Missing ship may have secret cargo

reply to post by Gordi The Drummer


Hi Gordi..

I kinda think this potentially links up with the "present" that Bin Laden is going to give Muslims for Ramadan... Perhaps this was one of a series of deliveries rather than a one off. A rather worrying notion.

Or it was the only present he could get and now Bin Laden is going to have to give out little Chocolate shapes instead :-)

One thing I have been thinking of asking but I always forget.

I only saw that Medvedev presented a draft of a law change to allow the Russian president to send troops out of borders without the need for approval from the parliament (I think that is what the draft is about and the present state of Russian law regarding sending Russian troops out of borders), but I didn't saw anywhere that the draft was changed into a final version and approved, does anyone know if that change in the law really happened?

Thanks.

latest from the times here ,usual unnamed sources for this case it seems

www.timesonline.co.uk...

"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."

One thing that apparently has been overlooked is the man behind the Finnish company that owns the ship (Oy White Sea Ltd.) and the other company related with it that is responsible for the cargo operations (Oy Solchart Management Ab), Viktor Matvejev.

It's funny that we have many sources talking about a possible Russian source of smuggled guns of all imaginable types (except slingshots ) because the ship was on a Russian piece of land, talking about the Russian crew, talking about the Russian and Russian named supposed hijackers, but none of those that were quick to point to a Russian origin of whatever is behind this case, as far as I know, as talked about this Viktor Matvejev, and I think that is strange.

reply to post by ArMaP


Hi ArMaP,
That is precisely who & what I was referring to earlier, when I said the Arctic Sea was Russian Owned!
Viktor Matvejev and his two cronies are Russians, based in Finland, and they own outright, WhiteSea which is the company which owns Arctic Sea!

"The primary owner of the ship is the Maltese-registered company “Arctic Sea”. According to the Maltese trade registry, the company belongs to the Finnish company White Sea, whose CEO and main owner is Viktor Matvejev, a Russian citizen living in Finland.
According to the Finnish Trade Registry, he holds 70 per cent of the company’s shares. The rest are owned by two other Russian men living in Finland. "

Source Article

Sounds like "Russian Owned" to me?

reply to post by thoughtsfull


Yeah thoughtsfull,
The Port authorities in Pietarsaari did seem to indicate that they were very familiar with the Arctic Sea, so it is very possible that this wasn't the first wee "present" heading that way!

The only thing that makes me think (or hope) that it was a one-off, is the "repair" work that was done in the two weeks prior to loading with timber. I wonder if the Arctic Sea has required regular "repairs" over the last few months?

G

reply to post by Gordi The Drummer

OK, "Russian owned" in that way!

Although to me and my nitpicking way of thinking, as the company is not Russian the ship is not Russian owned but Finnish owned.

And talking about who owns what, do you know when was the last time some "Arctic Sea Limited" shares changed owner? According to this Maltese site, July 20, 2009.

Looking through that site we can see that the company started as a "single member company" in 2004, it changed that status in 2005 to become once more a "single member company" in May 18, 2009 after a "Transfer/Transmission of Shares". On July there was the final "Transfer/Transmission of Shares" and "Alterations to the Memorandum and Articles".

There is also an "Arctic Spirit Limited" that had the same changes on the same day as "Arctic Sea Limited", that owns a ship called "Arctic Spirit", that has as manager, a company called "Oy Solchart Management Ab", the same company for "Arctic Sea".

hmm although we do not know what else they may have had on board they did have a "dead" / missing sailor on board ....

"very strange news about the so-called 8 pirates or 8 hijackers that were arrested by the Russian Navy, on board the ‘Arctic Sea’;

One is a metal worker, another is a builder – and a third is believed to be a fisherman whose family feared he had drowned at sea three years ago. The family of Andrei Lunevhave told how they got the shock of their lives when they turned on Russian TV to see a man with the same name and vaguely similar appearance identified as a prisoner on a Russian military aircraft. "(The Telegraph).www.telegraph.co.uk...

Also great resource here
dutchintell.wordpress.com...



[edit on 6-9-2009 by gambon]

[edit on 6-9-2009 by gambon]

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
I kinda think this potentially links up with the "present" that Bin Laden is going to give Muslims for Ramadan... Perhaps this was one of a series of deliveries rather than a one off. A rather worrying notion.

Or it was the only present he could get and now Bin Laden is going to have to give out little Chocolate shapes instead.

I don't recall now where I read it this week, but there was som purported linkage to biological weapons and a delivery system the Russians were putting together for Iran.

Any intelligence on the "present" has been blacked out maybe for security reasons. The inevitable speculations on a 'dirty bomb' which could even be delivered by sea.

This all might be hearsay and unfounded speculation. Just as the rumour that the Muslim Ramadan coinciding withe the Jewish New Year ina few days may have been chosen as a symbolic time for "gift" giving.

Mike

reply to post by Gordi The Drummer


Hi Gordi

Since I am quite content with my reasonable assumption of the events that took place, x placed on board whilst in for repairs = sizeable object/s. The Arctic Sea then collects timber, proceed on planned route, boarded in Swedish waters, carries on to the English channel, the object/s are then removed.. The ship sails into sunset while being hunted by the Russian fleet, and when captured are taken to a Russian military port.

The last part is quite important as I can not name a single vessel once recaptured from pirates that has required the pirated vessel to be taken to a military port.. Especially considering it is a Maltese flaged vessel, it was timber after all, they were just pirates, and no one was even killed.. I mean even the Ukrainian arms vessel pirated off the Somali coast was allowed to continue on it's way, what's so different about the Arctic Sea?

So scale and scope of the Russian response and then keeping the vessel places this in my mind to be in the range of high tech weapons, biological agents or nuclear material / weapons.

If this was a one off, it ran a huge risk of transferring the material this way and what was the destination, Algeria? it's not as though they could have cut into the vessel while she was in port in Algeria! As you've mentioned before it would have been nice to know the next leg of the journey, if there was one.

So I've been trying to add this to the bigger picture so to speak.. economic breakdown, intensely distracted US/UK populations, unpopular wars, so a terrorist attack at this point would be a major catalyst, and Bin Laden's recent promise of a present for Muslims does have me wondering, if this was a one off and the West had captured a WMD destined for AQ, then Bin Laden would not have put up anything to say that he had a present for Muslims.. so if AQ was the purchaser then this must be part of a multiple series of deliveries, and the objects are now in place (I'm hoping they are boxes of Ferrero Rocher) But I am doubtful of that theory, it's sensible, but it just does not feel "right"

However, My personal theory of choice is that an attack on Iran is planned, and that the West needs to leverage on the Russians to keep them out of the conflict. Thus the buyer in my mind could have been the West, which would suit the route taken by the Arctic Sea, as it would put the cargo within spitting distance of the purchaser on route.

My reasoning behind that theory is that I'm thinking of the Falklands, and how we went around either purchasing all the Exocet missiles on the market (both legal and Illegal markets) and those we could not purchase we sabotaged, so this would be nothing new.. Having a Russian WMD, and proof that Russia is proliferating WMDs would put the Russians in the position of being the baddies, so it would be good leverage to keep Russian interference in any attack on Iran at a minimum.

China is already being courted, offered military exercises off Australia and anyway could not afford a war with it's largest Debtor, so China can comfortably sit it out... and Libya has also been courted, and got what they wanted in exchange, plus if anything kicks off in the ME, the West also has access to the Libyan oil.

I'm best guessing and theorising now... But whatever was on the Arctic Sea was part of a much larger game, a game of cat and mouse large enough for Russia to draft legislation to chase pirates outside it's own borders, then send a fleet after a small vessel, and then when they get the vessel they take it to a military port.

As Sherlock would say "the games a foot" and it appears the Russians are on the back foot on this one.

Amended error.


[edit on 7-9-2009 by thoughtsfull]

[edit on 7-9-2009 by thoughtsfull]

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
But whatever was on the Arctic Sea was part of a much larger game, a game of cat and mouse large enough for Russia to rush through legislation to chase pirates, then send a fleet after a small vessel, and then when they get the vessel they take it to a military port.

Do you have any reference to that legislation to chase pirates being really created?

I can't find it anywhere, only that Medvedev presented a draft of a law change, not that the law was changed.

The Arctic Sea obstensibly has a singular Russian owner, I said way back in this thread that it was most likely Russian owned. In an earlier thread one of our moderators tried to point the way as to where the "secret" cargo may have come, that was Tirasopol, Transnistria. Tirasopol is flowing over with all sorts of armoury left behind after the fall of the Soviet Union. It is known that there were plutonium tipped weapons,(missiles) unaccounted for. Now, the July maneuvres were joint Russian and Iranian so if you have both rogue military and mafia,(including ex-military) I don't see any problem in a handing over of anything to Iran while these maneuvres were going on. What I do think is that whatever was/is in the ship was not for Iran but for Israel, remember some reports say that the "hijackers" were not Mossad, but Mossad supporters, (whatever that means) and it is possible that the whole enterprise was rumbled from the start, and that the hijacking was to prevent the ship ever getting into the Med. Just think about the countries around there ready to grab that boat if it was known what it carried, but ironically not Iran.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by smurfy]

Originally posted by smurfy
The Arctic Sea obstensibly has a singular Russian owner, I said way back in this thread that it was most likely Russian owned. In an earlier thread one of our moderators tried to point the way as to where the "secret" cargo may have come, that was Tirasopol, Transnistria. Tirasopol is flowing over with all sorts of armoury left behind after the fall of the Soviet Union. It is known that there were plutonium tipped weapons,(missiles) unaccounted for. Now, the July maneuvres were joint Russian and Iranian so if you have both rogue military and mafia,(including ex-military) I don't see any problem in a handing over of anything to Iran while these maneuvres were going on. What I do think is that whatever was/is in the ship was not for Iran but for Israel, remember some reports say that the "hijackers" were not Mossad, but Mossad supporters, (whatever that means) and it is possible that the whole enterprise was rumbled from the start, and that the hijacking was to prevent the ship ever getting into the Med. Just think about the countries around there ready to grab that boat if it was known what it carried, but ironically not Iran.

Comment on this. Gaza is also on the Mediterranean and can only be directly accessed from it. And then there are other Muslim states like Egypt, Libya, as well.

The Russians have been know to supply the Iranians with sub-standard, defunct, out-of-date equipment and weapons. And as pointed out, there's a lot of stuff unaccounted for not only in Russian armouries but in the Ukraine. And then again the Russian government can choose to look away at something it doesn't officially sanction.

The fact that they maintain silene on this says something.


Mike

reply to post by ArMaP



Sorry that was an error on my part :-) and have amended, thanks for pointing it out.

BTW, your maps and bits have been really helpful, especially pin pointing where she was when she passed my position on the Sussex coast.

I've also be trying to approximate the amount of cubic space that could be created by adding new bulkheads to the Arctic Sea and would not be noticeable.. I would be guessing somewhere in the region of 1 or 2 container loads? or less if heavily shielded? any one thought along those lines?

As I've been mulling the use of the S300 by Iran... So how many would Iran need to create an effective defence in case of incoming attack.. I would assume more than than a dozen..

Then what about the radar system that I beleive is an integral part of the S300 needed to be able to track incoming objects, and the launch platform, technical support, spares, software patches... there is a lot of this background stuff required to ensure this system works effectively..

Although I am guessing that you would only need samples to start production of an Iranian version of the S300, still that would be quite a large amount of kit and probably more than the amount of space that could be created on the Arctic Sea.

Just getting the missiles themselves seems rather pointless (if I am wrong please let me know) and would the same be true for the X-55 or x-555 cruise missile? Since targeting and accuracy is an important part of these systems. Does Iran have any aircraft that could be converted to carry one or more of these babes?

I would perhaps assume that Iran might want samples of nuclear material to be able to create their own, and a sample small warhead would be very beneficial, but the route chosen leaves a lot to be desired when safer routes are available.

reply to post by mmiichael
Hi mm,
That was my point exactly, all those countries around the Med. You could be well right about Gaza, and presumably Hamas. The reason I mentioned Israel for my bet, is that they have used "dirty" weapons before, as have the US and NATO in Bosnia, and they are a suspect in "Gulf war symdrome"

This is the latest from The Times, second last paragraph is interesting.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

[edit on 9-9-2009 by smurfy]

reply to post by smurfy

But you know that even small fishing boats that look suspicious are attacked by the Israeli armed forces, right? I doubt anyone can deliver anything to the Gaza strip by boat, it's too easy to control.

reply to post by ArMaP
Yes, I understand that and would include Iran I'm sure, and one of the reasons why I still go for Israel. The Times latest story is interesting, two Giant transporters to take home the crew and the hi-jackers, why two?
Russian denial of missiles to Iran on the Arctic Sea, while at the same time they have an agreed contract to supply Iran with S-300s but under pressure from other countries not to do so. US and others would be concerned That if Iran had these weapons it would compromise a military attack on Iran!! that's a big one.

If Mossad wanted to stop an arms shipment to Iran on the Arctic Sea, they wouldn't have hi-jacked it and floated around for weeks. They would have sunk it instead.

reply to post by thoughtsfull


www.haaretz.com...
Putin denies.

www.haaretz.com...
Netanyahu disappears

www.jpost.com...
Netanyahu denies.

I found these articles which allude to Netanyahu making a secret trip to Russia for talks with Putin.

Your overall "jist" sounds plausible; thought You might find these articles interesting is all.