I think I’d chalk this up to more ignorance than malice, at least at the current moment. They could be out of fuel and taking the shortest route home or something stupid like that.
If low intensity aggressions continue, then yes, it needs to be dealt with. I think for now it’s desperation, not a chess move.
have to love this quote: When the warship was deploying there in January it planned live firing exercises in Irish EEZ (exclusive Economic Zone), at the time a controversial move. These had to be relocated after Irish fishermen complained.
The US Navy sailed guided missle cruisers along and just outside Chinese waters Sunday. The headline in that case neglected to proffer that they were "heavily armed", I guess the objective news only mentions that if they're Russian ships, not peace-seeking ships from the west.
Is China really going to nuke the US because the US says that it officially no longer supports the one China policy?
Sure, they bluster. But that would be really stupid. "You said something I don't like, so I'm going to kill us both" level of stupid. China talks tough, but I don't think they're actually that stupid.
> Technically the US supports the one China policy. It is assumed WW3 starts if that ever changes.
The US walks a line on Taiwan that falls far short of actual support for One China but does enough to support it that the US has a lot of room to escalate with China if the US wants to without starting WW3.
This is false. The U.S. leases Guantanamo Bay. It evens sends payment by check regularly, though only one has been cashed in Fidel Castro's time "by accident."
If you strip out all nuance, everything looks the same. They have a military, we have a military. They have courts, so do we. They sail ships through (uncontested) waters, we sail ships through (contested) waters. It's all the same.
I don't think it is an error. The Russian fleet is deploying ships to a strategic location. That is proactive if they expect a war with NATO. Though it is definitely also provocative.
The article could also mention that Britain has a heavily armed presence in the six counties of north Ireland, which colluded with and armed loyalist death squads, when it wasn't locking up the native population in concentration camps during internment, shooting dead unarmed protesters in the street when Irish men and women marched through the street protesting internment. This is not a possible threat to Ireland but a threat against Ireland which already was enacted, and Britain seized six counties from Ireland.
The British empire has now turned its attention from Ireland to Russia and has been sending weapons abroad in order to kill Russians. So Russian warships sailing past Britain is natural enough.
I hope they do fire on Britain in order to not only stop the weaponry killing Russians, but to weaken Britain so the Irish can be free of Britain's military occupation.
Well, would you be pleased to see a couple of Russian warships enter ports of Cork or Galway to start establishing an airbase to attack Britain without asking locals?
Would you like Belfast to be razed by rockets and shelling like Mariupol?
Just a friendly reminder that the Republic of Ireland is not in NATO, with its own fleet and army comparable to Moldova's.
Reading this comment as a person of Irish descent is making me feel queasy it’s so distasteful.
Ireland is more like Ukraine in that analogy, and the comment is protesting other countries going to Ukraine/Ireland’s help and lamenting that the brutal invaders are getting harmed while doing their invading and massacre-ing.
The British and Russian empires have historically always been at each other's necks. Afghanistan basically exists as a buffer state for them to fight in with the prize being India.
If low intensity aggressions continue, then yes, it needs to be dealt with. I think for now it’s desperation, not a chess move.