[HN Gopher] Cable-cutting tanker seized by Finland 'was loaded w...
___________________________________________________________________
Cable-cutting tanker seized by Finland 'was loaded with spying
equipment'
Author : nabla9
Score : 520 points
Date : 2024-12-27 17:36 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.lloydslist.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.lloydslist.com)
| mulmen wrote:
| > The hi-tech equipment on board was abnormal for a merchant ship
| and consumed more power from the ship's generator, leading to
| repeated blackouts, a source familiar with the vessel who
| provided commercial maritime services to it as recently as seven
| months ago.
|
| Am I having a stroke or is this article translated?
|
| I'm not a Russia defender but this is comically inept if true.
| Why commit such brazen sabotage with a spy ship?
| reactordev wrote:
| Ships are often balanced between providing power and consuming
| it. Excess power gen is wasted fuel. Excess power draw is a
| blackout so it's very typical of a ships captain or owner to
| max out power consumption while minimizing power generation.
| Its a cost index.
|
| I do this on my own sailboat with a solar power source and
| battery setup.
| applied_heat wrote:
| Diesel generators simply use less fuel if there is less load
| than the maximum.
| GenerocUsername wrote:
| But it's not perfectly linear, and as should get bigger,
| the incentive to optimize grows
| bluGill wrote:
| Not exactly. A diesel engine uses less fuel at 80% load
| than 50%. At maximum load it uses the most fuel but in
| general as load increases the engine gets more efficient
| and so the calculations are weird.
|
| Note that generators need to run at constant rpm to provide
| the correct ac frequency. Your car has gears so that it can
| run at lower rpm at low loads and so you won't see the same
| effect.
| giantrobot wrote:
| An independent diesel generator could have been loaded
| onto the ship as easily as the spy equipment. It was a
| tanker, there was plenty of room for a genset and its own
| fuel. Then the ship's power plant wouldn't be taxed at
| all.
| bluGill wrote:
| Generally the people ordering radios don't think about
| that. They are used to land where you have more power to
| the building than you could possibly use.
| reactordev wrote:
| Then you have radio equipment in addition to an
| independent diesel generator and fuel to explain...
|
| Yes it was a tanker. The bigger the ship doesn't mean it
| has more people or more power generation like a cruise
| ship. A tanker has a crew of 4 plus captain, maybe?
| giantrobot wrote:
| You've got the spying equipment to explain if boarded. An
| extra generator is hardly a concern. If anything an
| auxiliary generator can be explained as a
| backup/replacement for the ship's mandated backup
| generator.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Less fuel less efficiently
| slow_typist wrote:
| There are many parts on a ship of that size which need power
| and are critical for safety. That is not comparable to
| leisure craft.
| watt wrote:
| Thank you for your insight. Hard to believe nobody else
| thought of it before.
| Normal_gaussian wrote:
| Whilst basic, its a critical and valid point. It is being
| made on a forum where shipping, ships, and related
| engineering issues are not well known (at all).
|
| It does lead to questions about how backup and failover
| power work on large ships. Secondary generation? Central
| batteries? Per device battery failover?
| pas wrote:
| Batteries, yes. And there's an emergency generator that
| runs on diesel (big ships run on "bunker oil") which can
| be started with batteries or manually.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_Y2VNS5TFFY (this one with
| a hydraulic hand pump)
|
| https://marineengineeringonline.com/emergency-generator-
| on-s...
| ein0p wrote:
| I'm having a hard time believing that "a few suitcases" of
| equipment would strain the generator of a large ship. There's
| also no way _three_ countries (one of which is a member of
| NATO, further straining credibility of the article) would be
| using the same super secret spy equipment.
| asdff wrote:
| The article said "huge portable suitcases" which in my mind
| went to those giant rock concert equipment suitcases with
| caster wheels. And then the article is talking about how
| these ships are ancient and in poor repair. The power was
| probably going on and off long before they overloaded it.
| AYBABTME wrote:
| But 20y isn't ancient, as far as I can tell?
| dietr1ch wrote:
| I guess it's long enough for poor maintenance to let
| salty water do its thing. AFAIK even cars sent across the
| Pacific show damage when they arrive and special care is
| put to coat them.
| postalrat wrote:
| No. It's a clear lie.
| martin8412 wrote:
| They're called flight cases :)
| pinewurst wrote:
| Why do you think that the Indian and Turkish monitors were
| working for their own countries instead of getting a
| mercenary bonus from Russia?
| ein0p wrote:
| Turkish "monitors" had _their own keyboards_ if the article
| is to be believed. Nobody foreign would be anywhere near
| any real spy equipment, let alone someone from a NATO
| member country, whether "mercenary" or not. It just doesn't
| make any sense.
| _blk wrote:
| Spy devices are often of passive "listening" nature.
|
| Is it operating an RF jammer or laser? Those things suck
| power.
| Terr_ wrote:
| > I'm having a hard time believing that "a few suitcases" of
| equipment would strain the generator of a large ship.
|
| Perhaps it's a mistake in reporting, and the added equipment
| strained the local wiring/breakers of the bridge area it was
| installed into, causing "blackouts" that weren't ship-wide.
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| Are you having a hard time believing this _because_ of your
| experience in such maritime matters or _despite_ of it?
| codezero wrote:
| Because they've been getting away with it unchecked for
| decades.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| > Why commit such brazen sabotage with a spy ship?
|
| That part seemed odd to me too.
|
| Spy folks aren't the ones conducting sabotage? If one division
| has installed apy equipment then surely they don't want that
| fact plastered all over documents, so perhaps the sabotage guys
| just saw a suitable ship in the harbor and presuaded/replaced
| the crew?
|
| Doesn't look good either way though.
| clort wrote:
| The way I read it, this is reportage from a person who worked
| with the ship about things which happened some months ago.
| There is nothing to say this equipment was still on board.
|
| > They said no further equipment returned to the ship after
| it was offloaded for analysis, to their knowledge
| magicalhippo wrote:
| Good catch, missed that bit.
| Terr_ wrote:
| > Why commit such brazen sabotage with a spy ship?
|
| Perhaps it wasn't brazen sabotage, but incompetent attempts to
| attach something to the lines?
|
| Or conflicting agendas trickling down to the same ship, where
| the left-hand of "go cause some mayhem" didn't know what the
| right-hand of "collect signals intelligence" was already doing
| with that asset.
| fi358 wrote:
| I don't think it was incompetent attempts to attach something
| to the lines. It severed 4 data data cables and electricity
| cable called Estlink 2. If it hadn't been stopped, it would
| have severed also Estlink 1 within half and hour later
| perhaps also Balticconnector gas pipe.
|
| About year ago Balticconnector gas pipe was already damaged
| by a Chinese ship, which had been dragging the anchor for
| long time in a very suspicious manner:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balticconnector
|
| And again in August several data cables were severed by a
| Chinese ship. According to one analysis, that time they may
| have dragged the anchor for 400 kilometers:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB-vEp3wr-0
|
| BTW, Russia seems to have for years spend time finding out
| the routes of sea cables and perhaps also spied them or
| prepared some kind of sabotage:
|
| The global internet is powered by vast undersea cables. But
| they're vulnerable.
| https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/25/asia/internet-undersea-
| ca...
|
| Ukraine war: The Russian ships accused of North Sea sabotage
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65309687
|
| Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is
| enemy action...
| cinntaile wrote:
| > Russia seems to have for years spend time finding out the
| routes of sea cables and perhaps also spied them or
| prepared some kind of sabotage:
|
| The cable positions are public info, they don't need to
| spend time finding out where they are.
| fi358 wrote:
| Is the exact positions public info or is it just crude
| positions? BTW, if the exact cable positions is public
| info, where is it available?
| jabl wrote:
| What do you consider 'exact'? Approximate positions are
| drawn on nautical charts, so that ships don't
| accidentally go and try to anchor in the vicinity. Plenty
| accurate enough for a ship to 'accidentally' drop an
| anchor and drag it along the seabed for miles.
| bluGill wrote:
| I suspect the exact position is not known. The drop the
| cables over the side and currents make then drift on the
| way down.
| roenxi wrote:
| > Perhaps it wasn't brazen sabotage, but incompetent attempts
| to attach something to the lines?
|
| This theory, with glorious irony, supports the idea that the
| cable cut was accidental.
| ajuc wrote:
| Why not? Let me remind you the Russian capital ship of the
| Black Sea fleet during this war had most of it's self-defense
| systems inactive and half of them broken and was destroyed with
| 2 missiles. And the only Russian carrier - Kuznetsov - is
| famous for sailing everywhere with tug boats in escort because
| its engines are broken more often than working :)
|
| Russian fleet's second name is "comically inept".
| cpursley wrote:
| Carriers are great at projecting power against poor people
| but sitting ducks against a near peer. And you probably know
| about the UKs recent propulsion system boondoggle...
|
| Anyways, they just launched this very potent sub yesterday as
| well as several other hypersonic carrying boats this year (4
| subs, 7 surface ships - all fake according to Reddit):
|
| - https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/russian-navy-receives-
| fif...
| ajuc wrote:
| Oh they are always great in the press releases :)
|
| And it's not like the ships are badly designed. The
| Kuznetsov sister ship that was a casino for a while and now
| is Chinese works perfectly well. The problem with Russian
| navy is lack of maintenance, total disregard of safety and
| procedures, 0 fucks given about human life, uneducated,
| drunken crews and widespread corruption.
|
| I recommend reading about K-429 - a nuclear submarine that
| sunk not once but twice. First time because it was ordered
| to do exercises while the hull was in maintenance. Despite
| protests of the crew. Second time in dock during repairs
| after it got recovered. Worker negligence apparently.
|
| Fun fact - it's not the only Russian nuclear submarine that
| participated in 2 disasters.
| cpursley wrote:
| Where do you think those big missile barrages are coming
| from - Black Sea dolphins? You clearly spend too much
| time on reddit - sure, their carrier, Mosvka and that sub
| were ancient. But their recent boats are capable and pack
| a lot of offensive punch. One of their new corvettes
| could probably disable a carrier battle group. Only fools
| and immature people play the "the other side is
| incompetent and has shitty gear" game. I can assure you,
| the Pentagon and other Western militaries take it all
| very seriously.
| ajuc wrote:
| Russian navy is objectively shitty.
|
| For one simple statistic - USA has about 2 times the
| number of nuclear submarines Russia has. Despite that
| Russia/USSR has lost 7 nuclear submarines and USA have
| lost 2. You cannot dismiss accident rate higher by order
| of magnitude as propaganda or bias.
|
| Russian fleet is good enough to launch missiles at a
| country without fleet from long range. It's not good
| enough to do it without significant loses. It's also not
| good enough to do it while keeping the sea in question
| under control.
|
| There's a reason Russian Black Sea fleet left Crimea and
| rebased to a port in occupied Georgia.
| cpursley wrote:
| The US has more than twice the population of Russia and
| didn't collapse in 1991 and have to crawl back from sub-
| Saharan Africa economic conditions, so of course America
| has more. And there's a reason the US Navy backed off
| from Houthi antishipping missile and drone range. All
| surface ships are sitting ducks to antishipping missiles
| (read about the boats the UK lost in the Falklands). In
| in a hot war, _all_ of the carriers and other capital
| ships in the theatre would be sunk with a week, probably
| faster (on all sides).
| ajuc wrote:
| USSR alone lost 5.
|
| We can make excuses all day long, some are even true, but
| the hard cold facts remain - russian navy sucks.
| rasz wrote:
| When you are evil as F the brightest minds tend to disappear
| leaving you with yes men and idiots. As Ukrainians eloquently
| put it way back in 2022:
|
| "We are very lucky they're so fucking stupid"
| https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/tdj65n/were_very_l...
|
| In the year of our lord 2024 russians are assaulting using Mad
| Max modified Ladas and push bikes, its no longer a meme! USSR
| stocks of armor are finally running out.
|
| 27 Oct 2024 'THE ARMOR RAN OUT - THEY WENT IN PICK-UPS. They
| reach the trenches and the assault ends.' - Combat group K-2
| 54th brigade https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uy2KpKj0t8
|
| A Russian Assault Group Riding In Pickup Trucks And Flying The
| Soviet Flag Got 'Special Attention' From Ukrainian Forces
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/12/21/a-russian-a...
| amelius wrote:
| They still have Mach 5 rockets that the US cannot defend
| against.
| dralley wrote:
| Patriot batteries have shot down every missile type that
| isn't an IRBM like Oreshnik, and those are closer to Mach
| 11 than Mach 5.
|
| Kinzhal and Zircon have been at least semi-reliably shot
| down. Iskander is very reliablly shot down. The main issue
| is that Ukraine just doesn't have enough Patriot batteries
| to defend the whole country, so the Russians stopped
| shooting where the air defense is.
|
| They also use a bunch of S-300s as ballistic missiles (a
| secondary capability to their primary role as air defense)
| but primarily against cities that don't have air defense.
| But they're too inaccurate and inexpensive for the
| Ukrainians to bother attempting to intercept even if they
| had enough of the appropriate air defenses.
| mountainstar wrote:
| "Patriot batteries have shot down every missile type that
| isn't an IRBM like Oreshnik, and those are closer to Mach
| 11 than Mach 5."
|
| Keep lying lol
| mopsi wrote:
| Their wonderweapons are artisanal products. That Mach 5
| missile needs several days of preparations by specialists
| from the manufacturer before it is ready for launch. In
| tech terms: it doesn't scale. And such long preparation
| leaves ample time to destroy launch sites at any indication
| of preparations for an actual attack. When Russians fired
| one without a warhead at Ukraine, they made sure to notify
| the Americans in advance to avoid exactly that.
|
| It's just a PR stunt. Notice how troll farms tried to hype
| doomsday scenarios, and how little traction such fears got
| in the actual national security circles.
| amelius wrote:
| Ok, but what if the missile gets out of the prototyping
| stage?
| mopsi wrote:
| Unlikely to happen. In Russia, all the modern weapons -
| from Armata tanks to Su-57 stealth planes to doomsday
| missiles - are mocked as "multiki" (cartoons), because
| they don't really exist beyond a few barely functional
| prototypes that are paraded around on national holidays.
|
| All the weapons actually fielded in large numbers are
| either directly from the Soviet era, or endless upgrades
| of upgrades of obsolete designs - like their T-90 tank,
| which still has a fatal flaw that sends turret flying
| when the tank gets hit. Russian weapons industry has for
| more than three decades consistently shown total
| inability to produce anything new. I'd start worrying as
| soon as Russia finally produced a decent car; that would
| be an indication that something has fundamentally
| changed.
| themgt wrote:
| The article is terribly written. It ends with:
|
| _The transmitting and receiving devices were used to record
| all radio frequencies, and upon reaching Russia were offloaded
| for analysis._
|
| ...
|
| _They said no further equipment returned to the ship after it
| was offloaded for analysis, to their knowledge, but other
| devices were placed on another related tanker, Swiftsea Rider._
|
| What seems implied is that the ship was previously used for
| spying back in June, then the spy equipment was offloaded from
| the ship and it was later repurposed to cut the cables.
| newsclues wrote:
| It's not a spy ship.
|
| It's a ship, that was used for spying. Not a special ship built
| for spying.
|
| So it's just an asset at sea that can be covertly used and
| disposed if discovered.
|
| It's a burner, something to use and discard when it's no longer
| useful.
|
| The spy gear is on another ship and the anchor trick can be
| played again
| Hilift wrote:
| Russia has many of these types of boats. They are inexpensive.
| The "equipment" is portable in suitcases. There is a lot of
| marine traffic in the Baltic Sea. They may have thought they
| could do it during the holidays and move the equipment to
| another ship nearby without detection. Or, a Russian port is
| very close, perhaps they thought they could take off and make
| it to Russian waters before Finland intercepted them. Check out
| the route on marinetraffic.com. The cable is between Helsinki
| and Tallinn, St. Petersburg Russia (the "destination") is about
| 200 km away to the east.
| simonh wrote:
| I cite in evidence of Russian ineptness the entire history of
| their invasion of Ukraine.
|
| Given their vast and extensive advantages at the beginning of
| the invasion, if they were even vaguely competent they really
| would have been holding a parade in Kyiv within a few months.
|
| A competent military wouldn't have lost their flagship, or let
| Ukraine counter-invade taking thousands of square kilometres of
| Russian territory. A competent regime wouldn't have dismissed
| US warnings of an imminent terrorist attack on a specific music
| venue in Moscow and just let it happen.
|
| Loading up a tanker with power hungry kit it's not able to
| properly support without discussing the idea with the crew,
| while threatening the crew if they don't keep quiet, is par for
| the course.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| It extends for literal centuries before the current Ukraine
| debacle. The country has been a mindless lumbering brute for
| most of history.
| ANewFormation wrote:
| Before the invasion Ukraine had a total military force
| (including reserves) of 1.2 million backed by sizable numbers
| of highly motivated and heavily armed 'nationalist' forces.
| Since 2014 the West had been gradually arming Ukraine and
| various cities like Bakhmut were essentially fortified
| citadels enabling a defensive force to pose extreme
| resistance.
|
| There was 0 chance Ukraine was going to just flop over. Iraq
| and Afghanistan were humble villages by contrast - one which
| we lost to, and the other which our 'victory' amounted to
| bombing the government then hiding out in tiny little ultra
| fortified 'green zones' while waving a victory flag. In both
| cases with the wars dragged on for decades. Now imagine if
| Russia had decided to jump in one of those invasions and
| start shipping hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons to
| them, providing intelligence, and so on.
|
| Russia obviously just thought they were ambushing Ukraine and
| could get some agreement for them to not join NATO without a
| real war. Then the West decided to get involved, similarly
| thinking they were ambushing Russia and that the first sight
| of HIMARS or a Panther tank would send the Russian army
| scattering.
|
| Everybody was wrong, so we got a real war that nobody wanted.
| yakshaving_jgt wrote:
| The russians weren't looking for an agreement.
|
| They were looking to kill Zelensky and control the entire
| country.
|
| In fact, they still are.
|
| It was a war from the beginning.
| The_Colonel wrote:
| > There was 0 chance Ukraine was going to just flop over.
|
| That's a huge hindsight bias. Even the most optimistic
| scenarios from various secret services / think tanks
| predicted only weeks / few months of resistance at the
| most. If you read Ukrainian accounts, most weren't very
| optimistic either. You can also read up how many commanders
| in the south defected - having more such defectors could
| flip the war quite quickly. The question of whether to
| defect or not (or simply run) is something which many did
| on the spot based on their personal circumstances and
| outlook, it's extremely difficult to predict.
| dspillett wrote:
| _> but this is comically inept if true_
|
| Comically inept does sometimes seem to be the country's MO, due
| to corruption and miscommunication (the latter often deliberate
| to hide the former) between the various levels of control.
| People get away with it for quite some time, until a
| mistake/accident too big to successfully cover up occurs or
| there is other reason for an audit from above, at which point
| some are removed from their positions (often to particularly
| unpleasant penal arrangements, or perhaps being moved on via a
| defenestration "accident", as an example to others) and things
| improve for a while. This is often the case in other autocratic
| or anocratic countries too, but it seems particularly endemic
| in Russia (perhaps due to its wide geographic spread?).
|
| _> Why commit such brazen sabotage with a spy ship?_
|
| As others have said, other reasons of the article are that the
| ship has recently been used as a ship for spying, but equipment
| relating to that was not present at the time of the sabotage
| mission it was intercepted during.
| ghjfrdghibt wrote:
| You need to read both Red Notice, and Freezing Order by Bill
| Browder. Truly eye opening, and in line with this type of
| thing.
| lenkite wrote:
| > Why commit such brazen sabotage with a spy ship?
|
| Sorry, but I am just unconvinced. Let's see whether the story
| is "revised" after a few weeks/months. There is also a
| _massive_ propaganda war sponsored with billions of dollars by
| the U.S.
|
| As a citizen of a non-NATO nation, I have lost all faith in the
| media of NATO nations, esp after the Nordstream sabotage was
| blamed on Russia with extraordinary outrage against Russia
| demonstrated everywhere in the media and esp here on HN. Even
| used as justification for new sanctions. The facts were then
| slowly transformed over time. No one bothered to discuss the
| incident later and investigations were all curtailed - hell,
| the Polish prime minister even said to stop the investigation
| and keep quiet about it.
|
| Russia would simply have no logical reason to deliberately do
| this because it gives NATO all the casus belli to break the
| long standing, centuries-old naval treaties here regarding free
| ships. The overwhelming advantage goes to NATO nations - all
| the disadvantage goes to Russia for any sabotage carried out
| here.
|
| Sure if it turns out that Russia is directly responsible
| through deliberate intent of sabotage, ban Russian shipping
| here by all means. But I am willing to bet that the "facts"
| regarding this incident will be revised over time. We have
| already seen this happen in the past.
| nobunaga wrote:
| Well done comrad. Continue your misinformation efforts. You
| will be awarded handsomely when you return to Moscow.
| lenkite wrote:
| Aaah..the usual brain-dead and brain-washed response.
| Eyerolling and tiresome quips about Putin and Moscow. Never
| been to Moscow nor Russia and I don't have their Visa, so
| not sure how I can even "return" to it.
| nobunaga wrote:
| Are you referring to your statement about how russia is
| innocent and is being targeted for no reason since they
| never invaded another country and there are many sources
| for their attempts at sabotage and even assasinations, as
| braindead? Yes, you are indeed speaking braindead
| comments. Just re-read what you wrote, and then think
| about the events of the last 2 years. Try harder comrad.
| lenkite wrote:
| No such statements/claims were made. Congratulations sir!
| You have won an award at the "Strawman Argument". Just
| re-read what you wrote and then refresh your knowledge of
| basic logical fallacies. Try harder at reading
| comprehension.
| phatfish wrote:
| Polite concern, check.
|
| Um, it's the US causing all the problems ACTUALLY, check.
|
| Lost faith in western media, check.
|
| It can't be Russia because it doesn't make sense guys! Check.
|
| "Time will tell", check.
| ttkk wrote:
| You are either just clueless or Russian troll and that is
| that. For the first point you can do something.
|
| Living next to Russia means being target of bullying for
| whatever reason. Now the probable main reason was Estonia
| getting rid of electricity imports from Russia within coming
| months.
|
| And if a ship that left from St. Peterburg has anchor chain
| down when Finnish Border Guard tells it to get it up and
| anchor is missing, that is as smoking gun as it can get in
| the crime scene.
|
| This is only part one and the Putinist media just started
| their shit-throwing against Finland's Pirate Tsuhnas
| (namecalling for Finns)
| lm28469 wrote:
| > I'm not a Russia defender but this is comically inept if
| true.
|
| I mean it's the 1000+ day of the 3 day special military
| operation, we've seen Russians with ww2 era rifles and gear,
| ww2 era tanks, &c. Being inept is the only thing the Russian
| army seems to achieve consistently.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Power on a ship isn't like power on land. It may be that this
| gear was all on one phase of the 3-phase generator output,
| which would make sense if this was radio equipment. Overloading
| a particular phase/circuit with unplanned-for equipment can
| quickly trip switches and other safety system, cascading into a
| blackout.
| belorn wrote:
| The strategy of the shadow fleet has historically been about
| using disposable and cheap commercial ships for dual purpose of
| military and economical operations, with plausible deniability
| as a bonus.
|
| Ducktaping spy equipment onto barely operating merchant ships
| fits perfectly for this purpose. It is the peace time version
| of the merchant raider.
| leshokunin wrote:
| Another sabotage by Russia or its allies on crucial EU
| infrastructure. I'm happy to see the Finns searching and stopping
| them, but we need to be serious about our adversary that keeps
| threatening to nuke major European cities off the map
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _we need to be serious about our adversary that keeps
| threatening to nuke major European cities off the map_
|
| Europe clings to the hope that the rules-based international
| order that--at this point--everyone is abandoning, can be
| resuscitated through hopes and prayers. It can't. We're back to
| realpolitik.
|
| Russian boats should be subject to boarding and searching when
| passing by Finnish and adjacent waters; for precedent, they can
| cite China claiming _its_ sovereign waters include vastly
| adjacent waters to its own.
|
| Russia flirted with Turkish airspace in 2015; Ankara shot it
| down [1]. Zero further provocations. You can't appease a bully
| by lying prostrate. Even if the bully has big guns at home. We
| aren't risking nuclear war by drawing clear lines, we're
| inviting it by clumsily blurring them.
|
| [1]
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_sh...
| immibis wrote:
| > Europe clings to the hope that the rules-based
| international order that--at this point--everyone is
| abandoning, can be resuscitated through hopes and prayers. It
| can't.
|
| FWIW this perspective is currently known pejoratively, as
| "liberalism". As in "conservatives and liberals", not as in
| "liberty" or "liberal world order" - political labels are
| weird. Examples of this kind of party are the SPD (Germany),
| Labour (New Zealand) and the Democrats (USA).
|
| Currently, left wing people are trying to make a big deal out
| of how liberals are (a) not actually left wing, but centrist
| at best, (b) generally incompetent (which is still preferable
| to the alternative most people have, mind you) and (c) enable
| fascism to take over, by attempting to follow the rules all
| the time, without updating the rules when fascists learn how
| to exploit them. (Hitler was given power according to the
| normal process, even though it should have already been
| obvious to everyone involved that it was a bad idea, because
| the most important thing is to follow the process, no matter
| where it leads)
| ETH_start wrote:
| Every authoritarian measure instituted by Eastern Bloc
| countries was justified by the authorities as a necessary
| precaution against reactionaries/fascists. The Nazis
| similarly justified every act of inhumanity as a necessary
| preventative measure against the takeover of their country
| by the "Judeo-Bolshevism" of the murderous Soviet regime.
| The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
| nataliste wrote:
| >Hitler was given power according to the normal process,
| even though it should have already been obvious to everyone
| involved that it was a bad idea, because the most important
| thing is to follow the process, no matter where it leads)
|
| Hitler's rise was not a product of strict adherence to
| democratic norms. The Weimar authorities repeatedly broke
| with "normal process" including banning him from public
| speaking, suppressing Nazi media, outlawing the SA, relying
| on emergency decrees, and bypassing parliamentary
| governance. These anti-democratic measures not only failed
| to stop Hitler but eroded trust in democracy itself,
| creating the conditions for his eventual ascent.
|
| Moreover, the KPD (the German Communist Party) played a
| significant role in destabilizing the Republic. They
| engaged in widespread political violence, targeting both
| Nazis and moderate leftists. They fractured anti-Nazi
| opposition by labelling the SPD as "social fascists"
| unworthy of cooperating with. The Nazi's Sturmabteilung was
| hardened primarily in response to KPD attacks through the
| Rotfrontkampferbund (attacks that the authorities refused
| to prevent).
|
| The left's infighting, combined with its own undemocratic
| tactics, significantly weakened any systemic resistance to
| fascism and helped paved the road Hitler later marched
| down.
| Zigurd wrote:
| January 6th was not a normal process and neither was The
| Beer Hall Putsch. It rhymes.
| smallmancontrov wrote:
| > not as in "liberty" or "liberal world order" - political
| labels are weird
|
| No, the core of the beef between leftists and liberals _is_
| over "liberty," or something that a liberal would call
| liberty and a leftist would not. Namely, property rights
| over financial assets. Liberals see these as a kind of
| liberty: "you own a farm, property rights over the farm
| connect the labor you do in upkeep and planting to the
| rewards you reap at harvest." Leftists argue that this
| might be a nice but temporary side effect and that the core
| purpose of financial assets is to ensure that rich people
| get paid for being rich in proportion to how rich they are,
| thereby establishing, reinforcing, and perpetuating a class
| hierarchy where the people on the bottom must constantly
| pay to exist while the people on top constantly get paid to
| exist. They would tell a different story: "Bill Gates owns
| the farmland, you do all the work, you pay him everything
| he asks for, and if it's not enough he replaces you." In
| turn, the liberal would contend that market competition
| keeps this in check and the leftist would contend that ever
| concentrating capital interests ensure robust competition
| on the bottom and absent competition on the top, slowly
| crushing any market competition favorable to the farmer. At
| this point, if it hasn't happened already, the liberal will
| start lobbing horrific tales of leftists abusing farmers
| and the leftist will start lobbing horrific tales of
| property rights being used to abuse farmers and the
| conversation descends into "whose atrocities are bigger /
| worse / more relevant" discourse.
|
| If you haven't seen this kind of infighting, it's not
| because the philosophical rift doesn't exist, it's because
| actual leftism has been outside the Overton window of
| popular discourse in the United States for the last 50-70
| years. McCarthy's Red Scare was the first push, dissolution
| of the New Deal Coalition was the last. Class Warfare
| rhetoric was frowned upon by the liberal + conservative
| majority and kept out of polite company. Now that populism
| is back in fashion, leftists have been looking to change
| that, but they have been having less success than the
| populist right. Watch this space, though.
| leshokunin wrote:
| Fully agreed. They won't react until Russia invaded them.
| They somehow expect NATO to hold. While Trump and his Russian
| leaning politics, has said he might leave NATO.
| simonh wrote:
| That's assuming Trump means anything he says. An assumption
| that has a pretty poor track record.
|
| As with the last time he was elected Trump has vehemently
| criticised a policy of his predecessor, and then
| immediately adopted the same policy as his own on being
| elected.
|
| He did it over bombing Syria if they used chemical weapons,
| and he's doing it over Ukraine now, making it clear he
| intends to continue fully supporting them, while also
| pushing for a huge increase in military spending. Both
| policies he and his party were adamantly against and did
| everything they could to undermine while in opposition.
| smallmancontrov wrote:
| Yes, he flipped on Ukraine, yes, it's a promising sign,
| no, it doesn't mean he can't flop on Ukraine.
|
| The uncharitable scenario is that he's waiting for the RU
| bribe money to land before delivering -- and no one
| deserves charity less than this man. Remember when he
| stopped the Javelin shipments to Ukraine until such time
| as Zelensky could deliver dirt (real or manufactured) on
| Biden? This could be exactly like that, though at this
| time he presumably wants money not dirt.
| simonh wrote:
| The charitable scenarios is he's realised that if he
| continues his commitment to drop support for Ukraine, he
| has zero bargaining power with Putin to negotiate a peace
| as promised.
|
| How that wasn't blindingly obvious from the start is a
| question, but not one he or his supporters actually care
| about because they couldn't give a fig about Ukraine. It
| is entirely instrumental to his personal political
| advantage in the moment. Being utterly opposed to support
| for Ukraine was politically advantageous in opposition
| and supporting Ukraine to the hilt is now politically
| advantageous in power. That's all that matters.
|
| Chemical weapons in Syria are an informative parallel.
| Obama's commitment to bombing Syria if they used chemical
| weapons was the worst policy ever from opposition, but
| actually bombing Syria for using Chemical weapons when
| they did so as soon as Trump gained power was an obvious
| necessity.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _How that wasn't blindingly obvious from the start is a
| question_
|
| You're vastly overestimating the strategic capacity or
| care of the American voter. Game theory doesn't fit in a
| TikTok video.
| smallmancontrov wrote:
| Right, and I hope for the charitable scenario. I suppose
| we'll find out in a few months.
| dralley wrote:
| > Obama's commitment to bombing Syria if they used
| chemical weapons was the worst policy ever from
| opposition
|
| Mostly because Assad did use chemical weapons and Obama
| didn't bomb them. Arguably the fact that Obama backed
| down set the tone for the invasion of Crimea and the
| Donbas.
| simonh wrote:
| It took a while to confirm they'd used them and Obama
| made the mistake of asking Congress for authorisation to
| take out their chemical sites. Mitch McConnell blocked
| that, which is where Republican opposition to bombing
| Syria for having or using chemical weapons started.
|
| Until they were in power of course, and Assad mistakenly
| assumed the Republican position on this was coherent and
| actually used chemical weapons again.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Obama made the mistake of asking Congress for
| authorisation_
|
| Obama certainly didn't bother with as much when offing
| Al-Awlaki [1]. (An American who took up arms against the
| United States.)
|
| This was Obama's fuck-up. He was the chief executive and
| commander in chief. If he couldn't hold the line, he
| shouldn't have drawn it.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-
| Awla...
| macintux wrote:
| > ...but not one he or his supporters actually care about
| because they couldn't give a fig about Ukraine.
|
| His supporters absolutely _would_ give a fig about
| Ukraine if Trump hadn 't spent years sabotaging the GOP's
| historical positions on hostile authoritarians.
| simonh wrote:
| Oh absolutely, I say all this as a deeply dissolutions
| British conservative who wonders what the heck has
| happened to Republicanism. It's not all down to Trump
| either, it started before him with McConnell and others
| as I pointed out in another comment.
| The_Colonel wrote:
| Trump's election might be pretty bad for Russia after
| all. With Democrats already being committed to Ukraine
| and Republicans committed to Trump, the whole congress is
| ready for a pretty much unlimited (material) help to
| Ukraine if Trump wants it. And the threat of exactly that
| is necessary for successful peace negotiations, which in
| turn is what would score Trump major political points.
| Scarblac wrote:
| NATO without the US can easily hold against Russia,
| provided nukes don't fly and the US does not stop selling
| munitions.
| mcmcmc wrote:
| So even without the US, they still need the US
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| A charitable reading suggests they meant that no US
| troops would be needed.
| sekai wrote:
| They don't, Finland and Poland alone would counter
| Russia.
| stickfigure wrote:
| NATO without the US still has two member countries with
| nukes. That doesn't guarantee "NATO wins" but it does
| assure "Russia loses" if that particular cat comes out of
| the bag.
| madspindel wrote:
| Yes, and if the US leaves NATO, Sweden will start
| building nukes (again)
|
| https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-
| office/2012/0...
| protomolecule wrote:
| >Europe clings to the hope that the rules-based international
| order that--at this point--everyone is abandoning
|
| That's funny. It died when the US invaded Iraq in 2003 and
| the EU continued business as usual.
| thanksgiving wrote:
| > EU just watched
|
| A lot of us in the US don't subscribe to the idea of
| "either you're with us or against us". I don't expect every
| single country in the world to drop everything they are
| doing and rush to help us invade whatever country we want
| to invade. I think it is ridiculous to say the EU is not
| with us because they don't blindly follow us everywhere.
|
| In hindsight, it was a bad idea to invade Iraq anyway.
| simonh wrote:
| I think you may be misconstruing that comment. I suspect
| the idea is that the US invading Iraq was a violation of
| the international rules based order, and the EU was
| complicit in it.
| thanksgiving wrote:
| I apologize for my error. I thought it said just watched
| when I replied. Grandparent clarified their post since
| then.
| protomolecule wrote:
| Sorry about that
| buran77 wrote:
| > the EU just watched
|
| The EU paid its "protection tax" by implicitly or
| explicitly endorsing any US actions. It's what always gave
| legitimacy to any US military action, what gave them the
| sheen of righteousness. The EU didn't "just watch", they
| did what they were expected to do.
|
| Going forward, if Trump's anti-NATO agenda materializes,
| the US will have to find a different source of legitimacy
| for their actions or be painted as just an aggressor on the
| world stage.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _It died when the US invaded Iraq in 2003_
|
| Probably not, but that's a separate--if fruitful--
| discussion. (Better candidates: NATO bombing Yugoslavia.)
|
| What's not debatable is that it has changed. Given how
| lightfootedly Europe is playing its hand, it's surprising
| it's taken this long to get Putin at their throats, Trump
| at their wallets and Xi gutting their industry.
| GoblinSlayer wrote:
| Isn't it their strategy to look cute and thus convince
| other countries to join EU and NATO? If they were to
| abandon it, they would need to replace all their foreign
| strategy.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Isn 't it their strategy to look cute and thus
| convince other countries to join EU and NATO_
|
| Nobody joins a defensive alliance because it's cute. To
| the extent a cogent geopolitical message has been
| delivered, between Bush and Biden, it's that the
| international order has two castes: nuclear-armed states
| and everyone else.
| matt-p wrote:
| What's the EU got to do with it? The EU is a glorified
| trade bloc, it doesn't work for the union on defense; that
| is handled by individual nations.
|
| The UK did a similar amount to the US per capita in Iraq,
| even though we had less to gain and, frankly, it has
| punched above it's weight in practically every war going
| since well before the US even existed. Including Ukraine
| for example, where we were the first to arm them in advance
| of the invasion.
|
| This comes across as american ignorance, I'm sorry to say.
| GiorgioG wrote:
| > Europe clings to the hope that the rules-based
| international order that--at this point--everyone is
| abandoning, can be resuscitated through hopes and prayers.
|
| Appeasement is what Europe does when an aggressor comes
| knocking.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| s/Europe/Western Europe/
| tim333 wrote:
| Not always. There is some division of opinion amongst
| European leaders.
| leobg wrote:
| "Appeasement" is what saved the world from nuclear war
| during the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK was so afraid to be
| labeled an "appeaser" afterward that he kept the deal he
| made with Khrushchev secret.
|
| "Appeasement" is such a fake lesson from WW2. Chamberlain's
| mistake was not negotiating with Hitler. His mistake was
| that he let wishful thinking cloud his vision.
|
| Churchill just did much better in understanding his enemy.
| In this particular case, with an enemy whose goal was the
| eradication of whole parts of the world population, the
| result was that negotiating made no sense. But to say this
| is the lesson from Munich and to apply this as a cookie
| cutter template to any dictator is barking mad. Even more
| so in the age of nuclear weapons.
| joseppudev wrote:
| >Russia flirted with Turkish airspace in 2015; Ankara shot it
| down [1]. Zero further provocations. You can't appease a
| bully by lying prostrate. Even if the bully has big guns at
| home. We aren't risking nuclear war by drawing clear lines,
| we're inviting it by clumsily blurring them.
|
| Zero further provocations doesn't seem right [1] [2]
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Russian_Air_Force_Al-
| Bab_... [2]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Balyun_airstrikes
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Fair enough. (2020 yes, 2017 credibly an accident.) Revise
| to a single provocation enacted on foreign soil with
| plausible ambiguity.
| GoblinSlayer wrote:
| 2020 was in Syria, not Turkey.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Yes. Syria is foreign soil to Turkey.
| Prbeek wrote:
| I remembered those airstrikes that killed Turkish troops
| and thought he just didn't make sense about "zero further
| provocations"
| Scarblac wrote:
| Europe isn't doing nothing, it's sending weapons to Ukraine.
| That hurts Russia, but not as directly as firing them
| yourself.
| medo-bear wrote:
| Seems like it is hurting more the people that have been
| conscripted (forced) to do the firing
| cpursley wrote:
| Correct, and for the downvoters - Ukraine foreign Legion
| desperately needs volunteers. Here's where you can sign
| up: https://ildu.com.ua
| joyeuse6701 wrote:
| Yes yes, and if you think this is a senseless war that'll
| instantly stop all future Russian aggression once it
| concludes in Russian favor, like trustworthy Putin has
| always promised, you can join the Russian army as a
| foreigner and help! Here's some information to get you
| started:
| https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/09/20/moscow-to-open-
| mil...
|
| It's a multicultural affair, Nepalese, Ethiopians, North
| Koreans, Indians, a real who's who of the most privileged
| individuals lending a hand in this noble pursuit of
| saving Ukrainians from themselves. Unsure? Donate to
| Russian units today, they need vehicles, drones, and
| tourniquets. We officially don't _need_ help, the SMO is
| going great, but every bit helps! Put your money where
| your mouth is and help end the war!
|
| Can't do that? Assist the Russian psy-ops by repeating
| Russian talking points online to nudge your government to
| help us subjugate a people like it's 1700! Don't delay,
| start today!
| tz10276 wrote:
| This is hardly a Russian talking point. Russia does not
| want more Ukrainian soldiers.
|
| The entire neocon press makes the point that people are
| evading service:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/29/i-a
| m-n...
|
| https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-faces-an-acute-
| manpo...
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/21/world/europe/ukraine-
| war-...
|
| I don't blame them. That's why it would have been better
| to accept the Istanbul agreement while Ukraine had the
| upper hand. Naftali Bennett (hardly opposed to wars in
| principle) said that this agreement was sabotaged by the
| U.S., but he walked back that statement later.
|
| I do blame Ukraine for not holding elections and finding
| out what people really want.
| fullspectrumdev wrote:
| It's against the fucking constitution in Ukraine to hold
| elections during wartime.
|
| I don't understand why people in west find that so hard
| to wrap their heads around, especially Americans.
| really1827 wrote:
| Because it is a silly rule. These kind of wars drag on
| for 10 years. What if the population no longer wants it?
| Should they have another Maidan revolution?
| rfrey wrote:
| What's hard to understand? It's Russian financed
| propaganda, with courier services provided by the far
| right and far left. The far right happens to be in
| control of the Republican party at the moment, so we hear
| more if it with that spin.
| cpursley wrote:
| "It's okay that Putin is president for life, it's in
| their constitution - why can't Americans (especially
| Americans) wrap their head around that!"
| cpursley wrote:
| Your response comes across as racist even if you did not
| intend it that way. Very much a "us civilized noble
| Europeans vs those Asiatic / brown savages" vibe.
| GoblinSlayer wrote:
| I read as sarcasm: "Want to stop the war? Join it."
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| What's the alternative?
| zardo wrote:
| Flee the country. Of course those with the money or
| connections to make that possible have already done so.
| dralley wrote:
| For this argument to make any sense, Russia would have to
| be invading and murdering _less_ enthusiastically without
| the Western support. Which is nonsense.
| medo-bear wrote:
| Unfortunately I cant make sense of what you wrote
| andrewflnr wrote:
| No, it's hurting more the people the weapons are fired
| at. Don't try to make it more complicated than it is.
| medo-bear wrote:
| The US is currently pressuring the Ukranian government to
| lower the conscription age to 18. In Russia there does
| not seem to be any conscription at the moment. You make
| your own conclusion
| andrewflnr wrote:
| No, Russia is emptying its prisons and bringing in troops
| from North Korea instead. You make your own conclusion.
| alistairSH wrote:
| So, the people of Ukraine should just give up and let
| Russia take over? That's a pretty ridiculous take.
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| This person has said that Ukraine "provoked russia into
| invading" by talking about joining NATO. It doesn't make
| sense and it's not going to make sense.
| aliasxneo wrote:
| How is that not true, though? Claiming it's Ukraines
| fault for the war is absurd, but joining NATO was always
| going to be seen as a provocative act. It's geopolitics
| and there's never black and white lines.
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| > joining NATO was always going to be seen as a
| provocative act
|
| By who? Propagandists trying to rationalize invading a
| sovereign nation?
|
| If I join one neighbor's neighborhood watch group,
| another neighbor doesn't get to say I provoked them and
| burn my house down.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| The analogy fails. NATO isnt a neighborhood watch group
| and it isn't a simple defensive pact. There is
|
| A closer analogy would be a neighborhood club that keeps
| guns trained on everyone on the street, and sometimes
| takes people out back to kill them.
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| I don't know what you're talking about that isn't within
| a sovereign country's rights.
|
| Do you think russia was "provoked into invading" ? Just
| come out and say it.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I dont really see what rights have to do with it. My
| point is that the current situation was entirely
| predictable, and in fact, it was widely predicted.
|
| I'm not making some moral point.
| The_Colonel wrote:
| That analogy still doesn't justify coming to your house
| and killing your family.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| So what? In a just world, there would no violence or
| threats whatsoever.
|
| My point was that it was entirely predictable. If you
| point a gun at someone else, you are likely to get shot.
| Especially if they tell you repeatedly that they will
| shoot you if you point a gun at them.
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| Ukraine never pointed a gun at russia. They didn't
| threaten them or try to intimidate them.
|
| This is like someone saying they will start locking their
| doors, so someone else says they were forced to rob and
| murder them.
|
| It's absurd from any perspective except for warped "don't
| believe your own eyes, ears and thoughts" Orwellian
| propaganda.
| rat87 wrote:
| NATO wasn't pointing a gun at Russia. NATO bent over
| backwards to satisfy Russian paranoia. Didn't help.
|
| Russia was the one threatening to shoot and shooting
| people
| medo-bear wrote:
| lolllllll
| rat87 wrote:
| NATO is a defense pact. And your portrayal of NATO is
| ridiculous. NATO bent over backwards to satisfy Russian
| paranoia. NATO had barely any troops(just enough to say
| if you invade and kill them it's war) in the eastern NATO
| member countries until the full scale invasion of
| Ukraine.
| stogot wrote:
| Joining a defensive treaty (NATO) is not a real
| provocation, but is rather a post hoc justification for
| Putin's desires.
| jodleif wrote:
| Also people seem to forget 2014, it's not like it's
| unwarranted for Ukraine to want to join NATO
| luuurker wrote:
| The problem is that Ukraine has been trying to join NATO
| since the early 2000s. The answer was always the same:
| "we'll consider it". This wasn't going to change in 2014,
| when Ukraine had no working government and Russia
| invaded.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| It's also a nonsense argument given Putin's aggression
| prompted NATO's largest expansion in a decade and
| arguably most-significant expansion since the 1990s.
| scotty79 wrote:
| Obviously attempts of bullying victim to join a friend
| group that might protect them is provocative to the
| bully, as it might limit their capacity to do the
| bullying.
|
| The question is, why should we avoid doing it rather than
| let them escalate and use this opportunity to stomp the
| bully. Which is in the works and will happen in few
| years.
| leobg wrote:
| Because this isn't the school yard. And the country you
| label a "bully" has nukes and probably cares more about
| Ukraine than you do, based on willingness for sacrifices
| (though in reverse).
|
| There were people talking like you among JFK's chief of
| staff during the Cuban Missile crisis. Same argument. Had
| JFK listened to them, we very likely would not be here
| today.
| scotty79 wrote:
| School bully might have a gun but if he uses it's then
| it's game over for him too. And russia behaves like a
| bully. Any step back emboldens them. What might have been
| true at the height of cold war might not be true now.
| Befriending the opponent failed. Now it's time to finish
| the job and actually win the cold war.
| stickfigure wrote:
| "My wife provoked the beating by asking for a divorce"
| pvaldes wrote:
| The list of excuses put by Russia is endless. They came
| for the nazis, stayed for the free toilets and washing
| machines.
| rat87 wrote:
| Ukraine wasn't joining NATO when Russia invaded in 2014
| or 2022 when the full scale invasion happened. Ukraine
| wasn't even seeking NATO membership in 2014 prior to the
| Russian invasion. The goal of the post revolution of
| dignity government was stability and taking steps towards
| joining the EU(and even joining the EU was still seen as
| a difficult process that would at best take many years).
| Everyone including Russia knew that there was no chance
| of joining NATO anytime soon since France and Germany
| among other countries had and were still objecting. It's
| clear that the NATO excuse for the war is absurd bullshit
| mistermann wrote:
| An interesting detail about language that not many people
| know: the "sense making" involved in language occurs
| within the mind of the reader, it is not contained within
| the language itself.
|
| So if something doesn't make sense, it is possible (but
| not necessarily so) that it is a skills or ideology issue
| with the reader.
|
| Note also that detecting ideological bias in oneself is a
| very difficult thing to do, but it seems like the
| opposite.
| medo-bear wrote:
| It makes more sense than the US going into Vietnam to
| stop the rise of communism at home. Unfprtunately this is
| what imperialist powers do, and in this sense Russia was
| provoked. More importabtly, given the strategic
| importance of Ukraine as a buffer to Russia, this is also
| how world wars happen. But many people seem to have this
| illusion that Russians are stupid orks arriving in zomby
| like waves with nothing but shovels
| luuurker wrote:
| This discussion has happened a few times with medo-bear
| here on HN and it's always the same thing. Russia's
| actions are never their fault and Ukraine should just
| accept what Russia is doing because otherwise they're
| being manipulated by the west.
| medo-bear wrote:
| I have no idea who you are but I am very happy to get
| under your skin
| luuurker wrote:
| Nah, you don't get under my skin, but there's no point in
| discussing this with you as all you do is blame the US,
| the "west", and the bogeyman for Russia's actions and
| attack anyone that doesn't bend over to Russia. You are
| today's version of a "tankie" and to be honest, it's a
| bit sad to see.
| medo-bear wrote:
| dude you remembered my name on a random internet forum.
| cant even remember last time i discussed russia on this
| medo-bear wrote:
| People of Ukraine should not be forced to fight by their
| government. Simple
| The_Colonel wrote:
| I assume you protested the 2022 Russian mobilization as
| well?
| medo-bear wrote:
| completely opposed to it, yes. im an ex refugee. i hate
| war and especially conscription. and super especially a
| pointless war that destroys the whole country and sets it
| back for generations to come.
|
| ive also seen what western interefernce looks like when
| the west wants there to be a war. for example compare
| this to boris johnson torpedoing the peace agreement
| between Russia and Ukraine in 2022 On 18
| March 1992, all three sides signed the agreement; Alija
| Izetbegovic for the Bosniaks, Radovan Karadzic for the
| Bosnian Serbs and Mate Boban for the Bosnian Croats. The
| plan had assigned each of the 109 municipalities to be
| divided amongst the three ethnic sides. The allocation of
| the municipalities was mostly based off the results of
| the 1991 population census that was completed a year
| before the signing of the agreement. The agreement had
| stipulated that the Bosniak and Serb cantons would each
| have covered 44% of the country's territory, with the
| Croat canton covering the remaining 12%.[3]
| On 28 March 1992, after a meeting with US ambassador to
| Yugoslavia Warren Zimmermann in Sarajevo, Izetbegovic
| withdrew his signature and declared his opposition to any
| division of Bosnia. What was said and by whom remains
| unclear. Zimmermann denied that he told Izetbegovic that
| if he withdrew his signature, the United States would
| grant recognition to Bosnia as an independent state. What
| is indisputable is that on the same day, Izetbegovic
| withdrew his signature and renounced the agreement.[4][5]
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_plans_proposed_befo
| re_...
|
| Ukranians should take note that the Bosniak side came out
| even worse after that war, while the Serbian side today
| controls half of the country in a defacto almost
| independent state
| buildsjets wrote:
| Russia does not use conscription. All those troops
| volunteered to be there. At least that is what leader
| Vlad is claiming. Are you disagreeing with the Dear
| Leader?
| stogot wrote:
| Actually he admitted to doing so
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/09/europe/russia-conscripts-
| figh...
|
| And they're being used in Kursk given that Putin is not
| bringing units from Donetsk to push them out (and is
| supplemented by DPRK)
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| The overwhelming majority are well paid volunteers. The
| topic of conscription is highly political in Russia.
| Paying them is a major cost of the war and limitation on
| manpower. The pro war faction has been pushing for
| conscription to enable a surge, but meaningful
| conscription has not occurred.
| pvaldes wrote:
| And helping millions of expatriate Ukrainians from the
| minute zero.
| matt-p wrote:
| What about if Russia switch to just using Chinese boats as a
| proxy? What about a boat registered to some anonymous trust
| in the canaries?
|
| It's a lovely theory but in practice you have to have a rule
| that says we can board any ship we feel like and that's super
| problematic.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _What about if Russia switch to just using Chinese boats
| as a proxy?_
|
| Beijing has no interest in this. If anything, it has an
| interest in becoming one of Russia's sole buyers.
|
| > _you have to have a rule that says we can board any ship
| we feel like and that 's super problematic_
|
| Why? China is literally doing this right now outside its
| territorial waters. It's fine. America would too, if
| foreign trawlers started cutting its lines. Again, if one
| person is playing by restrictions everyone else has already
| abandoned, it's not difficult to conclude who's the sucker
| at the table.
| matt-p wrote:
| It's highly unsociable to ignore international law and
| agreements just because they're not convenient.
|
| Classic American view point. Win at all costs, ignore the
| rules yourself but use another countries lack of
| adherence as an excuse to invade/bomb them.
|
| You really think this is how we get a peaceful and
| civilised world order? You think this builds trust? Moral
| leadership? Long term reputation? Relationships?
|
| Ridiculous. Sorry to be controversial but breaking
| international law should be avoided at almost any cost.
|
| I guess one man's "sucker at the table" is another man's
| "gentleman who plays by the rules, and can be trusted"
| bdangubic wrote:
| international as well as any other law only works if
| there are consequences to breaking the law...
| matt-p wrote:
| Any punishment that involves breaking the same law to
| administer isn't the correct one. It infers no
| superiority and just kicks off the race to the bottom.
| fnordsensei wrote:
| I'm sure Putin would love it if the west continued to
| turn the other cheek.
|
| No, if your point is reasonable, it still doesn't apply
| when dealing with a psychopath. Who TF cares about moral
| superiority in the face of an existential threat?
|
| If moral superiority is so important, let Putin lead with
| it.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _unsociable to ignore international law and agreements
| just because they 're not convenient_
|
| My entire point is this is already the _status quo_.
| Nobody--other than Europe--is following the post-WWII
| rules anymore. There is a new set of conventions being
| _de facto_ agreed to, and they will be set by the players
| actually at the table.
| sampo wrote:
| > > What about if Russia switch to just using Chinese
| boats as a proxy?
|
| > Beijing has no interest in this.
|
| The first cable and gas pipe sabotages using the anchor
| dragging method in the Baltic Sea in 2023 and 2024 were
| done by Chinese ships:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newnew_Polar_Bear
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Peng_3
|
| So obviously Beijing in already into this on the Russian
| side.
| Applejinx wrote:
| in peacetime. It's looking like right now isn't peacetime.
| When a country is breaking every peacetime rule to conquer
| its neighbors and not-even-neighbors, the rules saying you
| can't, become super problematic as they'll be weaponized
| like everything else.
| wasmitnetzen wrote:
| The last boat used for this stunt was Chinese, this one is
| registered in the Cook Islands. This is already happening.
|
| There is no way out of the Baltic Sea without crossing the
| territorial sea of either Sweden or Denmark. Countries have
| full jurisdiction in those, cutting cables on purpose is at
| least a criminal act, if not terrorism. There's no problem
| handling this, even if you're fully playing by the books.
|
| Russia would then need to switch to ships running only to
| Kaliningrad, which makes it even more obvious that it's an
| act of war.
| matt-p wrote:
| I agree it should be handled and if we can board the ship
| and arrest everyone inside international law it should be
| done.
|
| I just don't agree this is something worth breaking
| international law over.
| dagenleg wrote:
| I don't think there are many penalties for breaking the
| international law. Clearly, in the environment where
| Europe's adversaries are flagrantly breaking it on the
| daily basis, keeping to it meticulously would be foolish
| and dangerous.
|
| Just like pacifism, abiding by the international law in
| this case will only serve to embolden the totalitarian
| regimes, which neither desire peace, nor obey the law.
| matt-p wrote:
| And then you enable them to use the argument against you.
|
| They broke the law last time therefore it's fine for us
| to.
| dagenleg wrote:
| Who cares? It's just words. It's better than getting
| attacked while being paralyzed with indecision.
| lxgr wrote:
| Yes, the UNCLOS is ultimately just words, just like the
| Geneva convention, a formal declaration of war, a
| country's nuclear doctrine etc.
|
| Words aren't as meaningless as you claim even at wartime.
| dagenleg wrote:
| I think if you wanted to bring up meaningful words, those
| were not the best examples to give. In the recent years,
| somewhere amongst the endless nuclear threat screeching
| and the ignored ICC arrest warrants, they have lost a lot
| of meaning. The declaration of war is a pretty good
| example of that, actually, being an outdated and withered
| concept.
|
| I'm simply pointing out that words do not matter as much,
| willingness to do something, to respond, to defend
| yourself, that's what matters. I'm not ignoring the value
| of laws, and rules, and regulations, but they clearly are
| not an ironclad defense. Just like Article 5 isn't.
| GoblinSlayer wrote:
| Why declaration of war is outdated?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Why declaration of war is outdated?_
|
| Plot every declaration of war since WWII. Now plot every
| military conflict. Nobody declares war by declaring war,
| we declare war by bombing.
| eastbound wrote:
| Every nation uses novel words every time, to avoid
| parallels. In fact ambassadors have to research every
| historical speech when a president wants to coin a new
| term. It's not rare we hear "He said [...], a term not
| used since [last scuffle between countries]", journalists
| do notice.
|
| US has Guantanamo and they don't call them prisoners of
| wars (PoW). Russia has special military operations.
| Australia doesn't keep their illegal immigrants in
| detention centers but in "administrative residences".
|
| So declarations of war are very much not outdated,
| insofar as everyone _avoids_ those terms.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _UNCLOS is ultimately just words, just like the Geneva
| convention, a formal declaration of war, a country 's
| nuclear doctrine_
|
| UNCLOS is being ignored by China. The Geneva Conventions
| have been ignored by every current, former and emerging
| superpower, as well as several regional powers--again,
| without consequence. Nobody declares war. And Putin has
| been amending his nuclear doctrine by the hour, often
| with false starts.
|
| Would I prefer these were law? Absolutely. Must I blind
| myself to the fact that they aren't? No.
| lxgr wrote:
| There are ways of responding to some UNCLOS violations
| while continuing to adhere to it, e.g. the US's FONOPs.
|
| Just because some states are violating it doesn't mean
| that we should throw the entire thing overboard entirely.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _ways of responding to some UNCLOS violations while
| continuing to adhere to it_
|
| Sure. It's still, ultimately, a unilateraly rewriting of
| the terms. Something states can do in international law
| that individuals can't in a nation with the rule of law.
|
| > _because some states are violating it doesn 't mean
| that we should throw the entire thing overboard entirely_
|
| Nobody is suggesting that. My point is we should be more
| open to such rewritings given they're commonly taking
| place. It doesn't make sense for Europe to treat UNCLOS
| as binding law when Russia, China and hell America treat
| is as nice-to-have guidelines.
|
| International agreements were treated as law in the post-
| WWII era. That era ended some time after the fall of the
| Soviet Union. Slowly. Then suddenly.
|
| They're now closer to LOIs. Some countries are realising
| this quickly. Others more slowly.
| lxgr wrote:
| Trust is hard to earn and very easy to lose. The
| appropriate answer to somebody violating hard-won
| international laws and norms isn't to just also start
| violating them.
| scotty79 wrote:
| Laws are for participants who willingly obey them. If
| they don't they automatically shouldn't be covered by
| them. There might be separate subset of laws on how to
| treat them but they cannot be treated the same as
| conforming entities.
|
| You have freedom but if you do a crime your right to
| freedom is void. Now you have right to get punished.
| lxgr wrote:
| Not sure what to call a rule that immediately stops
| applying to any involved party as soon as one violates
| it, but "law" isn't a word that comes to mind.
| scotty79 wrote:
| It's called pragmatism. It's one level above the law for
| practical purposes. It dictates when to apply the law in
| the international setting.
| riehwvfbk wrote:
| Blow up gas pipeline: good! Cut a cable: terrorism!
| matt-p wrote:
| B-but it's different we're the "good guys" and therefore
| it's fine when we break international law, it's only when
| "they" do it that it's bad.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Blow up gas pipeline: good! Cut a cable: terrorism!_
|
| Straw men. The point is both have happened.
| lxgr wrote:
| > There is no way out of the Baltic Sea without crossing
| the territorial sea of either Sweden or Denmark.
| Countries have full jurisdiction in those [...]
|
| I don't think it's as clear cut. Transit passage through
| straits is governed by special provisions in the UNCLOS;
| with a few exceptions, states can't just board vessels.
|
| What could further complicate matters here is if
| infrastructure of states A and B is damaged, but a vessel
| leaves the sea through a strait bordering states C and D.
|
| That's obviously only the theory, and it's unfortunately
| not like there is broad international consensus on
| matters of territoriality at sea at this point.
| fi358 wrote:
| First two sabotages were done by Chinese ships (which may
| have had russians on the board). This one was registered
| to Cook Islands.
| nradov wrote:
| China's ridiculous claims to waters outside it's legal
| territory are irrelevant to the issue of boarding Russian
| civilian ships in the Baltic Sea. In that area there's no
| doubt that the vessels are sailing through waters owned by
| various NATO member states. Russia acknowledges this. But the
| vessels are exercising the right of innocent passage under
| the law of the sea.
|
| https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unc.
| ..
|
| NATO members can and should find some other pretext to stop,
| board, and search some of those Russian vessels. But if
| Russia doesn't back down and sends them with Navy escorts
| what then? It's worth thinking through the various escalation
| scenarios before acting.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| In your scenario we're clearly already in an open conflict
| pjc50 wrote:
| > if Russia doesn't back down and sends them with Navy
| escorts what then?
|
| The whole point of doing it with a tanker was deniability.
| Doing it with a Russian-flagged ship makes it overt. The
| anti-escalation logic applies in both direction: Russia
| wants to sabotage as much as possible _without_ triggering
| a huge escalation, because they 're not sure they can win
| that either (and nobody could win a nuclear exchange!)
| lxgr wrote:
| They are likely exercising transit passage, which has more
| protections under the UNCLOS than innocent passage.
|
| That's not to say that nothing can be done, but that it's
| important to do the right thing, or we risk eroding the few
| hard-won rules we still have.
| belorn wrote:
| It is not innocent passage if they attack the order and
| security of the coastal State. Article 19 and 21. Undersea
| cables are explicitly mentioned under 21.
|
| By attack undersea cables the ship are no longer exercising
| the right of innocent passage, and thus is not protected
| under the law of the sea.
| mountainstar wrote:
| Lol, literally a few weeks ago we had NATO leaders
| talking about how "we need to find a way to shut down the
| passage of Russian oil" and now how convenient, we
| suddenly see that Russian taners are apparently doing
| things which conveniently give NATO a way to shut down
| the passage of Russian oil.
| sampo wrote:
| > boarding Russian civilian ships in the Baltic Sea
|
| The ship that was boarded, is registered in the Cook
| Islands (an associated state of New Zealand), owned and
| operated by a company in United Arab Emirates. And the
| ship's crew were Georgian and Indian.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_S
| tokai wrote:
| That's just how shipping works. Non of those countries
| are the actual owners or operators.
| robocat wrote:
| Aside: the Cook Islands seems to desire to be independent
| from NZ: https://dailytelegraph.co.nz/news/cook-islands-
| looking-to-de...
|
| Background: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_sta
| tus_of_the_Cook...
|
| It looks like the Cook Islands are heavily dependent on
| financial support from NZ government, and NZ tourists.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _China 's ridiculous claims to waters outside it's legal
| territory are irrelevant to the issue of boarding Russian
| civilian ships in the Baltic Sea_
|
| China retains the right to board any ship in what it
| considers its sovereign territory, UNCLOS be damned. A
| similar reading by Finland would let it legally board any
| Russian ship transitting "its" straits.
| mountainstar wrote:
| "NATO members can and should find some other pretext"
|
| Funny, how all the lectures about the "rules based order"
| and the "rule of law" from Western necons are shown to be
| total lies by their own words.
| jltsiren wrote:
| Freedom of navigation is a part of international law major
| powers usually care about, because international trade serves
| their interests.
|
| Maybe a bunch of small North European countries decide to
| blockade Russia in the Baltic Sea, and maybe Russia doesn't
| consider this an act of war, because NATO seems credible
| enough. Suddenly the Houthi attempt to blockade the Red Sea
| becomes much more legitimate, and Iran will certainly take
| note. Maybe Panama goes shopping for allies (since the US is
| starting to look unpredictable), and maybe China gains the
| power to decide who gets to use the canal. And maybe Turkey
| (which is technically a NATO member but not in particularly
| friendly terms with the West) decides that it is allowed to
| control access to the Black Sea.
| scotty79 wrote:
| I don't see how things not being considered legitimate by
| the West currently stops anyone but the West and even that
| only a little bit, with exception of US that does whatever
| it pleases all the time.
| jltsiren wrote:
| International politics is not a war of all against all.
| It's more like a pre-state society governed by informal
| norms and expectations and personal relationships between
| the elites.
|
| People like predictable rules. If the big guy says that
| the seas are open and they are open, you will probably
| support the rule, because it allows you to focus more on
| trade and less on protecting your interests by force. But
| if the seas are open, except for those the big guy
| doesn't like, then you may start wondering if you'll also
| end up on that list.
|
| Big guys also try to enforce the rules. If piracy or an
| unjustified blockade threatens the freedom of navigation,
| naval powers will try to restore the status quo.
|
| Reciprocity is an important norm in international
| politics. It makes things a bit like a mix of little kids
| arguing and common law. The key principle is that if the
| big guy and his friends area allowed to do X for their
| reasons, it sets the precedent that you are allowed to do
| what you consider the equivalent of X for your reasons.
| Either the big guy follows his own rules, or everyone is
| allowed to use their own judgment to break the rules. But
| if a random nobody breaks the rules, it doesn't set the
| precedent in the same way.
| scotty79 wrote:
| > International politics is not a war of all against all.
| It's more like a pre-state society governed by informal
| norms and expectations and personal relationships between
| the elites.
|
| If someone violates the expectations but is not strong
| enough to defend his violation then expectations about
| behaviors of others towards him might be freely violated
| as well without destroying whole arrangement between
| conforming parties.
| hollerith wrote:
| >maybe Turkey (which is technically a NATO member but not
| in particularly friendly terms with the West) decides that
| it is allowed to control access to the Black Sea
|
| Interestingly, Turkey _is_ allowed -- by the Montreux
| Convention -- to close the straits between the Black Sea
| and the Mediterranean to _warships_ and in fact have been
| doing so since 2022:
|
| >Turkey has closed off the Bosphorus and Dardanelles
| straits to warships from any country, whether or not they
| border the Black Sea, following Russia's invasion of
| Ukraine. The strait closures will still allow warships
| through if they are returning to a home base in the Black
| Sea, according to reporting from Naval News. This would
| include Russian ships in the country's Black Sea Fleet.
| However, the decision to restrict warships, a power given
| to Turkey by the Montreux Convention of 1936, will likely
| limit Russia's ability to move ships from its other fleets
| to the Black Sea.
|
| https://news.usni.org/2022/02/28/turkey-closes-bosphorus-
| dar...
| tensor wrote:
| Europe is doing no such thing. They are preparing for
| physical war by drastically increasing military spending [1],
| and some countries are already sending out "be ready for war"
| information sheets. [2]
|
| [1] https://www.euronews.com/2024/04/22/military-spending-in-
| wes...
|
| [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjr4zwj2lgdo
| eastbound wrote:
| "Drastically"
|
| Common, everyone cried at all the demons when Trump asked
| Europe to reach 2% of GDP on military spending in 2018. Had
| we done it, we'd have DOUBLED our spending.
|
| Russia is at 6.3%, USA at 3.4% (7x Russia's in absolute
| spending), Europe at 1.3%.
|
| Culture-wise, it's unthinkable for Europe to come around
| and revive the military-industrial complex. We're basically
| trying to win this war by crossing our fingers, like the
| French did in 1936 (the famous Conges Payes were offered in
| 1936, with beautiful photos of parisians going to the
| beach, while our German cousins were in factories
| manufacturing guns. Guess who won the war).
| falcor84 wrote:
| I know what you meant to say, but it's important for me
| to just emphasize that it wasn't the Germans who won that
| war.
| diordiderot wrote:
| Well it certainly wasn't the French
| Terr_ wrote:
| > everyone cried at all the demons when Trump asked
| Europe to reach 2% of GDP on military spending in 2018.
|
| No, that's not what people had a problem with, and it's
| barely even what Trump said.
|
| Trump claimed (again) that the less-spending-than-
| recommended nations _somehow_ owed payments to the US,
| and threatened that the US would _violate the treaty_ if
| they somehow didn 't keep him satisfied!
|
| That's the stuff that was new and controversial, and for
| damn good reasons.
| diordiderot wrote:
| > the US would violate the treaty
|
| Other parties were already violating the treaty by not
| spending 2%. It's simple Tit for tat.
|
| > Trump claimed (again) that the less-spending-than-
| recommended nations somehow owed payments to the US
|
| The US was shouldering the cost of international security
| (being a hegemon) You take European stability and welfare
| for granted, we can't know what the world would look like
| without pax Americana but I'm certain it would be worse.
| The 'rules based international community' You couldn't
| even stop a genocide on the EUs front door.
|
| > for damn good reasons
|
| Hopefully I've demonstrated otherwise
| Teever wrote:
| The 2pc spending thing is not in the treaty.
| dralley wrote:
| I'm as frustrated as anyone about Europe not pulling
| their weight, but it's not in violation of the treaty.
| The 2% guideline has nothing to do with the treaty
| itself. It's precisely that, a non-binding guideline.
| Terr_ wrote:
| > Other parties were already violating the treaty by not
| spending 2%.
|
| That is _not_ a requirement in the treaty, merely a
| recommendation. Stop making things up to sanewash Trump.
| rfrey wrote:
| >Culture-wise, it's unthinkable for Europe to come around
| and revive the military-industrial complex
|
| I'm not sure that means what you think it means.
| Eisenhower wasn't being complementary when he coined that
| term.
| ahartmetz wrote:
| He also wasn't exactly disparaging it. He said we need
| it, but we must not let it become too powerful or
| influential. The truth of that hasn't really changed.
| schroeding wrote:
| Europe isn't a homogeneous block in this question, though.
| Some parts do what GP said, IMO.
|
| For example, Germany also increased its military spending,
| true - but from a low starting point, with an army even
| sometimes lacking basic supplies like dumb ammunition due
| to massive underfunding since the end of the cold war.
|
| The (possible, maybe!) reintroduction of drafting will be
| agonizingly slow, as the military doesn't have the capacity
| anymore (and will lack it for years to come!) to even
| examine even a small percentage of each year, let alone
| equip and train them. There are no KWEAs
| (Kreiswehrersatzamter, drafting centers) anymore, and the
| new "Career Centers" have abysmal throughput.
|
| We sold a very very significant chunk of our military bases
| and heavy equipment. Those are gone, the federal government
| often doesn't even own the land anymore. We have almost no
| working bunkers anymore, both military and public. Etc,
| etc.
|
| Those are things which we would have to start to change
| immediately, as it takes ages until we see results. We do
| sorta, but on a tiny scale - it's not the massive
| investment you would expect for a country readying itself
| for conflict.
|
| German politics / state departments are, IMO, in no way
| readying the public for the real prospect of military
| conflict. Pistorius, the German defence minister, basically
| screams into the void. Yes, many agree in talk, but the
| walk is quite underwhelming.
|
| The defence ministry says we have to be ready for war until
| 2029. Most projects which are started now will, based on
| information by the same ministry, never ever be finished
| until before the 2030s. And yet, there is no hurry visible.
| _We still have time._
| DirkH wrote:
| A friend of mine visited Germany and talked to Germans
| about the threat of nuclear war and what they may or may
| not be doing. She said there was a very bizarre "it will
| never happen" vibe wherever she asked. Germans basically
| laughed at her for taking it as a serious concern worth
| discussing, even smart Germans with solid academic
| backgrounds. In the US it is a very different story.
| Whether a Stanford alumni or a rando at a bar Americans
| are much less likely to laugh you off for taking the
| prospect of nuclear war seriously.
|
| So everything you say seems to fit to me.
| cenamus wrote:
| Well, how does the answer change for an American? I mean
| we don't have the same thousands of megaton scale nukes
| anymore but still enough to fuck uf the world enough via
| one actor.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _how does the answer change for an American?_
|
| We're more realistic. We hope it will never happen. But
| we fear it might. Strategic nuclear bombardment is
| something that _should_ be feared, not pooh-poohed.
| sinfulprogeny wrote:
| lol we get those pamphlets sent out every now and then. Of
| course it's related to the increase tension, but it's not
| the huge call sign you make it out to be. "be ready for
| war" means "be ready in case something happens", not "be
| ready for what's about to happen."
| mmooss wrote:
| > Europe clings to the hope that the rules-based
| international order that--at this point--everyone is
| abandoning, can be resuscitated through hopes and prayers. It
| can't. We're back to realpolitik.
|
| Some people, especially conservatives, have loved this
| narrative for forever: The rules-based order is soft, weak,
| wishy-washy, ineffectual fantasy; and tough, hard, reality is
| 'realpolitik'. And everyone knows 'tough' beats 'weak'.
|
| IMHO it rationalizes emotional drives we all have for
| aggression and, feeling threatened and scared, for anger; and
| it serves the anti-liberal social/political agenda (because
| somehow a rules-based order, or any mass, peaceful,
| beneficial cooperation by humans, is now 'liberal' fantasy).
| But that pisses me off because it distracts and undermines
| people doing the real work. It's a person who, while we're
| under attack, freaks out, satisfies those emotional drives,
| and disrupts the team with verbal hand grenades. It's lazy
| thinking, IMHO, leaving the hard work of solving the problem
| - and now servicing someone's emotional needs and cleaning up
| their mess - to others, who must have the courage to be calm
| under fire and the courage to do right and find success.
|
| That narrative also does what Putin wants more than anything,
| the destruction of the rules-based order: A world based on
| democracy, human rights, and associated international rules
| makes it impossible for Putin to carry out his imperial
| desires. The democratic, human-rights-based countries are
| powerful, unified, prosperous - Putin can't hope to compete.
| So he's destroying that order without firing a shot at its
| power base, because he has found many inside those countries
| to help him, many unwittingly.
|
| The rules-based order isn't dead (as the narrative has
| declared since its birth). It's not wishy-washy fantasy, it
| was created by who knew 'realpolitik' and warfare far better
| than anyone living ever will, unless we are very unlucky;
| your 'realpolitik' fantasy is the wishy-washy and ignorant
| side. The rules-based order is not weak or ineffectual;
| 'realpolitik' is weak and ineffectual; it can't achieve
| anything; it destroys freedom, lives, and prosperity at
| massive scales; war, it's outcome, is the worst scourage of
| humanity. The founders of the rules-based order created it in
| part because, after WWII, they thought another war with then-
| current technology could destroy civilization - that was the
| technology of the 1940s. The rules-based order has been
| arguably the most powerful force ever in international
| relations, creating undreamt-of freedom, prosperity, and
| peace.
|
| It was handed to us on a plate; you had to do nothing to
| build it, to create this incredible world out of the literal
| ashes of incredible destruction, hate, and violence - perhaps
| that's the problem, why some have a fantasy that they want to
| burn everything and return to living in ashes.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _it rationalizes emotional drives we all have for
| aggression and, feeling threatened and scared, for anger;
| and it serves the anti-liberal social /political agenda_
|
| It also accurately renders the actions of the U.S., Russia
| and China since the fall of the Soviet Union. I would
| _love_ to move towards a rules-based world order. But the
| first step in doing so is admitting it isn 't the _status
| quo_.
| paganel wrote:
| Maybe we should stop sending NATO missiles their way via our
| proxy, Ukraine, maybe at that point nuclear de-escalation will
| become a thing again.
|
| If that doesn't work, and unfortunately I'm not confident that
| it will work, then it becomes an open confrontation between us,
| EU citizens who don't care one bit about Ukraine and who
| certainly aren't willing to die for it, and those EU citizens
| that are willing to risk conventional and nuclear war with
| Russia over the likes of Pokrovsk or Kurachove.
|
| Which is to say, don't assume that you people form the
| uncontested majority here in the EU, just look at the Slovak
| prime-minister or at the Romanian pro-peace presidential
| candidate who's had his election victory stolen from under him
| (I'm Romanian myself)
| pessimizer wrote:
| Russia has to have some option other than killing Ukrainian
| soldiers and immiserating Ukrainian citizens. Ukrainians are
| the victims of US and European belligerence, and there is
| nothing any of them could say or do to end the conflict. Nobody
| asked their permission to go to war, nobody asks them if they
| want to continue it, and when they're polled, they hate it.
| They voted for a Russian-speaking Jewish non-politician actor
| in order to stay as far away from the US funded Nazi militias
| and politicians as possible. Turns out that playing a ethical
| innocent in a TV show doesn't mean you're a ethical innocent.
| Even when Zelensky's had an attack of ethics, the US
| administration and media immediately starts to marginalize him
| and question his authority, which _endangers & him. If he
| doesn't make it to that inevitable London apartment that most
| Western-backed rulers end up in, he's a dead man.
|
| Nothing makes the West happier than the suffering of
| Ukrainians, because they can use it to market the war to a
| populace who has absolutely no idea why it happened, or why
| it's still happening.
|
| Everything else Russia could do is too much of an escalation.
| They could fire a missile at a Polish base if they can connect
| it to attacks launched on Russia's soil, but that's an open
| attack against NATO, and even though NATO wouldn't respond with
| anything other than thoughts and prayers, the funding tap would
| open up fully again due to the propaganda value. That's crazy
| when Trump is coming in, and there could possibly be a big
| swing in US administration support for Ukraine. No chance after
| that. Trump doesn't want to look submissive to Putin,
| especially after watching Biden be emasculated by Bibi. It's
| better to have Trump wanting to show that he's not submissive
| to Zelensky (as if Zelensky could stop this train.)
|
| The best target would have been Americans in Ukraine, which is
| why after the demonstration of the fact that Russia has
| missiles that can't be stopped and can reach all of Europe, the
| US immediately closed its embassy and ran. We'll support
| Ukrainian attacks with satellite targeting now, we're not
| worried about Russia firing unstoppable missiles into space.
|
| What's left? Immiseration of European citizens to soften their
| support. What ability does Russia have to do that? They can
| sabotage cables. The West blew up Nordstream, it's silly to
| play superior. Nordstream was _also* crucial European
| infrastructure, and its destruction has made the daily lives of
| Europeans measurably worse.
|
| > we need to be serious about our adversary that keeps
| threatening to nuke major European cities off the map
|
| What does this even mean? There's nothing anyone can do about
| it. Making a serious face won't stop a missile. The only thing
| protecting European cities is Russian rationality.
| xinayder wrote:
| There was a big raid operation in the Turku archipelago in
| 2018, where a Russian bought a conveniently located property to
| spy on military installations of Finland:
| https://yle.fi/a/3-10431313
|
| I appreciate that the Finns have the balls to confront the
| Russians while the rest of Europe just doesn't do much, or let
| themselves be held hostage by Orban and Fico.
| fi358 wrote:
| I think it had helicopter pad, a harbor for relatively large
| ships etc. I think Russia had planned to use it as a place to
| land troops or "green men" during war as spying could happen
| without helicopter pad etc.
| mountainstar wrote:
| Is European states voting for parties not run by neocon
| globalists "holding Europe hostage"?
|
| "How dare you vote for a leader who doesn't hate Russia?!
| Don't you care about defending democracy? You have to vote
| for the leaders we tell you to!"
| paul7986 wrote:
| So Russia has it's signs now on seizing Estonia?
| Arn_Thor wrote:
| Always did
| Animats wrote:
| Russia annoying both Finland and Estonia may be unwise. Look
| at the geography. There's only 20km of water between Helsinki
| and Tallinn. If those countries act together they can cut off
| sea access to St. Petersburg. Or just slow things down by
| inspecting every ship for cable-cutting capability. NATO has
| already stepped up patrols in the Baltic Sea.[1]
|
| Right now, Russia doesn't have all that much military
| capability near St. Petersburg.[2] Some units are off at the
| Ukraine war. The Baltic Fleet is weaker than ever.
|
| There's a "Free Ingria" movement that wants to make all of
| Leningrad Oblast a separate country. It's not going anywhere
| without outside support. It might get some.
|
| [1] https://apnews.com/article/finland-estonia-cable-
| undersea-ru...
|
| [2] https://gfsis.org.ge/maps/russian-military-forces
| Zanfa wrote:
| > Look at the geography. There's only 20km of water between
| Helsinki and Tallinn. If those countries act together they
| can cut off sea access to St. Petersburg.
|
| Closer to 90km. If it was 20, all ships to/from St
| Petersburg would have to pass through Estonian/Finnish
| territorial waters and we wouldn't have questions around
| jurisdiction.
| yread wrote:
| it's 38km from Naissaar to first Finnish islands, and the
| international waters there are wider than they should
| thanks to all the wars that were fought over it.
| nradov wrote:
| Every large ship with an anchor has cable cutting
| capability, at least in shallow waters. They just drop
| anchor near the cable (locations of which are clearly
| marked on regular nautical charts) and then run the ship's
| engine to drag the anchor across the cable until it breaks.
|
| In terms of potential hybrid warfare targets, Kaliningrad
| looks soft. Many of the residents have little loyalty to
| Russia. A partial blockade combined with some sabotage and
| support of separatist organizations could accomplish a lot.
| Animats wrote:
| NATO is now patrolling that area, probably looking for
| that. Finland joined NATO in 2023, after seeing what
| Russia was doing in Ukraine.
|
| It's a narrow corridor to patrol. Small boats watching
| large ships can tell if an anchor is run out. An ordinary
| fish-finder sonar should be able to tell if a ship is
| dragging something. Finland has many small coast guard
| vessels, and a long history of pushing back against
| border incursions from Russia.
|
| The most recent incursion was [1]. "Since the beginning
| of August 2023, more than 1,300 third-country nationals
| have arrived in Finland from Russia without a visa.
| According to the authorities, it was clear that foreign
| authorities or other actors were facilitating
| instrumentalised migration. This phenomenon and the risk
| of its escalation posed a serious threat to national
| security and public order in Finland." Migrants who
| escaped Afghanistan, etc. and ended up in Russia are
| apparently being given a hard choice - join the army and
| fight in Ukraine, or leave Russia.
|
| So Finland closed the land border with Russia completely.
| Russia objected. Finland did not give in. Finland started
| building a border fence on the Russian border, with
| surveillance gear, back in 2023.[2]
|
| [1] https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/situation-at-finlands-
| eastern-b...
|
| [2] https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/finland-
| starts-erec...
| lawn wrote:
| Russia has been very clear about their goals. They want to
| reestablish the Soviet borders (and later to expand them).
|
| The only question is who will they invade first, and will they
| have capacity to do so?
| kombine wrote:
| Russia proved incapable of invading all of Ukraine in 3
| years. They do want all of former USSR but it is clearly
| impossible. And with that in mind, it is criminal and on the
| Western side to not provide Ukraine with enough military
| assistance to decisively defeat Russia. I don't know what
| West is doing, honestly.
| mediumsmart wrote:
| So true. In Germany alone are about 250000 Ukrainian men of
| fighting age eager to get back and crush the Russian
| invasion as soon as the west gives them some gear and a
| gun. How hard can it be?
| gitaarik wrote:
| Well, isn't it because there is threat for a nuclear war,
| and we should watch out the fight doesn't escalate?
| plz_throw wrote:
| Putin said this over and over again and no red line
| actually startet the nuclear war he threatened everyone
| with [1].
|
| On the other hand, our reactions to crossing red lines
| are also nonexistent
|
| [1]
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-
| Ukrai...
| roenxi wrote:
| > Woodward writes that Biden's national security team at
| one point believed there was a real threat, a 50 per cent
| chance, that Putin would use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
|
| ~ https://www.9news.com.au/world/new-book-reveals-candid-
| behin...
|
| Hopefully they are exaggerating for effect. A strategy of
| actively probing for Russia's breaking point is ruinously
| stupid; when you find it the odds are pretty good that it
| will be because they are at the point where they are
| willing to go nuclear. They might try some sort of
| escalate-to-de-escalate strike on NATO but there must be
| a pretty decent chance that would just escalate and the
| Russian command would be aware of that.
|
| Not lobbing missiles in to Russia is an entirely
| reasonable red line. We got all the way through the
| Afghan war and the Iraq war without anyone launching
| missiles into the US and that restraint didn't seem to
| cause any long term problems. Extending similar
| courtesies to Russia is appropriate.
| somenameforme wrote:
| FWIW the US is also 100% aware of this. See the Proud
| Prophet wargames. [1] It was one of the most extensive,
| largescale, and 'realistic' wargames ever executed. It
| was essentially working out a variety of military
| strategies to try to gain an edge over the USSR -
| demonstrative nuclear strikes, limited-scale nuclear war,
| decapitation strikes against leadership, and so on.
|
| The outcome of literally every single scenario was
| essentially the end of the world with billions dead and
| the Northern Hemisphere rendered largely inhospitable.
| This wargame was carried out in 1983. Its conclusion lead
| the US military and leadership to change course from the
| previous pattern of escalation as a means of victory, to
| de-escalation and collaboration. By 1991 the Soviet Union
| would collapse with their leaders holding hands with
| American leaders.
|
| [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Prophet
| roenxi wrote:
| I'm pretty sure the military industrial complex has had
| those leaders replaced with ones of the "let's hit them,
| they're bluffing" variety. The fact they're even testing
| the limits they've already broken through seems like a
| case study in strategic incompetence. AFAIK there is
| literally nothing in this for the US apart from an
| opportunity to set China up for greater success. Which,
| while a noble move, is probably not intentional.
| card_zero wrote:
| By 1991 ... yes, I remember, it was an exciting time, The
| Scorpions wrote a song, everybody was very positive. This
| lasted about eight years.
|
| They've apparently changed the lyrics now. _The opening
| lines are changed to "Now listen to my heart / It says
| Ukrainia, waiting for the wind to change." Meine stated,
| "It's not the time with this terrible war in Ukraine
| raging on, it's not the time to romanticize Russia."_
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_of_Change_(Scorpions_s
| ong...
| somenameforme wrote:
| Amazing logic. We keep poking this bear and it hasn't yet
| stirred. Let's poke it even harder. What could go wrong.
| plz_throw wrote:
| So what is your plan ? Keep ducking away and enabling
| Russia to live out it's dreams of a new USSR?
| ben_w wrote:
| When the only options appear to be nuclear holocaust or
| nuclear blackmail, it's time to think outside the box.
|
| This is easier said than done, of course, but limiting
| yourself to the dichotomy guarantees one or other
| outcome.
| tilt_error wrote:
| Bear? It is more like a stray dog that keeps shitting on
| your living room carpet. You don't need to hate the dog,
| you just keep it on the outside where it can run around
| and have a great time on it's own.
| lawn wrote:
| So, because Russia has nukes we should let them do
| whatever they want?
|
| With that logic we should let them takeover the entire
| Europe, continuing their genocide until the Holocaust
| seemed like a small-scale event. Then you can give
| yourself a pat on the back for a job well done.
| tim333 wrote:
| It is odd. I don't think throughout Biden was willing to
| say he wanted Ukraine to win and take back it's
| territories. The drip feed of aid seemed more aimed at
| having a stalemate. I've seen the theory they were worried
| that if Putin was defeated his government would collapse
| and the US was worried what would then happen to Russia's
| nukes.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > Russia has been very clear about their goals. They want to
| reestablish the Soviet borders
|
| Do you have an actual source for that extraordinary claim?
| mola wrote:
| Russia under the tzar was imperialistic, Russia under
| communism was imperialistic, why is it extraordinary to
| believe Russia under Putin is imperialistic? Especially
| given what it did in Georgia Ukrain and Belarus etc.
| lionkor wrote:
| There is a massive difference between belief and fact,
| and I would expect someone on this forum to know that. If
| you don't have a source, and you can't find one, then
| please make clear in your comment that that's your
| belief, not a fact. This goes for the OP, too
| nobunaga wrote:
| Comrad, I would expect you on this forum to not make it
| so obvious that you are the source of misinformation.
| Please, make it less obvious
| The_Colonel wrote:
| Definition of imperialism:
|
| > Imperialism is the maintaining and extending of power
| over foreign nations, particularly through expansionism,
| employing both hard power (military and economic power)
| and soft power (diplomatic power and cultural
| imperialism). Imperialism focuses on establishing or
| maintaining hegemony and a more or less formal empire.
|
| Russia fits the bill very well.
| singlow wrote:
| These articles both demonstrate Putin's desire to restore
| historical Russian boundaries. He usually references the
| Empire rather than the USSR.
|
| http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828
|
| http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/68606
| ekianjo wrote:
| It's a long piece of text. Where do you see, in
| particular, an actual reference to restoring the previous
| USSR borders?
| Terr_ wrote:
| Your mean strong evidence like if Russia started invading
| and annexing its former-USSR neighbors?
|
| Or perhaps you're confusing "clear" with "explicit":
| Consider a mob-boss surrounded by associates, casually
| observing into the air that "Example Ezio needs a fitting
| for concrete overshoes since I expect he'll be sleeping
| with the fishes."
| ekianjo wrote:
| Is Russia invading Poland and the Baltic states? Or did I
| miss the news?
| yakshaving_jgt wrote:
| Yes. Yes they are. They absolutely want to test how much
| they can get away with to undermine Article 5.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/estonia-says-russia-
| rem...
| Terr_ wrote:
| > > invading and annexing its former-USSR neighbors
|
| > Is Russia invading Poland and the Baltic states?
|
| What goalpost-moving nonsense is this!? Why narrow it to
| those _other_ areas while pretending the ongoing invasion
| of Ukraine doesn 't exist, or forgetting the 2008
| invasion of Georgia?
|
| Must Russia attempt to attack or puppet every discrete
| former-USSR holding including Takijistan before you'll
| finally admit that Putin has revanchist dreams?
| the_why_of_y wrote:
| You did miss this Rossiya 1 broadcast:
|
| https://www.thesun.ie/news/8513264/russian-state-tv-
| discusse...
| realusername wrote:
| They openly say it on their own state TV. They don't hide
| it in any way.
| fi358 wrote:
| It seems that Putin thinks Russia is able to take Belarusia
| by coercion:
|
| Putin's plan for a new Russian Empire includes both Ukraine
| and Belarus
| https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putins-
| pl...
| lottin wrote:
| Belarus is already pretty much a Russian puppet state.
| ekianjo wrote:
| The Atlantic council is a NATO puppet you need to find
| better sources than that...
| mopsi wrote:
| https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1871139065103585621
|
| Such extremely hostile rhetoric is Russian mainstream.
| ekianjo wrote:
| You can have extremely hostile rhetoric from the neocons
| in the US, that does not mean it is official government
| policy. So you have a statement of Putin to showcase
| instead?
| mopsi wrote:
| There's a key difference: Russia does not have freedom of
| the press nor freedom of speech. TV channels and
| newspapers get talking points from their coordinator in
| the presidential administration in the Kremlin and then
| do their best to hit the desired notes, or face takeover
| or closure. No independent mass media exists in Russia
| anymore. The Kremlin serves as the editorial board for
| every major outlet. This _is_ the Russian government
| speaking.
|
| Russian Media Monitor channel on Youtube maintains a
| collection of that speech. One of the most recent
| examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hULOZDqxv1Q In
| this clip from a prime-time TV show, propagandists keep
| repeating how they need to nuclear blackmail Trump into
| handing Europe over to Russia, with "Russian troops in
| Berlin, Paris and Lisbon" (02:12). Russian outlets hammer
| garbage like this into their population every single day,
| such rhetoric is everywhere. And words certainly lead to
| actions: when Russian POWs captured in Ukraine are asked
| what the hell they are doing in Ukraine, they can't come
| up with anything and fall back to repeating the same
| things word for word as if the were robots.
| lionkor wrote:
| Source?
| fulafel wrote:
| This is overstating it. The actual stated posture is brazen
| enough not to need exaggeration, stated eg in this 2022
| speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_concerning_the_
| events_... and the historical background written about here:
| https://theconversation.com/how-moscow-has-long-used-the-
| his...
|
| (Soviet union included more states, like the stans)
| Applejinx wrote:
| The United States, and not really, no.
|
| All their warfare that's effective is the methods used to
| produce Brexit and elect Donald Trump. That's been way more
| effective than WWII munitions, and if they were satisfied
| with that, the world would be 'the Zone' for our lifetimes.
| But those who control Russia are old, and want land,
| territory. They've already spoken of wanting Alaska, and once
| you concede Crimea and Ukraine as 'really first', they'll be
| wanting to surprise everybody by taking the United States.
|
| This is not realistic. They've got the power to destabilize
| to a shocking extent, but only while unobserved. To actually
| take territory, formally, from the United States would change
| a lot, and yet that's their dream.
|
| By contrast, they're not fighting Finland first: not because
| Finland is that much tougher than the US, but because Finland
| knows them and is prepared.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| I'll have what you're having. The US is literally the worst
| place to try to invade on earth
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLAzeHnNgR8
|
| McCain on Putin in 2014. They want Eastern Ukraine and Crimea,
| and Moldova and the Baltics if they can get away with it. He is
| rebuilding the Russian Empire.
| tryauuum wrote:
| some extra knowldedge from my colleagues -
| apparently china owns some cables in baltic sea, see the CITIC
| company - one of their cables was also cut during recent
| events
| ajuc wrote:
| It's been long time coming, Russia needs to be dealt with.
|
| Give Ukraine a couple hundred longer-range missiles, let them
| attack the oil fields, powerplants, refineries etc. Seize the
| shadow fleet tankers. Sanction Russia for real.
|
| It will be cheaper and safer than the alternative. If we did this
| 2 years ago this war would be over by now and hundreds of
| thousands of people wouldn't die for no reason.
|
| Every month of delay makes the costs higher and larger-scale war
| more likely.
| zkid18 wrote:
| I wonder who you are referring to when you say "we"
| dagenleg wrote:
| I think the poster refers to NATO countries. Considering you
| are a Russian citizen, it's safe to say you're not included
| in this "we". Although frankly I think you would also benefit
| in the end.
| trhway wrote:
| >Give Ukraine a couple hundred longer-range missiles
|
| while it would make a lot of pain to Russia, it wouldn't change
| the strategic situation. Russia is ok with taking the pain
| (more precisely Putin and his ilk are ok with subjecting Russia
| to the pain)
|
| You need strategic hits, a knock-out, making it physically
| impossible for them to continue as it is the only language they
| currently understand. So, for example, Russia has like 10K of
| S-300/400 missiles. That is key part of the strategic defense
| of Russia (notice how Russia recently had a hysteric meltdown
| when just one drone hit their strategic defense radar thus
| slightly impacting their defense against ICBMs/etc. and also
| notice that just a drone was able to hit such a valuable
| target) Ukraine can build several thousands of large drones
| (cheap, simple, like say German V-1, can be built for less than
| $5000 each including modern navigation, Germans built 20K of
| V-1 in year in just one factory inside the mountain) and fire
| them to the targets in Russia choosing routes, altitudes and
| targets such that Russia would have to use S-300/400 instead of
| say shorter range BUK/Tor/Pantsir (Russia is big and most of
| the coverage is naturally by the S-300/400). After several
| thousands of such drones Russia would be put into impossible
| situation - either to let those large drones (original V-1 had
| 850kg warhead, ie. double that of Tomahawk/Storm Shadow/SCALP)
| fly and hit the targets or to run out of strategic air defense.
| ben_w wrote:
| Hmm.
|
| Can Russia really not build counter-drones with the same
| capabilities?
|
| Or is your suggestion more of "do something along these
| lines, choosing specifically something Russia cannot
| currently defend against and complete this attack before
| Russia even knows it needs to build the factory to make the
| counter drones to defend against it"?
| trhway wrote:
| counter-drones for 650km/h drones (taking V-1 as an
| example) is basically supersonic air defense missiles, much
| more costly and complicated and take more time and
| resources to build (and requires radars/launchers/etc. in
| addition to the missiles - all that is cost and complexity
| and there is very limited production capacity for that
| hardware). And to cover even just European part of Russia
| isn't really possible with short-range ones. So, you need
| something fast and long-range and being able to hit moving
| target in the air. And even if short rage were enough - I
| don't see Pantsir missile price, and the TOR missile is
| $800K. S-300 is much north of it. So even if all your
| drones, say 20K drones, which cost you $100M, were to be
| shot down just by TOR/Pantsir, your enemy is out at least,
| bare minimum, $10B - and to build all these missiles
| significant portion of military production capacity should
| be dedicated to it (basically no way to build 20K such
| missiles in a year, and also hitting each target 100% by
| one missile is not real).
|
| If you look at the map you'll see a strategic problem of
| Russia waiting to be exploited (and no plausibly possible
| factory building would help to prevent it) - when moving
| from the Ukraine/Russia border the Russian territory
| becomes more and more vast, and there is no good way to
| defend it from mass cheap attacks.
| ben_w wrote:
| Ah, so it's an inherently asymmetrical force, with the
| advantage to Ukraine to perform the attack? It can't just
| be defended against by pairing (or even 10-to-1-swarming)
| identical V1-class drones from Russia to be used as
| interceptors?
| trhway wrote:
| >Ah, so it's an inherently asymmetrical force, with the
| advantage to Ukraine to perform the attack?
|
| yes. Before cheap modern electronics, the costs of
| attacking vs. defending missiles didn't have such orders
| of magnitude difference. Drones, ie. cheap electronics,
| changed the game.
|
| >It can't just be defended against by pairing (or even
| 10-to-1-swarming) identical V1-class drones from Russia
| to be used as interceptors?
|
| To intercept you still need to be faster (transsonic and
| especially supersonic doesn't come cheap/simple), to have
| radars, a large one on the ground for detection, and
| seeker on the interceptor (that is cost and complexity)
| or to guide interceptors using the ground radar (that
| would mean much less simultaneously attacked targets by
| your interceptors, less distance and other issues like
| with intercepting low-flying targets, etc.)
| surfingdino wrote:
| I'd add to that confiscation of all property in Europe owned by
| private and corporate owners of Russian origin (houses,
| securities, cars, jewellery, works of art, etc.), including
| those who have acquired European citizenship/residence permits
| after 1939, their families, next of kin, spouses, partners,
| children, and grandchildren, including those still to be born.
| Send them back on foot to Moscow, revoke their non-Russian
| citizenship, and do not allow them to ever obtain European
| citizenship or residence permit.
| ajuc wrote:
| > Send them back on foot to Moscow, revoke their non-Russian
| citizenship
|
| Eh, why? Most of them escaped russia because they didn't
| liked Putin. I know a few such Russians in Poland (with
| Polish citizenship too).
| surfingdino wrote:
| Oh, those poor Russians. If they loose something they
| cherish maybe they will want to change their own country
| and run it in some sane fashion without being a constant
| threat to its neighbours. If they stay in the West they'll
| bang on about Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy and be a constant vector
| for Russian propaganda.
| riku_iki wrote:
| > Give Ukraine a couple hundred longer-range missiles
|
| I think the main worry is that Putin will start using tactical
| nukes, they already changed their policy about that.
| ajuc wrote:
| Their policy is to do whatever putin wants, they were never
| particularly strict about their policies (for example half
| the things Prigozhyn did were against the Russian law).
| Policy changes are just posturing.
|
| Also - tactical nukes won't significantly change anything on
| the battlefield. There are no big concentrations of troops in
| this war. It's 20 guys storming a village defended by 100
| guys repeat 100 times in a month. If you want to nuke 100
| guys to get that village - sure, it could work. Will be hard
| to establish a base there, but you can kill these 100 guys.
| But then 3 km further there are other guys. You'll nuke them
| too?
| riku_iki wrote:
| > Also - tactical nukes won't significantly change anything
| on the battlefield.
|
| its not about Ukrainian battlefield, its more if western
| missiles will be destroying Russian infra, Putin will
| strike objects/bases/infra in Eastern Europe, he was very
| clear about it during initial invasion message.
| ajuc wrote:
| Putin was very clear the last 10 times too :) About
| western tanks, military jets, etc.
|
| It's all bullshit. Out of all the things Putin won't do -
| nuking NATO is the first.
| bradley13 wrote:
| This. You cannot fight a purely defensive war, you must attack
| the enemy's logistics and command infrastructure. These are
| slways behind the ftont lines.
| safgasCVS wrote:
| It took less than a day to determine it was Russia and not only
| that but this specific ship that cut the cable. Yet years after
| the largest industrial sabotage and environmental disaster in
| recent memory (Nord Stream 2) absolutely no investigations into
| who caused that one and that story has been completely forgotten
| Hamuko wrote:
| Officials are becoming more and more alert to these kinds of
| situations.
|
| Newnew Polar Bear managed to escape the scene of the crime
| without any issues, Yi Peng 3 managed to escape the scene of
| the crime but was later detained in international waters but
| not boarded without Chinese officials, and now Eagle S was
| caught red-handed and boarded immediately.
| connicpu wrote:
| What? No investigation? This is pretty close to the top of the
| Wikipedia article on the matter:
|
| The Swedish and Danish investigations were closed in February
| 2024 without identifying those responsible,[16][17] but the
| German investigation is still ongoing.[18] In August 2024 media
| reported that in June German authorities issued a European
| arrest warrant for a Ukrainian national suspected of having
| used the sailing yacht Andromeda together with two others to
| sabotage the Nord Stream pipeline.[19] As of June 2024 the
| suspect is still at large, having reportedly left the EU for
| Ukraine.[20]
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream_pipelines_sabotage
| ttkk wrote:
| This ship slowed down noticeably before destroying the cables
| so officials were quick to react. Also, not too long time ago
| another sabotage ship broke stuff as well so this was probably
| expected to happen again. Really does not have anything to do
| with Nord Stream 2 since it was different water areas and
| methods. But that whataboutism surely gives clue where your
| message comes from.
| bawolff wrote:
| What's the point of doing something like this?
|
| Its not very sneaky, they got caught rather easily.
|
| The damage is annoying, but deep sea cables have problems from
| time to time, its not like it created critical downtime or is
| unrepairable damage.
|
| Is this just russia trying to give some sort of warning? A sort
| of, you have lots of exposed infrastructure, if you keep calling
| my bluff i might start going after it for real-zies?
| realusername wrote:
| It's the maximum Russia can do without direct NATO
| repercussions basically.
|
| If they could kill a top european politician, they would have
| done it already. What protects against that is NATO firepower.
| victorbjorklund wrote:
| Slowly escalate without anything happening when people get used
| to it.
| xeonmc wrote:
| Essentially, a social experiment.
|
| Or Socialist Experiment, if you will.
| seszett wrote:
| Neither Finland or Estonia have socialist governments at
| the moment though, most of Europe is run by centre-right
| liberals these days. They are generally fine with anything
| that doesn't directly affect the economy so I guess Russia
| still has a wide margin of escalation.
| victorbjorklund wrote:
| huh? In what way is russian terrorism a socialist
| experiment?
| Levitating wrote:
| None of the countries involved are socialist
| pvaldes wrote:
| The current Russia has a Tsar. Has not been related with
| anything socialist since decades. If you want to do jokes
| use the term Neofeudalism at least.
| Hamuko wrote:
| It takes the Finnish-Estonian transfer line offline for about
| six months when it's still cold, and Estonia (with the other
| Baltic states) is about to disconnect from the Russian electric
| grid.
|
| The data cables are gonna be fixed in weeks. Yi Peng 3 got
| detained for over a month for creating a 10-day downtime on two
| submarine data cables.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| It's just being annoying, something Russia excels at currently.
| ttkk wrote:
| The estimated time to fix the electric cable is over 6 months.
| Underwater fibers have been quicker to repair as was with
| another recent case. Electricity exports from Finland to
| Estonia went down pretty significantly due to this. Estonia was
| to stop importing electricity from Russia within 1-2 months so
| this is Russia being Russia as we (Finns, Estonians et al.)
| know here living next to it.
|
| EDIT: Hamuko basically said the same thing earlier, did not
| notice
| Applejinx wrote:
| A warning would be 'lay off or we might hurt your cables'.
| Attempting to break all the things counts as an attack, a
| crime, or if you don't want to say crime you might say, an act
| of war.
|
| I wasn't aware Russia was at open war with NATO, but perhaps
| their desperation has grown to the point where they are at open
| war with NATO now.
| surfingdino wrote:
| They want to damage NATO members' infrastructure without
| resorting to an overt kinetic attack, which would likely be
| answered with a precision hit against Russia's own
| infrastructure/ships.
| DirkH wrote:
| Incrementally stir shit to desensitize everyone to their doing
| shit. It is basically them mocking and openly defying the US-
| led rules-based world order. It sends a "see, what a useless
| world order if I can just do this with no recourse" message.
| The_Colonel wrote:
| > Its not very sneaky, they got caught rather easily.
|
| Getting caught is not a huge risk in the sense that Russians
| will still deny it, while at the same time it will raise the
| stakes in the public eye.
|
| It's the same thing as with the continuous (but still deniable)
| nuclear sabre rattling.
| morkalork wrote:
| Why aren't pirates and saboteurs hanged? If certain nation states
| are intent on returning to past, might as well indulge them.
| nextworddev wrote:
| China also got caught doing something similar a month ago
| https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/chinese-ship-suspected-of-d...
| gs17 wrote:
| That's still considered to be primarily Russia's doing, with an
| interesting new detail:
|
| > On 17 December 2024 the Russian Navy sea rescue tug Yevgeniy
| Churov[36] was reported to have approached the anchored Yi Peng
| 3, passing it at very low speed and with its own AIS
| transmitter turned off.
|
| The next day, investigators were finally allowed to board.
| pseudony wrote:
| At some point I'd intimate that if these ships keep
| "accidentally" destroying undersea installations, then I'd start
| "accidentally" sinking them.
|
| Enough is enough, screw Russia
| trhway wrote:
| some people in the suitable places are probably already
| thinking that way - just few days ago a Russian military cargo
| ship suddenly had explosion and sank in Mediterranean
|
| https://en.defence-ua.com/news/sunken_russian_ship_ursa_majo...
|
| "As for the equipment on board, the Navy spokesman noted that
| it was "quite expensive, sophisticated, foreign-made, and that
| russians do not do not produce such items."
|
| "To understand the importance of this equipment is I remind you
| that for six months they were unable to load Kalibr missiles in
| Novorossiysk due to the lack of such equipment," Pletenchuk
| emphasized."
| AYBABTME wrote:
| There seems to be Russian ships accidentally sinking as well,
| these days.
| marvin-hansen wrote:
| Seriously, confiscate the ship, charge everyone on board with
| espionage, give maximum jail sentence, and close all maritime
| corridors going through NATO territory for Russia. Putin always
| tests for a response, and if there is none, he doubles down.
|
| Russia violated Turkey's airspace only once, the jet was shot
| down immediately, and, save to say, Putin was on the phone with
| Ankara to prevent an all out escalation with a NATO member that
| can trigger article 5 at any time for self defense after an
| apparent aggression. Turned out, no more airspace violations
| happened again.
|
| As long as the West fails to respond with strength, Putin will
| never stop.
| gregoriol wrote:
| "charge everyone on board with espionage, give maximum jail
| sentence" won't help: most of the crew has no choice in those
| operations, some might not even know what is going on. They
| also have dozens of ships that can do such damage, so no way to
| scare them by seizing or jailing one.
|
| The only good way would be to close the path.
| tomohawk wrote:
| A key difference between Turkey and Finland is that Turkey has
| the largest army in Europe and can unilaterally take action.
|
| Finland can only take action if backed by many other NATO
| members, and most especially by the US.
|
| Dealing with this as a policing activity tells you all you need
| to know about the current leadership of the US and other NATO
| countries.
| jopsen wrote:
| Finland has a sizable amount of hardware in storage.
|
| And could easily donate more equipment to Ukraine.
|
| Even if stockpiles runs low, Finland could finance equipment
| for Ukraine.
|
| Both of these options would hurt Russia more, and probably
| cost less than direct intervention.
| rainworld wrote:
| >Seriously, confiscate the ship, charge everyone on board with
| espionage, give maximum jail sentence, and close all maritime
| corridors going through NATO territory for Russia.
|
| You're such a tough guy. However, you could learn something
| from the reality that that's not going to happen. Because it
| would mean war. And because your dear leaders know that for
| every Russian tit there's been a Western tat.
|
| >Turned out, no more airspace violations happened again.
|
| Yeah, no, something else happened. Turks don't like to be
| reminded.
| protomolecule wrote:
| >the jet was shot down immediately
|
| By the same forces that later tried to overthrow democratically
| elected president of Turkey.
| euroderf wrote:
| > close all maritime corridors going through NATO territory for
| Russia.
|
| Probably too extreme for maritime law. OTOH a tighter
| inspection regime might fly. There is a precedent in ports of
| call that enforce their own inspection regimes.
|
| Profile and optionally board boats entering the Skagerrak.
| Registry? Condition? Incident history? Hazards of declared
| cargo? Too many suspicious antennas?
| surfingdino wrote:
| Full cavity search (of the ship)
| jopsen wrote:
| Or give away more explosive toys to Ukraine.
|
| A cut cable is expensive to repair.
|
| More toys donated to Ukraine won't just cost Russia money.
|
| Unless the cable cutting is actually a real threat, we should
| suck it up, repair and donate to Ukraine.
|
| (If an actual shooting war broke out in Europe, it's hard to
| tell of those cables would last long anyways)
| mozzieman wrote:
| Keep the ship for every cable. Should stop it quite quick.
| antman wrote:
| Ok so maybe it wasn't a sabotage but a botched attempt to install
| surveillance equipment on the cables? Or else why would it carry
| all these evidence
| esskay wrote:
| Estlink 2 is a power cable, not data.
| tuukkah wrote:
| The title needs the word 'earlier': "as recently as seven months
| ago". Otherwise, this is conflating separate missions that used
| the same ship.
| devit wrote:
| Isn't the tanker much more expensive than repairing the cable
| damage? (and Russia has much lower GDP than the EU)
|
| Seems like they can't play this game for long.
| smallmancontrov wrote:
| They are used to playing against a spineless opponent, which in
| theory could have gone on for quite a long time. In this case,
| I'm glad to see it didn't.
| euroderf wrote:
| Has a value been announced for the cargo that has been
| confiscated ?
| aljgz wrote:
| The total economic damage of cutting cables can be much higher.
| rnaghl wrote:
| I have no doubt that there was spying equipment. That is assumed.
| Curious that this story is only run by Lloydslist and now
| Breitbart of all places has picked it up.
|
| It seems that someone has discovered tech people as willing
| amplifiers for war mongering (as chickenhawks, naturally, they
| won't be in the trenches).
| NicuCalcea wrote:
| Throwaway accounts accusing anyone of amplifying anything is
| quite funny.
| largbae wrote:
| Why do these cable cutting ships leave AIS on? Is the risk of
| collision so great that they would rather document their crimes
| for all to see?
| ninjaoxygen wrote:
| The act of turning AIS off can attract unwanted attention
| (higher resolution local satellite monitoring), less likely if
| you are entering waters where piracy is common and many vessels
| disable AIS.
|
| If a vessel turns AIS off then cuts the cable, but their
| position is known by other means, they will be giving up
| plausible deniability.
| Etheryte wrote:
| Every ship in the Baltic sea is monitored and accounted for at
| all times, if your beacon suddenly disappears you're
| practically screaming look at me.
| IYasha wrote:
| Reading comments on this article makes me want to wash my eyes.
| syngrog66 wrote:
| The EU should treat Putin's Russia like the aggressive evil
| predator and danger it so clearly is. And they should assume the
| US under Trump cannot be trusted. They must assume he's Putin's
| lackey. I'm American so it pains me to say it OTOH I don't want
| to see disaster to happen among our European allies.
| euroderf wrote:
| In terms of international law and international maritime law,
| this is a fascinating case. Without directly applicable
| precedent, an actor does what it can/must within existing law.
|
| Finland has always been very conservative in such matters, and
| you can be sure that they thought long and hard about what their
| public legal position will be before they boarded the ship.
|
| The Russians will be conservative here too, because obviously the
| existing body of law has worked in their favor, giving them space
| to operate a "black fleet" - and to use it to execute sabotage.
| Or so they thought...
| Permik wrote:
| In this most recent case the permission to board was very cut
| and dry as the vessel moved into Finland's territorial sea.
| euroderf wrote:
| Reports from Yle (Finnish state broadcaster) and VOA say the
| ship was boarded in Finland's EEZ and then escorted INTO
| Finnish territorial waters.
| sampo wrote:
| > the ship was boarded in Finland's EEZ and then escorted
| INTO Finnish territorial waters
|
| You have misread. At least here in Q2
| (https://yle.fi/a/74-20133775) Yle writes that first the
| ship was asked to move to Finnish territorial waters, and
| only then it was boarded.
| lakomen wrote:
| Sure it was Propaganda bullshit
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-28 23:02 UTC)