U.S. when used correctly in a realistic and practical situation. Just look at relic2279's proud replies to my Al Jazeera thread lol (no offense intended, ok?)

no the missiles in cuba would have without a doubt been a huge threat even if there was no actual intent to use them. Simply due to the fact that by the time it was targeted and launched there wouldnt be much time for reaction state side. Which is why they took such a knee jerk reaction

[darkjedi]

no the missiles in cuba would have without a doubt been a huge threat even if there was no actual intent to use them.

No, they won't be. The missiles in Cuba only signified the length of the arm of the Soviet government. It made the U.S. civilians feel more vulnerable and feel the influence of the Soviet come closer to home. It didn't have a practical military application. If it really came to a nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, whether or not there were Soviet missiles in Cuba, the end result of the war would have been the same. They'll both be destroyed, Cuban missile or no. So Cuba had limited military uses.

Simply due to the fact that by the time it was targeted and launched there wouldnt be much time for reaction state side. Which is why they took such a knee jerk reaction

Do you think if the Soviet fired their missiles from 4000 km from Ukraine instead of 500 km from Cuba it would have made a difference? U.S. will still be destroyed. However some second-strike capabilities of the U.S. will inevitably survive the initial Soviet first-strike too. The Soviets will also be destroyed. The end result is the same.

[AceHigh]

Do you think if the Soviet fired their missiles from 4000 km from Ukraine instead of 500 km from Cuba it would have made a difference? U.S. will still be destroyed. However some second-strike capabilities of the U.S. will inevitably survive the initial Soviet first-strike too. The Soviets will also be destroyed. The end result is the same.

God, I love the good ol' MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction)
And thank god Russians have created their brand new nuke carriers which can't be interrupted by any missile shield, that alone gave the world back the MAD. As long as we have MAD, there will be peace between the nuclear powers... everyone benefits from that.