View Full Version : Russia lays claim to the North Pole
KafirChobee
08-02-2007, 03:40
For the most part it seems old news that Putin and his KGB is intent on expanding Russia's sphere of influence and control, but proclaiming the Northpole is theirs seems a stretch. Still, as I understand it, all they need do is to prove "their" continental shelve is extended by some underground ridge - then they can begin drilling for all the oil (etc) there.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1642905,00.html?xid=newsletter-weekly
[are a buncha articles and opinions on this - just put "Russia claims North Pole" in a search]
To demonstrate my ignorance on this subject - I always assumed that the Arctic was considered unclaimable, like the moon. Or, since we (USA) planted our flag there can we now claim it? Maybe make it a new property or protectorate- with the intent of giving it statehood in the future (soon as we can convince 100 people to live there - like Wyoming or N. Dakota or Alaska) - we'll change the name of course to New Reagone or something though, maybe Lunarois (Lunarchussetts?).
My first reactions to the story were of minor shock, then disgust, and finally anger. Oh, well - greed do rule the day. What Putin does barely surprises me any more - but, this one I thought had gone away back in 2001. Guess again.
Oh, the Russians are claiming rights in the Bering Strates as well - who would a guessed? Next, they'll want us to give back the "ice box" - Alaska (wonder if they'ld be willing to take Senator Stevens instead?).
The entire land grab is simply about oil - am truelly shocked we didn't lay claim first. Exxon-Mobile (etc) are sitting on their arse, imo.
We Danes have our eyes on the North Pole too http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3716178.stm.
From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pole)
Under international law, no country owns the North Pole or the region of the Arctic Ocean surrounding it yet. The five surrounding Arctic states, Russia, the United States, Canada, Norway and Denmark (via Greenland), are limited to a 320 kilometre (200-mile) economic zone around their coasts.
Upon ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a country has a ten year period to make claims to extend its 200 mile zone.[23] Due to this Norway (ratified the convention in 1996[24]), Russia (ratified in 1997[24]), Canada (ratified in 2003[24]) and Denmark (ratified in 2004[24]) launched projects to base claims, that certain Arctic sectors should belong to their territories.
CBR
Marshal Murat
08-02-2007, 04:42
Is Santa going to a Gulag?
If Russia gets the North Pole, Santa will become a communist.
Marshal Murat
08-02-2007, 04:58
He's already red.
:2thumbsup:
Well he is already red....
Trying to claim the north pole is crap though. It's not actually land just an ice flow. And las I checked a nation could only claim 300 KM form the shore as "coastal waters."
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-02-2007, 05:12
It's not actually land just an ice flow.
Maybe not for much longer. :whip:
Gregoshi
08-02-2007, 05:55
Just great. The situation can only go south from here.
Valdincan
08-02-2007, 07:11
If Russia gets the North Pole, Santa will become a communist.
Hes already red and hands out free stuff.
Its not really a big deal even if Russia successfully claims it, the only thing they gain is drinking water, which is a (or soon will be) a valuable commodity.
Samurai Waki
08-02-2007, 07:51
Well, they can have it. On the Condition that the West/NATO spheres of influence can proclaim Antarctica, The Moon, and Mars as their sovereign Territory. Oh and maybe that one Icy Moon of Jupiter.
Papewaio
08-02-2007, 07:58
There is already claimants to Antarctica... Australia being one of the major ones, along with NZ and Chile by memory...
seireikhaan
08-02-2007, 08:21
Well, Antarctica actually has a landmass. The Arctic is just a giant block of ice. Ice can melt(and probably will melt sometime soon) and thus is not a permanent landmass. Its basically like claiming a piece of water in the middle of the Pacific just because there's oil there. Its the same basic substance: H2O.
This should be good news...
More oil to the world oil reserves ensures the american way of living another decade or so (added to the limit already proposed ).
As long as oil is traded in US dollars, at least that nation should not complain.
North Pole eh? Not too far from Spitsbergen where our coal mines are. I bet we could lay claim to that area as well.
Everyone knows that the South Pole is Norwegian... We planted the first flag there and a great area there is still called Queen Mauds land if I am not mistaken.
Peasant Phill
08-02-2007, 08:35
I've studied international law last year (not as a major mind you) and sea law was part of this course. I can confirm that CBR is right. I have a map of the North Pole as it is divided at the moment between Canada, Russia, USA, Norway and Denmark.
Why would anybody want to claim the North Pole, well you've guessed it because of the oil. At the moment those zones are worth nothing but when easier reachable oil reservoirs get depleted it will become economical viable to drill for oil there.
I also have a fun fact about Antartica. Did you know that Belgium has a small claim at Antartica although the country is entirely situated on the northern hemisphere?
Gah, you Norwegians only have parts of the South Pole. And isn't it claimed by Argentinia after they got kicked of the Falklands? (You need to have some sort of colony, don't ya?)
As for the Northpole, you may want to drill for oil there, but they'll never get it done ... unless they are going to shoot at the enviromentalists and scientists.
Maybe a very stupid question, but isn't the northpole just a big piece of ice? Oil? :inquisitive:
And I thought it was of the Danish :inquisitive:
I found an entry in Wikipedia about the claim of the Artic here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_the_Arctic#_note-ratif).
About the Claimants of Antartica:
https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/asleka/Antarctica_territories.jpg
It seems there could be a three way war between Argentina, Chile and UK for their claims on the same area. Germany lost their claim in 1945 and Queen Mauds Land is therefore ours. :yes:
Mikeus Caesar
08-02-2007, 10:27
http://www.adamsmith.org/images/uploads/story.putin.jpg
IT'S MINE, ALL MINE! MUAHAHAHAH!
Crazy, crazy man. Dragging Russia back to good old Soviet times and now making outlandish claims on the North Pole. What next, a new cold war?
InsaneApache
08-02-2007, 10:31
It's a load of polonium.
English assassin
08-02-2007, 10:56
Everyone knows that the South Pole is Norwegian... We planted the first flag there
You cheated :laugh4:
IIRC claims to to Antarctica are in abeyance under the Antarctic treaty. No one has abandonded their claims, just agreed not to pursue them for a period.
Also I am sure there are more claimants than that. Doesn't the US have a claim? (And, on the basis of effective occupation, not a derisory one either)
You brits shouldn't have used pony's, now that was pure brilliance :balloon2:
I think the Org should claim the South Pole. We could ally with the Octosquids and they would protect us from invasions.:dizzy2:
I'm lately turning nationalistic in the Org sense.
No one is getting anything. This territory is a location of a future U.S. missle defense site.
An air craft carrier must be dispatched immediately....
English assassin
08-02-2007, 13:29
You brits shouldn't have used pony's, now that was pure brilliance :balloon2:
What we really should have done, after Terra Nova discovered Amundsen camped in the bay of whales, was land and kill the lot. Who would have known? :clown:
That's what Putin would do.
Lorenzo_H
08-02-2007, 13:57
"It's like putting a flag on the moon"
What could the Russians be trying to make up for?
@ Sigurd's post about the claims to Antartica: The Argies are always trying to lay claim to our territory!
King Kurt
08-02-2007, 14:26
You brits shouldn't have used pony's, now that was pure brilliance :balloon2:
What we should have done is sent Shackleton not Scott - the real explorer instead of the enthusiastic amateur.
English assassin
08-02-2007, 14:48
What we should have done is sent Shackleton not Scott - the real explorer instead of the enthusiastic amateur.
I bow to no one in my admiration for Shackleton, but he had his shot in 1908.
And of course if he had wanted to be the first at the pole, and kill his party on the way back, he could have done it then. Turning back 97 miles from the pole and getting everyone back alive, that's what I call leadership :2thumbsup: As he remarked afterwards, he thought his wife would prefer a live donkey to a dead lion.
I like a tragic hero as much as anyone, but I'd just as soon not be in an antarctic expedition with one, thanks.
Or just stay home, forgot the exact line but a dutch writer wrote;
To step on land where no man has stepped on before, fine, but snow? Snow where no man has stepped on before I can explore each year in my own backyard :beam:
It seems there could be a three way war between Argentina, Chile and UK for their claims on the same area. Germany lost their claim in 1945 and Queen Mauds Land is therefore ours. :yes:
UK doesn't claim it, the Southpole is divided between UK and Norway (for both exploring it), Australia and New Zeeland (for being close to it) and France (for thinking they should have a share in it anyway)
Gregoshi
08-02-2007, 15:10
Well, the ice in my freezer is mine, so don't any of you Europeans get any funny ideas...
English assassin
08-02-2007, 15:21
I've just thought, the Top Gear guys drove to the North Pole recently, doesn't that make it British?
Admittedly the maniacs behind the plan seemed to be Icelandic (there's a surprise) but we could share.
Kagemusha
08-02-2007, 15:54
They can claim the Northpole,but what is this talk about santaclaus? He is from Finland. There is no sense claiming that the old bugger lives in northpole when its clear that he lives in korvatunturi!:gah:
Finland, Northpole, it's all the same, both places have loads of nice and open lakes
Kagemusha
08-02-2007, 16:13
Finland, Northpole, it's all the same, both places have loads of nice and open lakes
But Stig,believe it or not we also have land under all the snow here in Finland.~:santa:
Peasant Phill
08-02-2007, 16:42
[QUOTE=Fragony]Maybe a very stupid question, but isn't the northpole just a big piece of ice? Oil? :inquisitive:QUOTE]
Yep just ice but under that ice lays the sea floor full with that slimy black stuff that our economies seems to live off.
And again Belgium really has a claim for a small part of Antartica by the merit of exploration and a lasting base there.
HoreTore
08-02-2007, 18:04
But Stig,believe it or not we also have land under all the snow here in Finland.~:santa:
Hmmm...you're sure it's not just vodka under the snow?
Germany lost their claim in 1945
I think we should claim all of it and call it "Süderweiterung". After all we have a history of colonizing useless land, don't we?
KafirChobee
08-02-2007, 18:24
We Danes have our eyes on the North Pole too http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3716178.stm.
From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pole)
CBR
Eye on the ball, as is the norm CBR. The USA has yet to ratify this treaty, and therefore will have no voice in the final decision - unless of course it is ratified this year and our glorious leader finagles a way for us to get on the ruling council (which ought to be easy - if we hurry). Face it, it's better to come up with some form of sharing formula for our NATO allies involved in this - than allow the Russians (Putin) to have any part of it.
==================
Yes, Putin does desire a new "cold war" - it gives him power by facing off with the remaining Super-Power and may eventually give him rise to reclaim SP status again for Russia. The GOPists would welcome it also, as they wouldn't have to keep scaring up new enemies (and Axises of Evil) for them to claim that only they know how to win against them (The Evil Empire Strikes Back). Plus, they could claim they won the last cold war (major BS), so they are experts at it (LOL).
:balloon2:
How this plays out over the next couple years will remain of interest to the nations involved, and the UN. Should the Russian claim be accepted - it is a serious amount of oil and natural gas (though positioning themselves on top of the world is of more strategic import than economic) - consider all the ramifications. Strategic military threat increase, economic (oil) freedom and sanctioning of, increase in political stature (in Russia, atleast), and again proving the weakness of both NATO and the USA. Such a deal.
edyzmedieval
08-02-2007, 18:44
This thread, apart from the fact that Putin is an...well...communist i******e...is a very funny one. Cracks me up. :laugh4:
Ok, back to serious business.
How the ice could you possibly claim North Pole? The Russkies haven't even discovered it!!
Ok, back to serious business.
Okay.
So lets assume for a minute that infact there is a cache of oil and natural gas there (anyone got the time to dig up a link to some specifics?), this is quite a bold move on Russia's part.
We all know the state of oil and gas consumption and the likely hood of its prolonged need for decades to come. Russia is a major fuel supplier to Europe now, and should they get this cache that increases thier clout.
While its fun to yuk it up with putin and his power grabs, this strikes me as an intelligent tactial move if in fact the cache is there. The theory is that the siberian land shelf (are my terms correct?) extend under the ice, and therefore it extends the russian land claim until that point.
If this is true, then concievably the claim is valid.
Putin can plant as many flags he wants and it won't make a difference. But Im sure it pleases his most nationalistic voters at home.
Russia ratified the UN treaty in 1997 and had 10 years to make a claim, so it had to be done this year or not at all. Canada and Denmark still has 6 and 7 years. And of course USA has not even ratified it yet.
CBR
Russia ratified the UN treaty in 1997 and had 10 years to make a claim, so it had to be done this year or not at all. Canada and Denmark still has 6 and 7 years. And of course USA has not even ratified it yet.
CBR
Okay, but this dosent make the claim invalid, on the contrary they have made the appropriate claims in the time frame alotted via the treaty (if I am reading you correctly).
Sounds like a sound move to me, if its within the specs of the agreement.
Oh their claim could indeed be valid. But from the stuff I have read so far its a rather dubious claim but time will tell.
CBR
Rodion Romanovich
08-02-2007, 20:38
Just great. The situation can only go south from here.
Don't worry, it will just be a cold war
We all know the state of oil and gas consumption and the likely hood of its prolonged need for decades to come. Russia is a major fuel supplier to Europe now, and should they get this cache that increases thier clout.
And their behavior managing those resources thus far is reason enough to be opposed to to their new "land" grab, imo.
And their behavior managing those resources thus far is reason enough to be opposed to to their new "land" grab, imo.
Not to worry friends.
The Russians needs help from those who knows how to drill for oil in the sea. They have nearly no experience in this and are today receiving help from us. My company has just entered into a contract with Russia for drilling on the Shtokman field in the Barents Sea.
The Russian government have demanded higher environmental standards than the Norwegians did on the Norwegian fields in the same area. Our company will be using zero-emission technology on this one. The wildlife in the Barents Sea is a very important resource for the Russians. You can’t pollute much in these regions and not affect the fish stock. I am guessing this goes for the entire Artic area.
On a side note: Why haven’t the US made claims to the North Pole yet? They were the first and second to reach the Pole.
And their behavior managing those resources thus far is reason enough to be opposed to to their new "land" grab, imo.
Well yes Putin is nationalizing the fuel industries and using it as a policial tool. My memory of last winter seems to recall the issue with Ukraine and short deliveries to the EU (long night last night)?
All that aside, this is a very bold and well frankly good move for Russian intrests. Attempting to secure more claims over natural gas and oil is tactically sound.
On a side note: Why haven’t the US made claims to the North Pole yet? They were the first and second to reach the Pole.
I read a bit on this yesterday but someone else can go dig up the link. I am pretty sure that the current treaty is the one now in force but prior to this there was another league of nations treaty in which the same principle of claim was applied.
Each bordering country is allowed a 320KM zone from thier border in which they can claim sovereinty, the US claim would therefore only include a some small islands.
Now the Russians have upped the anty with the notion that thier continental plate (forget the exact term) extends further then the initial measurements and therefore it extends thier 320KM zone. Concievably the U.S. or any other of the claimants could take the same tact, russia just happens to be first.
On an additional side Sigurd, you might know this because of your locale but I swear I remember some talk sometime in the recent past about a movement in greenland to break away from Denmark? That would effectively negate the Danish claim.
Anything on that ?
On an additional side Sigurd, you might know this because of your locale but I swear I remember some talk sometime in the recent past about a movement in greenland to break away from Denmark? That would effectively negate the Danish claim.
Anything on that ?
I haven’t heard anything about this.
What I know is that an independent Greenland would have serious problems.
Today Greenland is heavily subsidised by Denmark. Money for government, police and administration are pumped from Denmark into the coffers of the Greenlanders.
I don’t think gathering resources from wildlife will sustain a Greenland economy. If I am not mistaken the wildlife of Greenland is greatly endangered by the current level of hunting and gathering by the indigenous people of Greenland.
What they need to do is to begin extracting other natural resources like mineral and/or petroleum. Then maybe a realistic idea of independence can spring to life.
Right now they could only switch benefactor and Norway was the original benefactor of Greenland. It was through the union of Denmark and Norway that Denmark got their long fingers on Greenland in the first place.
We have been there, taken from the land what we could and left it to the Inuits. Maybe with the global warming and all, Greenland could get hospitable again and a sustainable economy can be derived from the land.
Greenland was once a hospitable land only 100 decades ago (edit: yeah I knew something was wrong with that number) with lush fields and a good wildlife. There is a reason it was called Greenland by the ancient Vikings.
I haven’t heard anything about this.
What I know is that an independent Greenland would have serious problems.
Today Greenland is heavily subsidised by Denmark. Money for government, police and administration are pumped from Denmark into the coffers of the Greenlanders.
I don’t think gathering resources from wildlife will sustain a Greenland economy. If I am not mistaken the wildlife of Greenland is greatly endangered by the current level of hunting and gathering by the indigenous people of Greenland.
What they need to do is to begin extracting other natural resources like mineral and/or petroleum. Then maybe a realistic idea of independence can spring to life.
Right now they could only switch benefactor and Norway was the original benefactor of Greenland. It was through the union of Denmark and Norway that Denmark got their long fingers on Greenland in the first place.
We have been there, taken from the land what we could and left it to the Inuits. Maybe with the global warming and all, Greenland could get hospitable again and a sustainable economy can be derived from the land.
Greenland was once a hospitable land only 10 decades ago with lush fields and a good wildlife. There is a reason it was called Greenland by the ancient Vikings.
Link (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9707/31/greenland.independence/)
Now this goes back a ways, but I remember recently reading something else about the U.S. defense of greenland and base rights..... :inquisitive:
Anyway my motherside of the family are Danes so hey Im all for the reestablishment of the Danish empire ala Canute I.
On a serious note greenland if it employed the same tactic as russia did might have claim to some serious natural resources as well, and thats what jogged my memory of independence talk.
Banquo's Ghost
08-03-2007, 13:26
On a serious note greenland if it employed the same tactic as russia did might have claim to some serious natural resources as well, and thats what jogged my memory of independence talk.
The Russians are basing their claim on the proposal that the Lomonosov Ridge (an underwater mountain range that goes right across the top of the world from Siberia to Greenland) is an extension of their continental shelf and most importantly (in terms of the Law of the Sea) geologically contiguous with their northern coast. This claim was rejected by the UN in 2001, but is about to be re-submitted.
Now, there is also evidence that the Lomonosov Ridge extends from Greenland, which would support a Danish claim if the Russian argument is held to apply. The Danes have a problem in that there is a big trench between Greenland and the Ridge, which means it is unlikely to be geologically contiguous. There is a suspicion that the same applies to the Russian end.
As for Greenland independence, they should ask the Scots how fast that prospect disappears once they are the key to oil reserves. :stupido2:
Russia has achieved a PR stunt that will prove popular at home (the press are drooling this morning) but in international terms makes no odds. The disputes will be settled under international law and the USA is likely to figure rather strongly now that they have been alerted to the consequences of inaction. Russia is too weak to capitalise on their little titanium flag - and since they have started bullying again (Belarus this time, and by proxy Poland and German gas supplies) no-one is going to be cutting them any slack at all.
Putin moved too soon, but at least he has the adoration of the mob. Again.
...I swear I remember some talk sometime in the recent past about a movement in greenland to break away from Denmark? That would effectively negate the Danish claim.
Anything on that ?
An eventual Danish claim is gonna be a claim on behalf of Greenland too. Its only a few months back an agreement between Denmark and Greenland was (re)negotiated about how to share any eventual income from resources. Which was more or less a 50/50 deal but that might change http://www.denmark.dk/en/servicemenu/News/DomesticPoliticalNews/OilProfitsLikelyToRemainInGreenland.htm
And yes there are some on Greenland (and Faroe Islands for that matter) who wants to be independent. With lots of income from oil they might do that, but for Greenlands case that's basically like swimming in shark infested waters with Canada and USA being the sharks :beam:
CBR
An eventual Danish claim is gonna be a claim on behalf of Greenland too. Its only a few months back an agreement between Denmark and Greenland was (re)negotiated about how to share any eventual income from resources. Which was more or less a 50/50 deal but that might change http://www.denmark.dk/en/servicemenu/News/DomesticPoliticalNews/OilProfitsLikelyToRemainInGreenland.htm
And yes there are some on Greenland (and Faroe Islands for that matter) who wants to be independent. With lots of income from oil they might do that, but for Greenlands case that's basically like swimming in shark infested waters with Canada and USA being the sharks :beam:
CBR
Again this is memory but I recall a rather robust defense and political arraingement with the U.S. dating back to WWII? I know Denmark and the U.S. have rather strong ties but this business of greenland independence was something I recall as being more then a 2 minute blurb on the news.
Not on the scale of quebec but throw in claims to billions in gas and oil and all sorts of dynamics come to the surface.
@BQ: I get your sentiment that Putin is putting on a show for domestic consumption. However he is acting within the boundries of an international agreement and on the surface this claim seems valid (if the shlef extends). So while the bear might not have the teeth it once did, if thier claim is valid then this is a touch more then a PR stunt (when looking ahead to future energy needs).
I know my company did a feasibility study of having an aluminium plant on Greenland earlier this year, but I can't seem to find a document with its results. It should have been concluded April this year.
This was an agreement without obligation for both parts between Hydro and the self-government of Greenland.
It would be costly as the environment must be protected and a plant with a magnitude of a 300 000 ton capacity, would need a power plant that churned out 500 MW. Greenland does not have such a power plant and it would have to be constructed in addition to the plant.
Hydro started its enterprise by building water power plants, and has lots of experience in this. With the discovery of oil and gas, an offshore power installation could be an alternative. If Greenland experiences a warming of its climate, water will be in abundance and the building of water based power plants.
Banquo's Ghost
08-03-2007, 14:34
@BQ: I get your sentiment that Putin is putting on a show for domestic consumption. However he is acting within the boundries of an international agreement and on the surface this claim seems valid (if the shlef extends). So while the bear might not have the teeth it once did, if thier claim is valid then this is a touch more then a PR stunt (when looking ahead to future energy needs).
I agree entirely. I guess what I was saying is that the putting down of a little tin flag won't make any difference to the outcome of the international deliberations.
Russia has already stated her case for the extension of control (the failed 2001 bid) - as have others - they could have done the follow-up in the normal diplomatic way without using mini-subs to plant a flag.
Again this is memory but I recall a rather robust defense and political arraingement with the U.S. dating back to WWII? I know Denmark and the U.S. have rather strong ties but this business of greenland independence was something I recall as being more then a 2 minute blurb on the news.
Not on the scale of quebec but throw in claims to billions in gas and oil and all sorts of dynamics come to the surface.
Oh the political arrangements dates back to 1917 where Denmark sold the Virgin Islands and USA added the bonus of dropping their claim on northern Greenland.
With the Cold War Greenland became important for USA (and it still is sorta important I guess) as a forward radar/air base and they got the Thule base.
Official Danish policy is that no nuclear weapons are allowed on Danish soil (at least in peace time) but Danish governments knew B-52 bombers carried nuclear weapons. The official stance did become less believable with the B-52crash in 1968 heh.
The local population had been displaced when the Thule base was constructed but its only in recent years (90's) that it was admitted and talks of compensation started.
And same thing with workers who cleaned up after the 1968 crash. They finally got some compensation in mid 90's. Of course that didnt help those who already had died over the years.
So yes a pretty strong relationship since WW2, and there certainly has been a willingness to "cover up" the most inconvenient truths.
But I dont recall anything spectacular on Greenland independence issues. Its pretty much the usual stuff IIRC. If they want to become independent they could do it tomorrow if they wished.
And I doubt they are as greedy as the Faroe Islands who (when they a few years back hoped oil would be found) wanted to be independent AND still have Denmark pay subsidies for 10 years, yes TEN years, afterwards. The very generous offer of two years was not enough so they are still part of the happy family :beam:
edit: oh and found this about the latest agreement on Thule and other stuff U.S. Expands Greenland Relations in Support of Missile Defense (http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2004/2004-08-09-02.asp)
CBR
They have same rights to North Pole like Poles to Warsaw ---> Warsaw into USA.
Shaka_Khan
08-04-2007, 02:47
When Antarctica looses much of it's ice, I think many countries will be grabbing for it. In the Arctic circle, I think people will get creative and build an artificial island. Then they'll claim the Arctic as their's.
Banquo's Ghost
08-04-2007, 09:18
When Antarctica looses much of it's ice, I think many countries will be grabbing for it.
If Antarctica loses it's ice, the only country left to contest the issue will be Nepal. And believe me, you won't want to argue with those Gurkhas anyway. :wink:
They have same rights to North Pole like Poles to Warsaw ---> Warsaw into USA.
Warsaw is your capital m8
KukriKhan
08-04-2007, 11:50
Warsaw is your capital m8
I think he means Warsaw, Indiana (http://www.outfitters.com/illinois/hancock/warsaw_history.html), a city in the US. In other words: Russia is entitled to the North Pole, as much as Poland is entitled to Warsaw, IN - that is: no entitlement at all (in his opinion).
Sorry if I got that wrong, Krook. :bow:
As someone else told. Warsaw into Indiana.
I claim to declare my bedroom as the GvI nation just because its the near place I have.
In Soviet Russia, Titanic sinks you! (http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2146629,00.html)
Revealed: why those Russian submarine heroics might have looked a little familiar
· Underwater footage was borrowed from Titanic
· 13-year-old boy spotted scenes shot with models
Tom Parfitt in Moscow
Saturday August 11, 2007
Unearthly blue lights played across the ocean floor two and a half miles below the north pole as the heroic Russian explorers descended in mini submarines to plant a metre-high flag.
At least that's what the Russian state television company Rossiya wanted us to believe. The truth was rather different.
In an apparent attempt to "sex up" a news programme, the TV station has been caught passing off footage from the 1997 Hollywood blockbuster Titanic as a real life report on the Kremlin's recent attempt to stake its claim to the riches of the Arctic Ocean.
:laugh4:
edyzmedieval
08-14-2007, 16:41
:laugh4:
That has to be the most weird act of the century.
The fact that russia is so aggressively pursuing this claim makes me very glad that the UK is spending so much money on the Royal Navy, i want a hefty buffer between me and the lunatic asylum when it blows.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.