> There needs to be sufficient deterrent to actually stop this from happening
One ship might be considered a reasonable pawn to sacrifice. I'd go further: require that any ships passing through the strait to be bonded at some eye-watering amount like 10x the price of the ship plus the repair costs of the cable. Make it so if the cable is cut, you make a profit.
Only works if you find someone to pay. I listened to a lengthy (German) podcast about international maritime law. To sum it up: you can’t do that much, because you won’t find the responsible person/company/state.
It was about Russian tankers breaking the sanctions, but with a well put explanation of why we can't just stop these ships even with extreme confidence in their fraudulency.
To be clear, why we don’t want to. Freedom of navigation makes all of us tremendously richer, even if it permits such fuckery.
Every great power has, at this point, rejected the notion in limited contexts. And if you’re not concerned about trashing trade, there is no incoherence to ignoring these rules.
In a hypothetical future where sailing under flags of convenience becomes untenable, all the legitimate merchant vessel owners would rush to register in the US or China. Those vessels would still be able to sail anywhere unmolested. Outside of a few pirate gangs, no one would be stupid enough to screw with them and risk kinetic retaliation. This might increase shipping costs by a few percent.
Russia can bluster and threaten but their navy is weak and shrinking. Most of their commissioned warships never venture far from port. Outside of their territorial waters they have minimal capability to protect their own merchant vessels or interdict anyone else's sea lines of communication.
> US can't afford to field the navy necessary to back this ams hasn't been able to for many decades
This is nonsense. The U.S. Navy de facto guarantees freedom of navigation today. Globally.
If we switched to a national system, our Navy wouldn’t literally escort U.S.-flagged ships. Its military would just need to enforce the threat that you get bombed if you fuck with America.
We’d save money switching to a big-stick model. (I think we’d be poorer for it in the long run. But if you’re playing chess and your opponent machete, you’re not going to find any winning moves on the board.)
Oil tankers are basically "weapons of mass environment destruction" (slight hyperbole, sorry ;). When you shoot at them, or their captains have the valves opened, their oil will devastate a sizable chunk of sea and coastline.
So you really need to tread lightly around enemy oil tankers.
> can’t see any update that says they have engaged. So yes… I think.
I wouldn't be suprised if Trump chickens out. But this logic is terrible.
The same pursuit that has been happening for days continues to happen. That the pattern has not changed in reaction to new stimulus isn't proof that the stimulus worked.
> Russia has directly asked the US to leave the ship alone
Yes. I am aware. Flags are being painted, registries updated and sternely-worded letters sent. The ship sails on. So do its pursuers.
> It’s going to be hard to duck this one
It really shouldn't be.
Just board the ship. Putin makes noises about international law. A D.C. lawyer insists that no, the vessel was stateless when found. And assuming there isn't like fissile material or a senior IRGC liaison on board, everyone grumbles and moves on.
Trump and Putin have a complicated relationship. But about the single thing that this will not depend on will be what maritime law says the U.S. should do. (And I think the legal arguments for seizure are on America's side on this one.)
You’re really claiming the U.S. military cannot stop the Houthi attacks?
The administration’s position is this is Europe’s problem [1]. It’s literally part of America retreating from that historic guarantee.
(That said, the simplest response would be to give the Saudis a weapons deal to secure the coasts. You have to blow up the ports, which will trigger a humanitarian disaster.)
> You’re really claiming the U.S. military cannot stop the Houthi attacks?
Yes, absolutely we cannot. Everytime we drive by we roll the dice with hundreds of lives.
And stop reading western propaganda! It's bad for you.
> That said, the simplest response would be to give the Saudis a weapons deal to secure the coasts. You have to blow up the ports, which will trigger a humanitarian disaster.
The saudis have BEEN a humanitarian disaster for longer than either of us have been alive.
I am formerly a Marine. This a rather silly notion and I think you should back your claim up with some evidence. Even with as much damage as Donald Trump has done to the US's military preparedness and hegemony around the globe no other fleet operates like the Marine Expeditionary Units. No other fleet can respond to any critical location in less than 24 hours. Add the Coast Guard for near-CONUS and partnered patrols and the US still maintains dominance both at home and abroad.
Nations, like China, are catching up but largely because of two outsized factors:
- The US for some time has not been able to produce ships at home, at scale, and at cost. This is more of a slow burn because the fleet has been kept up to date for the most part. Eventually, new ships need to be built at home.
- Donald Trump has done damn near everything he can to install lackey's within the military, which reduces the military's top decision making acumen down to yes-men to a 79 year old geriatric patient.
Russia's fleet, on the other hand, is an aging joke. It is where we will be if we continue electing fascists that install Martians like Hegseth.
> (German) podcast about international maritime law
Russia isn’t even pretending to follow international maritime law. China hasn’t for a decade. And now America is being creative with its interpretations.
Most of the water isn't internal.. getting in and out of the baltic sea goes past Sweden/Denmark.
But we probably have promised not to blockade ships in some conventions. And little Denmark (or Sweden) do not benefit from setting a precedence that conventions can be broken.
Most nations have either signed the UNCLOS to otherwise agreed to follow most of those rules. This includes the right of innocent passage through territorial waters. Of course if a vessel engages in hostile acts then they're no longer entitled to exercise that right.
You can always make the regulations such that they're actually effective. You could require the company providing the bond be from a reputable country, for example.
Or at least a responsible person with money to pay for it. There are plenty of cases of some poor sailor getting stuck with the bill and forced to live on the abandoned boat as a result.
Still I don't see an issue - basically you either pay the armed coast gard cutter that stands in your way or you don't go through the straight. If you don't cause any trouble, the other cutter on the other end will pay you back. No money, no transit - unless you really like being boarded.
Regardless of what specific rules could be set you have to consider rules of engagement and potential escalation. What happens if a Russian merchant vessel (either legitimately flagged or shadow fleet) refuses to cooperate? Do you use force to stop them? What if they're being escorted by a Russian warship or combat aircraft?
Put mines where? How do you prevent neutral vessels from hitting them? What happens when they inevitably break loose in a storm and drift away? Naval mines are quite effective for closing down a body of water in an unrestricted hot war but we haven't reached that stage yet. EU and NATO countries still want to be able to use the Baltic Sea and Gulf of Finland for their own purposes.
Huh? What are you even talking about? Which models specifically? And how sure are you that they can reliably discriminate between Russian vessels versus others that look and sound identical?
No, smart mines won't solve that. I can't fathom where this fantasy is coming from. It's totally disconnected from the reality of current mine technology.
If these ships are independent operators being influenced by Russia, seizing the ship will be a significant consequence because the next time Russia will have a harder time convincing a crew to sabotage a cable.
Good start. Then turn off Russia’s cable that runs via Finland [1] and make vague threats about (a) seizing shadow-fleet vessels in the Baltics and (b) how vulnerable Russia’s cable to Kaliningrad [2] would be to careless anchors.
All the while: start setting up non-cable based back-up bandwidth for if Russia severs these cables in advance of invasion.
That's fine. Let Russia escort ships that then break cables. It'll make it more obvious it's deliberate, and provide a reason for blockade and confrontation.
careful, Brigadier they can introduce a foriegn substance into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard core commie works.
Well maybe the Russians should stop joking about it if it’s so serious. How many times do I have to hear from Medvedev about how Russia will rain nuclear hellfire on London?
Fuck around, you’ll find out. These guys are wimps. If they want to end the world, so be it. China would be destroyed too.
Happy to suggest some books on how cold War was actually navigated by both parties without destroying the planet. Not to spoil the ending, but at no point in time was "if we do this and then they blow us all up, so be it" a strategy
To be clear Russia is threatening to do things (blow us up) and the result would be them being blown up too (along with the commie Chinese).
So if that’s their strategy, I’ll call their bluff every time. No point in the human race existing if the result is “do what we say, else we nuke you”. Bet
The best way to avoid confrontation is to have an irrational adult at the helm, then all calculated escalation bets are off and you tend to just not play.
Remember when invading Russian territory was a red line that could cause a nuclear retaliation? And then Ukraine went into Russia and Russia responded with a pretty bog standard conventional force?
Russia isn't gonna fling nukes if the West doesn't first. Putin and co have no interest in Moscow being glassed.
Edit: by that I mean, with that attitude we would just have never developed nukes, or given the nukes to the Russians preemptively, because who wants nuclear war, right? Anything is better than that.
If your plan is one that ends with the end of the world and billions dead, it's a bad plan. Attacking strawpersons doesn't make it better. You need a better plan.
> one that ends with the end of the world and billions dead
The point is it doesn’t. Ukraine is on its way to wiping out Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. It’s pure posturing to pretend Moscow is stupid enough to end its existence over a naval battle, much less simply credible threats of one.
That statement doesn't really amount to much given the risk. I think we need something far more convincing; and many experts clearly think nuclear war is a risk.
They said it was a risk. The fact that it didn't happen doesn't disprove that. A 1/100 risk of nuclear war almost certainly wouldn't happen, and would be far too high of a risk.
Also, Biden vary carefully managed that risk by slowing boiling the frog. Too carefully, I thought, but it's reasonable that his overwhelming priority was preventing nuclear war.
Imagine Trump threatens to nuke Russia if they don't leave Ukraine tomorrow, according to your logic they shouldn't run the risk of a nuclear exchange and Russia should retreat.
Spot on. Recognising Putin’s fake lines normalizes a nuclear response to conventional tactics. That path opens to a future where it would be irrational not to constantly threaten nuclear holocaust for minor military advantage. And in that world, someone will eventually miscalculate.
It's not yet demonstrated Russia will make the jump from a limited conventional confrontation to an all out nuclear war, even as its territory is under daily attack from a non-nuclear country.
It's not an issue of fairness or blame, but of outcomes. I am not part of the Russian electorate talking to Russians.
Yes, Russia is the problem, but that's not really relevant (or, frankly, mature). The situation is what it is, and we must decide how to get the best outcomes.
Russia has already carried out chemical attacks on UK soil, used radioactive poisoning in London, sabotaged rail infrastructure in Poland, and launched cyberattacks against German air traffic control.[1]
Russia supplied the Buk missile system that shot down MH17, killing 298 civilians, most of them Europeans. Putin eliminates political opponents, like Alexei Navalny, who died in custody days before a possible release.
European leaders may be passive and slow, but what is making the situation truly dangerous, is the dictator-jealousy fueled encouragement and indulgence of the current U.S. administration, and all its sycophants, which got to the point of publicly applauding a dictator on U.S. soil.
That behavior legitimizes aggression, emboldens Moscow, and directly undermines European security, and is making thinks really, really, sketchy right now.
> what is making the situation truly dangerous, is the dictator-jealousy fueled encouragement and indulgence of the current U.S. administration, and all its sycophants, which got to the point of publicly applauding a dictator on U.S. soil.
I personally think there's a more direct link between the US administration and Russia, in line with the rest of your points. I think it's more than "dictator-jealousy fueled encouragement", although what that "more" is I'm not entirely sure, and I'm not sure the differences between the possibilities matters in the end.
I really think it's hard not to read [about] Foundations of Geopolitics and the history of Viktor Yanukovych, the ties between the latter and Trump, and not conclude Russia's tendrils in the US, England, and elsewhere are far deeper than is generally acknowledged in the press.
I lost a lot of trust in most media to cover this issue appropriately when people in the UK started mysteriously dying and zipping themselves in body bags, and the coverage was a collective shrug. Why they would report something like that and then with a straight face conclude an article with "police say there's no evidence of foul play" is beyond me. But then again how the Mueller investigation got spun as an exoneration is also beyond me as well.
I know it's often seen as dismissive or shallow to blame the media for things, but I really do place a huge proportion of the blame for our current mess, at least in the US, on news outlets and media soft-pedaling what's been happening for the last 10 years. A lot of what people trust became propaganda, and a lot of the rest of it chased that audience around for clicks.
Regarding the spy in a bag -- the person involved was a GCHQ mathematician seconded to the SIS and studying Russia, whose "naked, decomposing remains were found in the bath of the main bedroom's en-suite bathroom, inside a red sports bag that was padlocked from the outside, with the keys inside the bag. [...] Inconclusive fragments of DNA components from at least two other individuals were found on the bag. A forensic examination of Williams's flat has concluded that there was no sign of forced entry or of DNA that pointed to a third party present at the time of his death.
Scotland Yard's inquiry also found no evidence of Williams's fingerprints on the padlock of the bag or the rim of the bath, which the coroner said supported her assertion of "third-party involvement" in the death. Metropolitan Police deputy assistant commissioner Martin Hewitt said it was theoretically possible for Williams to lower himself into the bag without touching the rim of the bath. A key to the padlock was inside the bag, underneath his body"
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Gareth_Williams)
It's absolutely mad, but remember this happened in 2010 -- before Russia did many of those bad things you mention. It wouldn't surprise me if a combination of political pressure and police incompetence made this go away.
But does it matter? 77 million Americans knowingly voted a convicted felon and court adjudicated sexual assaulter back into the presidency instead of a jail cell. From those, about 40 million were women, fully aware that a jury found him liable for sexual assault, and that multiple judges affirmed the verdict.
The majority of Americans saw criminality, sexual violence, and contempt for the law and decided that was acceptable leadership. :-))
That's true, though it might attribute too much intentionality to voter decisions.
My hunch is that a lot of Americans ticked 'Trump' because of brand recognition.
It's like buying laundry detergent. Most people know nothing about the chemistry or efficacy. They pick whatever package looks familiar, 'Tide' probably
I respectfully suggest a future campaign slogan that sets a simple yet high policy bar: make America good again.
Let that be the prism through which all future political action is seen. Let's be real. Let's be good. Let's strive to eliminate and replace this farcical hyperbole, self-agrandizement, this pyramid scheme of a pretense at government. Let's have some confidence and ambition: work to restore a real balance of power between our three branches. There is so much we could do in the near and long term if we just set out sights on a simple, positive goal.
We may never be great again. Maybe we never were. But we can be good.
That's why I think Putin won't use nukes but would just load chemical weapons on drones to attack European cities and blame it on some terrorist organization. Trump might even support him in claiming that Russia is innocent and NATO shouldn't be involved. They already tested it on Poland with empty drones and said Russia didn't send any drones.
Any reasonable planning requires looking at the scenario your action creates - the range of outcomes. The range certainly includes Putin using nuclear weapons (which is part of Russia's military doctrine - see 'escalate to deescalate'). That needs to be part of your plan.
> range certainly includes Putin using nuclear weapons (which is part of Russia's military doctrine - see 'escalate to deescalate'). That needs to be part of your plan
If we had acted decisively at the beginning of the Ukraine war, the risk of nuclear war would be lower today.
Appeasement can work. But it can also increase risks. In this case, giving into a bully invites escalation itself, which increases the chances of a fuckup (e.g. a misfired drone taking out an early-warning radar) which legitimately calls for nuclear escalation.
The stereotypical warmonger rhetoric is (and not at all calling you one, just the extreme example), either you are hyper-aggressive or you are a cowardly appeaser. Think how binary that is; then think how literally one-dimensional even the critique is that it's as binary - the implication is there is a continuum between two poles, as if the field of options is a line, only one variable.
The true IR expertise - and you'll see this from the actual experts (and caveat: I am no more than a well-read amatuer) - is to neither escalate nor appease. The focus is on outcomes, not 'getting justice' (I can't think of a better term: reaction, emotional satisfaction, blame, fighting back, etc.). It endlessly frustrates many in the public, because of course they want emotional satisfaction; it also endlessly frustrates me because the leaders don't explain this.
It's like an engineering problem: You don't want to make decisions in anger; blame is terrible leadership; trying to hurt whoever caused your problem is absurd. It all would make your situation worse, even if you solve the original problem. Obviously, you think about the overall outcome for your organization and plan the best way to get there.
In sports, 'trash talk' is used to get that emotional reaction from people, because it takes them away from trying to win the game. The moment you get that response, you know you've won. Russia is working for that moment and is getting it from some.
> If we had acted decisively at the beginning of the Ukraine war, the risk of nuclear war would be lower today.
I agree completely - depending on what you mean (I certainly oppose direct combat between NATO and Russia). And we can still do it now: If NATO guarantees Ukraine unlimited material support until they win the war, no matter how long, not only would Ukraine win but when Russia was convinced of that (however that might happen), they would give up. The Europeans could do it themselves - they have ~~ 20x the economy of Russia. It would be much cheaper than the alternative of Russia gaining ground and fighting them later, and it would drain Russia's military and economy substantially.
Certainly that's not appeasing and it's barely escalatory: It's not a threat to Russian security - Ukraine obviously isn't invading - though it's eventually a threat to Putin's political standing, he may navigate it. And escalatory risk could be further decreased by offering Russia a permanent security treaty based on the old borders, with disarmament on both sides. That's the outcome NATO wants anyway.
> Europeans could do it themselves - they have ~~ 20x the economy of Russia
Europe isn’t politically capable of decisive action. By design. Some European countries could, but I’m not seeing a proximate future where Europe is-and is treated as—a great power.
> escalatory risk could be further decreased by offering Russia a permanent security treaty based on the old borders, with disarmament on both sides
What do you mean by disarmament? Ukraine and Russia will obviously maintain arms after any peace. They just won’t be blowing each other up.
> Europe isn’t politically capable of decisive action. By design. Some European countries could, but I’m not seeing a proximate future where Europe is-and is treated as—a great power.
Kissinger famously said, ~ 'if I want to call Europe, who do I speak to?' Generally I think your position is more true than not.
But the Europeans have an opportunity to act more cohesively: Since Kissinger, things have changed considerably: Europe has the political and military structures: the EU government is much stronger, with greatly expanded power, and more cohesive, helped by the exit of the dissenter UK and the Russian threat; the EU and NATO now encompass pretty much everyone west of Russia. There has long been a growing movement to strengthen EU foreign policy in that way - even having a military force.
And they have powerful incentives: Russia's threat and the US's abandonment; and the rise of China (and India and others) makes Europe's individual 'great powers' into middling and regional ones. Just imagine the UK still ruling Hong Kong today. Together, the EU would be the second leading power in the world - potentially growing into the first if they don't alienate everyone like another power.
Also, they don't need to act cohesively. Germany by itself has a far bigger economy than Russia and could fund Ukraine alone - and they wouldn't be totally alone, either.
> What do you mean by disarmament? Ukraine and Russia will obviously maintain arms after any peace. They just won’t be blowing each other up.
Again, likely true. My very hypothetical point was, a broader NATO-Russian peace could disarm both sides, including the sensitive regions. Maybe Ukraine joins NATO to give them security. Open up trade with Russia too.
Russia has no political position to reject that offer - peace, security, trade - except Putin's imperialist ambitions. It would demonstrate the lie in Putin's claim that NATO seeks to control Russia. It might be hard for him to resist that offer domestically.
The preferred outcome is to further fragment the Russian Federation, leaving the rump successor state too small and weak to pose a significant threat. We did the same thing once before so let's just do it again.
> Isn't the logical action for EU to launch massive pre-emptive strikes
To be clear, strikes wouldn't be "pre-emptive", Russia is already in a war, and it's entirely allowed for any nation to join the side of Ukraine. None of the rules of war prevent helping a friendly country by joining the fight.
I don’t believe the leadership sees Russia as an existential threat in Brussels. Baltics and Poland see it differently.
A pre-emptive strike would be expensive and immediately retcon into making Putin be the good guy - he’s long said NATO is the aggressor. Best to make invading EU to be too expensive to be worth it.
I think the bigger risk currently that Europe faces is the low and mid level corruption where Russian agents extend their tendrils into government structures in EU.
This has already happened. Just as in the US, all of the far-right "movements" in the EU are Russian fronts.
The two biggest targets are the UK and France, because both have an independent nuclear deterrent. If those are captured by puppets, expect nuclear explosions over European capitals.
This is not hyperbole. Russian government insiders have made it absolutely, unambiguously clear that Europe must be "crushed."
As a direct quote.
The real tragedy is oligarch complicity. Oligarchs and aristocrats in the US, UK, and EU have decided they have more in common with their Russian counterparts than with the native populations of their respective countries.
How many armies in the world, have ever had a person in uniform demand that "the other army must be crushed" ? ok, is there any army that did not say that, to each other, or to an audience? Get a grip on the invective and do not blabber!
> This has already happened. Just as in the US, all of the far-right "movements" in the EU are Russian fronts.
And you, singlehandedly have the supreme insight into all these people, to ascribe motive on them? Impressive
or perhaps its possible that some people just have their own opinions that is not yours, and MAYBE has some overlap with russian? (assuming that to be true)
I bet you share many opinions with Putin, for example, I believe he considers exercise to be healthy, why, by your previous logic, that would make your health advice a russian front?
> Best to make invading EU to be too expensive to be worth it.
How do you propose to estimate how much it is worth doing it?
IMO, it is best is to make the kremlin government collapse by all mean necessary. Including sabotage, assassination, propaganda, confiscation, corruption/trahison. And preemptive strike if needs to be.
This worked great in every other country where some other country believed the situation will be more stable if you just topple the current regime, didn’t it?
It's not about "hating the western way of life" or any such silliness. They can hate whatever they want within their internationally recognized borders.
War is best prevented by robust deterrents. When it comes to belligerent fascist regimes who want to see how far you can be pushed, not responding to provocations and aggression forcefully makes larger-scale war more likely in the future.
That's simply not true. The US response to Pearl Harbor was proportional -- you attacked us, that's war, so now we're warring -- but that didn't mean staying on the defensive.
If it's known that Russia is using ships to attack Western infrastructure, blockading those ships is entirely proportional. A blockade, in this case, isn't so much an act of war, as it is a response to an act of war.
They shot some of our boats and we dropped portable suns onto two of their cities.
A proportional response would be to take out of one their fleets. We explicitly went disproportional when we conquered their entire nation and dismantled their empire.
I know it's supposed to be an oversimplification, but this is pretty shockingly ignorant of the scope, scale, and brutality of the Japanese campaign. They didn't merely "shoot some of our boats"; that's an egregious minimization of their culpability and the proportionality of their comeuppance. The Japanese launched a coordinated all-out assault not only on Pearl Harbor but also:
- The Philippines, a US territory, where tens of thousands of American soldiers were killed or captured and
subjected to the infamous Bataan Death March. Hundreds of thousands of Filipinos are killed during invasion and occupation.
- Guam, also a US territory
- Hong Kong, Malaya and Singapore: British territories
- Thailand, an independent kingdom
All this after having already invaded Manchuria and French Indochina, and then later going on to invade and occupy Burma, the Dutch East Indies, Borneo, New Guinea, and a whole slew of Pacific islands and atolls.
Not only did the Japs attack Pearl Harbor, formally declare war on the United States, enjoy an alliance with Germany and Italy who themselves declared war on the Unites States, and conquer or attempt to conquer all those places to build their empire; they also fought fanatically and with exceptional brutality, they committed countless atrocities (wanton murders, amputations and mutilations, gang rapes, sex slavery, vivisections, human experiments--you name it, they did it), they administered conquered territories cruelly, and they treated prisoners of war even more cruelly.
Considering all of the above, conquering the Japanese nation and ensuring their total defeat was not only justified (as I believe you'd agree), it was also entirely proportionate to their warmongering and brutality.
And in exchange we destroyed their empire and government
We did not respond proportionately, we responded disproportionately. I don’t know how this is even being argued by people that our response on WW2 to any of our belligerents was in measured proportion.
Like, it was the last time we went to total warfare and indiscriminately bombed civilian population centers
They were busily destroying empires and governments. How is the destruction of their empire and government disproportionate?
And certainly neither Germany nor Japan had any compunction about indiscriminately bombing civilians, let alone intentionally murdering many millions of them.
I said our response was disproportionate, at no point did I say it was unjust.
Walk softly and carry a big stick, is still applicable game theory and the big stick was not meant to be held back just because someone hit you with a smaller stick.
If you only respond in proportion to an adversary, they basically get to dictate the engagement. A strategy that leads to less violence overall is to apply disproportionate retaliation to any attacks, which signals to other players that you will make actions against you not a viable long term strategy
I generally agree with you there, I simply don't think firebombing Tokyo and even nuking a couple cities was disproportionate. Morally wrong? Maybe. The only way to achieve a necessary military effect? Probably not. But they certainly had it coming in spades.
The Japanese tried to firebomb the US, too; they simply weren't as successful[0]. They also had a nuclear program, and God knows they would have nuked the US first if they could have. There was no Mutually Assured Destruction back then, either--just unidrectional Assured Destruction. I'm glad the US got there first.
Consider the handy Wikipedia chart of WWII deaths[1]. The main instigators of the deadliest war in history, Germany and Japan, have fairly low total death rates and, in fact, comparatively low civilian death rates compared to the Allies.
Further I want to point out that 'proportionate' is not the same as 'equivalent'. A proportionate response doesn't mean you try to kill exactly the same number of troops or sink the same number of warships.
Finally I want to reiterate that I do generally agree with you about the value and deterrent effect of some perceived probability of a disproportionate response, or at least the value of unpredictability in general. That is not to say that I believe the Madman Theory is an optimal strategy over the long term, but I do think it can be played effectively as a short-term tactic.
Hey, thats exactly what Ahmed al Ahmed was thinking. He ripped rifle out of Bondi Beach terrorist hands but didnt shoot him immediately because that would be "disproportional". Terrorist ran back to his friend, pulled another gun from the bag and killed several more innocent people.
No, pre-emptively starting another war is not a good idea. But yes, the West should work hard to make sure their enemy loses the war it has already started.
I suspect the price of a ship compared to economic damages caused by the cut cable is negligible. This is what russia calls "assymetric war". The response should be more economic sanctions.
Economic sanctions won't prevent the FSB from paying off ship captains to do these things. Seizing ships and imprisoning captains might provide some amount of deterrent. Clearly only way economic sanctions will have a behavioral impact on Russia is if the effects are so bad it triggers revolution which has its own dangers. Direct consequences for the people in the sphere of these actions is more prudent.
Europe has always been known for being governed by the rule of law. If we now start breaking laws and rights, especially regarding property/ownership, this will strongly backfire in the future. This can quickly become a slippery slope towards Willkürsjustiz. It is exactly the same as with the Russian assets held in Belgium at Clearstream. Selling them is a no-no.
There is ample precendent for impounding the assets of hostile nations. The Soviets did it to Germany in WW2, so they cannot really claim that they are opposed to that practice.
The only reason why this seizure of russian money in Belgium might be a bad idea is reciprocity. Russia would of course then try to seize European assets in Russia.
And regarding ships, prize law is still internationally accepted and in effect. Ukraine can offer prize letters to privateers or foreign navies, allowing the seizure of Russian ships. Or they can seize ships themselves. When those ships are then in a Ukrainian or allied harbor, a Ukrainian admirality court then assigns ownership of the vessel and all goods to the ones who brought it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_(law)
yup. RU will literally wait decades and then send their lil KGB/GRU agents all around the world to assassinate you, chop you up, or poison you. they play the long game and never forget.
Many of the shadow fleet crew members aren't even Russians. Typically only the master and some officers are privy to the real mission. The other crew members are just random seamen hired from the usual poor countries so jailing them would be pointless.
That's not extreme. They destroyed a piece of expensive critical infrastructure. Prison and seizure should be the bare minimum. I just mean it's not enough to prevent it in the future.
I guess I don't subscribe to the same hysteria about russia you do. I'm far more worried about how my own country behaves, i'm extremely cynical about european leadership including this exact attitude you profess, and I don't trust the people who run this place. All of these things I fear far more than i fear russia
Look if russia wants to conquer the world, let them. They can't make things worse than the indolent ivy-league rot that has destroyed western culture. If people braying about the threat of the east want to be taken seriously, they need to make a much more concerted effort to convince us that the western model makes sense and we're not just working our asses off to suck off rich retards
>Look if russia wants to conquer the world, let them. They can't make things worse than the indolent ivy-league rot that has destroyed western culture.
Do you have any experience living under Russian rule? Have you tried any political participation while doing so?
If Russia wasn't currently locked in a land war with Ukraine, that would largely be true (assuming that you were NATO and wanted to play by both the rules of being real democracies, and also respecting international law).
But since Russia IS locked in a land war with Ukraine, in a hypothetical world, you could retaliate by upping aid through Ukraine, OR (if you were being sneaky), laundering your actions through Ukraine.
The crew are probably living much better and safer lives in Finnish jail than they would out of jail in Russia.
Speaking of the joy of living in Russia, check out the hilarious story of racist right wing Finnish Flat Earther anti-immigrant anti-refugee pro-Russian criminal asshole Ano Turtiainen, now living as a refugee in Russia and threatening to fight against fellow Finns.
Ano Turtiainen is a former Finnish powerlifter turned far-right politician who managed to embarrass himself and others at every step:
He was banned for two years in 1998 for androgenic drug use -- perfect start to a "morally upright" career.
As an MP with the batshit crazy racist right-wing Finns Party, he posted a mocking tweet about George Floyd's murder ("Pink Floyd"), which was widely condemned as even too racist for the Finns Party, which got him expelled.
He set up his own splinter faction and then a tiny party, Power Belongs to the People (VKK), which became known for praising Russia and opposing sanctions and Finnish NATO membership, utterly at odds with mainstream Finnish views.
Turtiainen even refused to fire an assistant who posted racist content and had a parliamentary visitor do a Nazi salute (which he photographed himself!).
Instead of behaving like a responsible adult during the pandemic, he mocked public health measures, called them "neo-communism", refused masks, and threatened violence over mask mandates.
Meanwhile his own company manufactured masks: the ultimate hypocrisy.
Turtiainen failed to explain how he used over €30,000 in parliamentary group funds -- so the Finnish Parliament is trying to collect it back through debt enforcement.
Not only that: He's a Flat Earther, doesn't believe in space existing, and was convinced NASA interfered in the last election he was involved in so that he only got 7 votes.
Now the Ultimate Irony: the Anti-Immigrant Asshole Becomes a Hypocritical Refugee.
After losing his seat in the 2023 election (with only ~632 votes), Turtiainen moved to Russia, the country he celebrated, defended even during its invasion of Ukraine, and praised as a cultural "brother".
Russia granted him refugee status (yes, refugee status), despite his previous anti-immigrant posturing -- and he proudly accepts it.
In videos he’s now said he might fight for Russia -- even against Finns -- in the war in Ukraine. That’s right: the man who slammed refugees and immigrants is now a political asylum seeker in Russia, flirting with joining Russian troops and fighting his own countrymen.
Turtiainen's political life is a one-man case study in right-wing hypocrisy, racism, ignorance, self-harm, and irony: The guy who mocked others' suffering ends up dependent on another country’s goodwill -- the same country he championed in Finnish politics.
Former Finns Party MP granted refugee status in Russia:
The pro-Russian ex-lawmaker has claimed that he would be "ready to go to the front against the Finns" if necessary:
Are these ships actually owned by the Russian state? I thought it was more Russia paying private operators to do some sabotage alongside legitimate business. In which case, ships being seized would absolutely be a huge deterrent to whoever owns or insures the ships.
But yes, imprisoning the crew (especially the captain) is also a good idea.
Russia commits acts of aggression against NATO states that straddle the line of ambiguity where a bad faith actor could call it accidental or at least unauthorized.
This makes invoking article 5 likewise somewhat difficult because it allowed other NATO members pressure the border states into "not overreacting". The point is to slowly escalate into outright hostility without ever having "the event" that makes it obvious article 5 must be invoked.
Also a provocation that forces a reaction that is difficult to modulate. Activating Article 5 demonstrates NATO solidarity and that it means business, but it would be disastrous. Doing nothing demonstrates fecklessness and impotence of NATO. The reaction needs to be measured and proportionate.
But outright hostility is not necessarily the goal. Hybrid warfare is more “subtle”. Its targets are more diverse and the aim is less overt defeat and more war of attrition in a broad sense. You want to wear your enemy down.
and the goal for this toeing the line is to spark discussion and disagreement between member states. Article 5 credibility is already at it's lowest point after Vance's speech and the new US security strategy, now isn't just the matter of sowing further disagreement.
I'm not sure what Russia had to gain from violating our (Finland) airspace with military aircraft countless of times before we joined NATO. Yet they kept doing it.
Russia is an imperialistic state that really doesn't like having neighbours that are not under its political and military control. Violating airspace, GPS jamming, cutting undersea cables is just their way of showing force, and damaging us, who they perceive as their enemies for not submitting to their rule.
I'm sure some bright spark will soon show up to say that it was actually NATO who was violating our airspace for decades
, just like they're claiming that NATO is the one cutting cables here
> Some officials from Scandinavia, the Baltic states and the European Union have pointed the finger at Russia. They say the incidents appear to be part of what experts say is the Kremlin’s hybrid war on the West.
The only blame placed in the article is targeted at Russia. And I'd quite like to see some speculation on Russia's possible motive for this, it sounds pointless and risky for their shipping on the face of it.
Probably to make sure it stays that way. Logistics by ship generally has a big advantage over logistics by land. There is a rough pattern over the last century or so of the big navel empires (UK, US, Japan) having a big military advantage. In the case of the UK and US their strategic policy has a big component that involves restricting their opponents access to resources water (eg, Germany around the world wars, China in the modern era or the way the US controls the sea-based routes out of Saudi Arabia and the land routes tend to be militarily unstable).
Preventing oil exports and increase insurance premiums for Russia's export economy, because Western sanctions clearly are unsuccessful in destroying the Russian economy.
My post history shows that I do support Russia's self defense against U.S./NATO threats. In my opinion Ukraine entering NATO is indeed an existential threat to Russia, because since (at least) the collapse of the UDSSR the U.S. and it's vassals openly communicated and pursued the goal of regime changing Russia (+ Belarus, Georgia).
It's always astonishing to me how people here (mostly Americans) basically know nothing about the long history of U.S. proxy wars with Russia (historically USSR) and the long stated desire from U.S. to destroy or regime change the Russian federation.
To answer your question quickly: Ukraine entering NATO constitutes an existential threat to Russia for the same reason as China building military infrastructure in Mexico, Cuba or Canada would pose an existential threat to the U.S. (e.g. Cuban Missile Crisis).
>Ukraine entering NATO constitutes an existential threat to Russia for the same reason as China building military infrastructure in Mexico, Cuba or Canada would pose an existential threat to the U.S. (e.g. Cuban Missile Crisis).
Funny you should mention that, Russian military infrastructure in Cuba wasn't an existential threat to USA. Russia did build military infrastructure in Cuba and the US let that happen. What they did not let happen was the forward positioning of nuclear missiles during the era that Fist Strikes were still being considered. Similarly the USA has removed nuclear weapons from Russia's periphery.
I think Chinese bases in Mexico would earn Mexico a good deal of stress, but not an invasion of conquest. Of course, Trump and Putin are busy changing international norms, and I can't speak to the potentially brutal world of the future. But the history (Cuban missile crisis) suggests that USA wouldn't engage in a self destructive invasion and conquest.
Is there any particular part of the report you think I should read? The glance I gave it looks like they suggested giving arms to Ukraine to stretch Russia in the civil war they were fomenting and supplying in Eastern Ukraine at the time.
Do you consider the Putin regime as equal to Russia? Because a lot of the threats in the document are to the authoritarian system, not to Russia itself.
The other side wants escalation of tension, otherwise they wouldn't do this. And they get to choose when and where and, to a degree, the means by which it happens - you can be sure it's a time and place and means that benefits them.
The fundamental of international relations in conflict is to deter without escalation, and to act in the time, place, and manner of your choosing. You'll see leaders cite that specifically: 'We have this problem; we will respond in the time, place, and in the way we think best.'
This sounds very nice but it's unclear to me what it is that you're suggesting. Who said the place isn't the Baltic sea, the time is now, and the way is to escalate? In other words, what's a better place/time/way according to you?
> it's unclear to me what it is that you're suggesting.
That's fair. I lack the expertise and information to know the options and details. But what I said in the GP is international relations 101 - or maybe the first day of grad school.
The response needs to be forceful: seize and auction off the ships. There needs to be sufficient deterrent to actually stop this from happening.