These things happen sometimes, ship anchors sometimes damage cables, but not this often and without serious problems in the ship. Russians are attempting plausible deniability.
If the EU decides to join the US the war is over and Russia will keep the occupied lands. If the EU decides to support Ukraine then because of the devastating sanctions there is a strong chance Russia loses.
So it's in Russia's interest to make life as difficult as possible for Europe over the coming months in order to convince them that ending the war is in their best interest.
> devastating sanctions
Devastating for Europe, you mean.
Also it would be better if any Russians here could answer a similar question
On the other side, Europe buys billions of dollars of oil and gas from Russia. That money goes in the opposite direction, from Europe to Russia, and is used toward soldier salaries, Iran drones and North Korean mercenaries.
https://energyandcleanair.org/august-2024-monthly-analysis-o...
Russia: inflation around 8-9%.
EU: inflation around 2%.
Recently, a professor I know wrote an article about his impressions of Russia and Germany when he attended meetings in both countries.
Can you help to check what he said?
> Macroeconomic data indicates that the European economy is not doing well, but the economic conditions I experienced during my days in Berlin could be described as depression. What surprised me the most was that there were not many people or cars on the streets of Berlin during the daytime on weekdays. Berlin in early October is not yet cold, but the desolate feeling on the streets does not match the image of the capital of Europe's largest economy. Europe's inflation, which started later than in the United States, has also clearly hurt the lives of the people, which was my perception from conversations with taxi drivers during my rides.
> (In Vladivostok) War typically leads to a rise in prices. Several Russian sources have reported that compared to two and a half years ago, current prices have roughly doubled, and housing prices have also increased significantly. However, it is somewhat comforting that the wages of most people have also increased proportionally, so people's lives have not been greatly affected so far. The supply of goods on the market is still quite abundant. Due to financial sanctions from the US and Europe, as well as multinational corporations, many brands' products and services are no longer available in the Russian market. Nevertheless, this does not prevent Russian citizens from drinking cola or eating American fast food. It is said that these brands have localized, but the products remain essentially unchanged: for example, the taste of Russian cola is not significantly different from Coca-Cola, as they can purchase the concentrate from third countries and mix it themselves.
> The official unemployment rate published by Russia is only 2%, and I believe this data is likely accurate. The reasons are not only because the war itself requires the hiring of a large number of young people, but also due to the wealth redistribution, increased consumption, and robust production that the war has brought about. Russia is a country with severe wealth disparity, where the lower classes traditionally lack money for consumption. This war has provided an opportunity for lower-income families to obtain cash flow: by sending their sons or husbands to the battlefield, families can receive a one-time subsidy of nearly 500,000 yuan. Even prisoners in jail can receive this benefit. This sum of money, equivalent to targeted transfer payments and proactive fiscal policies aimed at the poor, has given lower- and middle-income families a chance to gamble their lives for money. This has led to cases where some people join the military to escape punishment and receive subsidies, serve for a year, return home, and then reoffend and go to jail again, relying on a second enlistment to escape punishment and receive another subsidy.
> The increased cash flow among the lower-income population has led to a surge in consumer demand, and the robust production of military goods has also stimulated employment, income, and consumption. While the products of military industry are indeed consumed on the battlefield, for the macroeconomy, what matters is the flow rather than the stock; production and consumption are meaningful in themselves. As for whether the produced goods are expended as shells and missiles on the battlefield or become paper wealth on the other side of the ocean as export commodities, there is no fundamental difference for the current macroeconomic operation.
There are rumors circulating on Chinese self-media about how much the ruble has depreciated on the black market in Russia. I specifically went to restaurants and other consumer venues in Vladivostok to test for any significant difference between the official and black market exchange rates by using US dollars and Chinese yuan for payment. However, neither Russian-run nor Chinese-run restaurants offered discounts for payment in US dollars or Chinese yuan cash. This phenomenon is usually sufficient to debunk rumors about the Russian ruble black market.
The current social mood in Russia is relatively stable, which may be due not only to a decent economic foundation but also to strict control over public opinion. According to our research feedback, even in private settings, if colleagues or neighbors make remarks against Putin or the war, and are reported, those who oppose the war or Putin may face legal troubles.
> the European economy
But his claim of a "desolate feeling on the streets" being an indication of "economic conditions ... could be described as depression" read like badly written propaganda. There's nothing to be checked there, just some vague feelings. Berlin isn't as crowded as he expected, so the only explanation is that nobody can afford a car and half the population is sitting at home wallowing in misery due to economic depression? Really?
Berlin has the lowest car ownership of any Germany city. Part of that is the excellent public transit. Another part is the extensive network of bike paths (combined with flat topography).
Trains run from 04:30-00:30 on weekdays. On weekends they run 24 hours a day. During rush hour the trains come every five minutes, and the cars are standing room only. (I checked a couple of hours ago.)
As for weekends, why would you drive a car to a beer garden when you can take BVG and talk with your friends on the way?
[Also, Berlin in October is normally f*ing cold. This year was a freakish exception.]
It is hard to know how much Russia has been harmed, because both sides probably exaggerate the figures.
I wonder whether "more harm" is the right question. The question should be whether the sanctions have any impact on Russia's war economy, which they do not. If anything, they make Russia more independent and strengthen Russian ties with China and India.
This is all to the detriment of the EU, the only one here who profits is the U.S. by making the EU more dependent.
> The question should be whether the sanctions have any impact on Russia's war economy, which they do not
Ruble is below a single penny.
Interest rates are at 21%, highest since 2003.
Inflation is out of control.
> they make Russia more independent and strengthen Russian ties with China and India.
ah, so that's why Putin went to North Korea to beg for troops and ammunition?
https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/RUS
Germany has 2.4% inflation and 0% growth:
https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/DEU
I do not believe the German inflation numbers. Health care got 30% more expensive with more hikes coming, rents are exploding, groceries are 20% higher since 2022.
They are not, if you take the larger context into account - and that is China and their saber rattling not just against Taiwan but also against everyone else in what China thinks is "their" influence sphere such as the Philippines.
Russia's warmongering (not just in Ukraine, but also via Syria, Iran and Yemen!) is breaking apart both the US and EU internally - recent elections have shown that both populations are pretty much fed up with the wars and their consequences, and once enough countries either fall to Putin's 5th column outright or their governments pull a Chamberlain, China can be relatively certain no one will intervene too much when they decide that now is the best time to annex other countries.
Of course that can and does also happen in democracies, but at least most reasonable democracies have some sort of "checks and balances" that at least prevents open war from breaking out.
So yeah, the US absolutely got outplayed here.
I think it's unlikely that the world will pick an economic partner that:
- builds 90% of the new coal fired plants while the rest of the world (including the US) is decarbonizing
- has 280+% debt to GDP ratio
- has capital controls on its currency (the real exchange rate could change suddenly at the drop of a hat)
Well at least in prior crises, the US had sensible leadership on both sides that was willing to put country before party.
The 47th however? Not just the man himself but especially the cabinet picks are an utter joke. None of the currently known picks are known for any kind of competence or even experience in their respective fields, and there are ideas floating to have the Senate go into recess so the 47th can appoint them without the usual review process - astonishing in itself given that the Republicans control the full Congress, they shouldn't have to fear any of their candidates not getting past the Senate. What politics they want to follow is just as dangerous - Musk and DOGE slashing 2 trillion $ from government expenditure for example, large parts of the government will literally be unable to do their job (which is, among others, to handle crises).
But I'm also well aware of the fact the US has gone through extremely dark periods and its past success is not a promise of future success. At the end of the day a country very possibly plunged into Great Depression II and almost certainly with trade policy changing by the day is not a good trading partner.
There is a very real possibility that we deport our way into a famine. The US economy cannot possibly sustain the type of deportations that have been promised and are already being put into motion by the incoming administration.
Obviously most of that devastation was from the war itself, but if every enslaved person in the country were shipped back to Africa (as many proposed at the time), it absolutely would've had deeply negative near-term consequences. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that economies don't actually depend on labor. Dismissible on its face! And to be explicit: those near-term consequences were morally necessary to bear anyway.
> In fact, it is unsustainable to encourage illegal labor and immigration.
Not sure what this is responding to, tbh
> Not sure what this is responding to, tbh
I think this is related to this here:
> The US economy is absolutely sustainable by paying citizens legal wages.
They do have a point there - their argument (as I read it) is that the widespread use of undocumented/illegal labor and the exploitation of these laborers in agriculture has led to an economic gridlock situation: employers make big bucks by not paying their fair share in social security and taxes, fair employers have a hard time competing on price because the cost of fair, legal labor is too high, and they cannot raise prices to a sustainable level because the consumers have no money to pay for that because they themselves don't get paid fairly.
The associated economic theory is commonly associated with the economic effects of minimum wage hikes - these lead (despite all the Corporate Whining) to economic growth because the lowest rungs of society, those actually living on minimum wage, go and immediately spend their additional money, similar to what happened with the Covid stimulus checks, while the upper levels of society hoard additional income and do not directly contribute to economic growth.
"The US economy cannot possibly sustain the type of deportations that have been promised" is not saying "an economy cannot function without illegal labor." It is saying exactly what it says: an economy cannot sustain (i.e. remain healthy through) the mass expulsion of a huge portion of its lowest level labor force.
I made it explicitly clear that I am talking about an (almost certainly) non-permanent problem: "I also believe America will almost certainly recover from whatever dark period it's (probably) about to endure."
By analogy: The statement that the US economy cannot sustain a 90% reduction in equity values market-wide doesn't mean an economy can't exist that's 10% the size of the United States'. It doesn't mean an economy 10% of the size of the United States' can't grow to become as big or bigger than the United States'. It doesn't mean a 90% drop in equity values would delete the United States from existence.
It means that a sudden 90% drop in equity values would shock the system in intensely undesirable ways.
Mass deportations as proposed would be a gigantic shock to the system, and that shock will almost certainly make the US an undesirable trading partner for some time.
As far as stability goes, the comment above you talked about a stable trading partner, not a stable economy. China is probably more stable as a trading partner than the US is. The US changes trade policy too often.
How well did that trade war go last time he was in office? Trick question, farmers got fucked, and rational minds agree that the US lost.
>Initiating steel and aluminium tariff actions in March 2018, Trump said "trade wars are good, and easy to win,"[54] but as the conflict continued to escalate through August 2019, Trump stated, "I never said China was going to be easy."
It doesn't matter what you claim to want to do or who you claim to "hate" if your sheer incompetence prevents you from accomplishing your desire.
Maybe putting a serial business failure in charge of a trade war isn't very effective?
Biden didn't get rid of them, because it's basically impossible to unwind a trade war, and then put some more limitations on solar panels. I don't think there is a clear answer yet on Biden's addition to the trade war. Probably will be "meh".
A trade war between the US and China is almost always going to be extremely negative sum. Both of our countries rely on each other for prosperity and nice shit.
American Secretary of Defense: "Mr. President, the Chinese just destroyed our Naval base in the Philippines, killing hundreds of US servicemen. As part of a plan to annex the country or something."
American president: "Let's not intervene too much."
The only response the entire West was able to give in years of Chinese transgressions were strong words, about as effective as "thoughts and prayers". China is a bully that escalates continuously (similar to Russia's behavior in Syria with the countless "red lines" that were crossed, eventually including chemical weapons) and needs to be brought to its knees before they one day trigger WW3 by accident.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/chinese-coast-gua...
[2] https://maritime-executive.com/article/philippine-official-a...
This is what one would do to a school yard bully. They push you, and you immediately do a full face punch and knee to the nose. Fight to the death from the first push/shove, and let it escalate. One fight, and the bullying is over, or you both get injured sufficiently to go to the hospital. There should be no middle grounds.
That this is not as big a deal as you think was the reason for my grandparent post. The "US citizens wary" thing can reverse itself the moment Americans are killed by a hostile adversary.
But alternatively, it is the outgoing Biden administration that do not want a freeze, and are escalating their involvement in the war, by giving permission to use their long-range missiles to attack inside Russia, in order to derail any potential 'agreement'.
And they are now sewing the press with 'hybrid war' mania. I see news sites are now plastered with fearmongering stories about embassies being closed in Kyiv, that Ukraine front might collapse without aid, and so on and on. Note that none of it is actual Russian attacks or any actual events, just fear of them. It looks very much like a media campaign to me.
edit: oh dear, a few people on HN really do not like this take, without offering any take-down, which just makes me think there's probably something to it.
How is allowing Ukraine to use ATACMS on military targets in Russia an escalation?
It is a very clear escalation in US/European involvement. Ukraine were prohibited from using long-range western weapons to attack targets inside Russia up until now.
I'm not saying if it's right or wrong.
But it's a very clear escalation in western 'participation'. Russia have for a long time been saying that such action would be tantamount to a NATO attack, and so everyone involved surely understands that this is an escalation in the NATO-Russia face-off.
They say this every time. When Obama sent non-lethal aid, they used the same line.
It is not that Ukraine are escalating the war by using long-range missiles. Of course Russia have been using them all along.
But it is a clear escalation in western 'participation' in the war.
From that follows the logical conclusion that it’s not the US’ or NATO’s job to “reply to constant attacks”, and instead getting involved in the conflict is just that — waging war against Russia.
Normally, if we show up at the flagpole at noon to confront each other, and you throw a punch, you have escalated things to a fistfight, and then my return punch is not an escalation. If I pull a knife, I have escalated things to a knife fight. We escalate from fist to knife to gun. Reciprocation - self defense - does not count.
The only way to torture the term into contextual use is to suggest that Russia is not firing rockets at NATO because Ukraine is not NATO, but NATO is firing rockets at Russia because all these missile systems are not Ukrainian, but NATO. This is Putin's framing, and it incorporates the idea that the missile systems are actually being manned but US & EU soldiers.
If you are not adopting that frame, "escalation" only really works if you explicitly define the context as a Great Powers proxy war with a potential nuclear endpoint, where Ukraine is stipulated for the sake of argument to have no agency.
My point: I think USSR (and Cuba) had a good reason to install those missiles. It wasn't an unprovoked action.
There is some analogy here for the Ukraine NATO situation.
Arguably, this would even be in Russia's favor, given its manpower advantage. But Ukraine might agree to it to stop civilian terror and power infrastructure attacks.
With all the backlash here, I feel like some kind of radical, but here is a BBC article from 2 DAYS AGO that basically says what I'm saying: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2nrlq1840o
Although they miss out the bit about a media campaign, and so on, of course.
This is the BBC, pretty much the mouthpiece of the UK government.
And although they frame recent actions as trying to give Ukraine an advantage in any Trump negotiations with Russia, the truth is that these missiles will probably not advance Ukraine's military position, but will certainly change Europe and America's standing, possibly to the point of derailing any possibility of negotiation.
> Russia has set out “red lines” before. Some, including providing modern battle tanks and fighter jets to Ukraine, have since been crossed without triggering a direct war between Russia and Nato.
This is the latest of a long list of small, slow, racheting-up responses to unilateral Russian aggression. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukraini...
And no-one has been 'getting anything across to me', inferring that I'm 'not getting it'. They've been throwing incomplete or irrational arguments, like yours, or simply downvoting.
Sure there have been 'red lines' by Russia, and the US has continuously pushed across them.
But this one was also a US 'red line'. Consistent with keeping a proxy-war in-theater.
Why have they crossed it, now?
What do they hope it will achieve?
Most likely very little militarily.
But maybe quite a lot in shaping or constraining future US policy.
For the same reason they crossed all the others - continued Russian aggression.
Each expansion of US aid or reduction in restrictions on how that aid is utilized has followed logically from Russian actions. Obama started with non-lethal aid; we've initially balked at every single step since that before eventually going "ok, now it's warranted".
It's very clear the US is keeping responses small and incremental to take the wind out of Russian bluster about nuclear holocaust if they do this one more little thing to piss Putin off. It's also very clear the Russian "no don't send Javelins/HIMARS/Patriots/Abrams/MiGs/F-16s/ATACMS, we'll be very mad" has lost a lot of its potency.
And, backtracking, how aware have you been about the situation in Ukraine, or baltic sea infrastructure, in the past few months (even year), compared to the last week? Just a marginal increment, no doubt.
I'd first reject the use of the term "red line" entirely for the ATACMS situation.
"No, not ever" is a red line. The Russians love issuing these for other people, but it's embarassing when they're crossed without significant consequence.
"No, not now" is not a red line. The US tends to shy away from issuing them - one of Obama's biggest mistakes was proclaiming one in Syria and then looking a bit feckless when they violated it. (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-president-bli...)
Letting Ukraine hit Russian territory with ATACMS is like the fourth or fifth expansion of how they're permitted to use that weapons system so far, as was giving them ATACMS in the first place after HIMARS (which saw a similar set of gradually reduced limitations; https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/07/08/us-to-send-more-...).
> And, backtracking, how aware have you been about the situation in Ukraine, or baltic sea infrastructure, in the past few months (even year), compared to the last week? Just a marginal increment, no doubt.
I've closely followed the situation in Ukraine since Euromaidan.
No doubt, but the fact is the US told Ukraine they couldn't use ATACMS to target Russia, and now, they can.
And it's really more than an incremental change in US involvement in the war. The fact that Ukrainians are supposedly operating these weapons is almost incidental.
No "too"
It is only that.
If Russia retreated behind its internationally recognized borders and returned Crimea today, Ukraine would stop attacking it today.
That tells you everything you need to know about who the aggressor and escalator is in this conflict.
Anything else is a Russian talking point in service to their trying to lose fewer troops while invading a neighboring country.
Which says nothing at all about the conflict being "a proxy war".
It exactly states that Biden might be stirring things up in anticipation of Trump sueing for a freeze.
Either way -- according the definition in Wikipedia, it is a proxy because one side is strongly supported by an external power. Sounds reasonable, and I can go with it (on at least a technical basis).
Where people go wrong (not saying you here) is when they accept the term "proxy war" and assume (or insinuate) that it means or supports the idea that Ukraine is simply a puppet state, not really fighting out of its own motivations.
I am not the OP, but I think your interpretation is not as obvious as you make it to be. This often leads to misunderstandings.
AFAIK military analysts use the term escalation as a morally neutral term. Escalation is anything that goes up on the 'scala' (= "ladder", the Latin root of the word). In this interpretation, D-Day would be an e_scala_tion (climbing up the ladder) simply because opening a new front means number_of_fronts_today > number_of_fronts_yesterday. In this interpretation, self-defense and escalation are not mutually exclusive.
Apparently, the term changed meaning. Many people now treat it the way you do (if I understand you correctly) as something associated with aggression. Therefore, they assume that when someone labels something like an escalation, they mean it is an act of aggression, unjustified, something you should not be allowed to do, and not morally neutral.
I am not saying you are wrong. I am just pointing out that when people talk about escalation, it is worth checking whether they mean the same escalation.
The question in this thread is more along the lines of "if the robber shouts 'fighting back is a red line!', should we avoid fighting back?"
The current war in Ukraine is a direct result of the international community not making much fuss when Russia, largely unopposed, took chunks of Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine over the last few decades.
As with appeasing Hitler, we prioritized short-term quiet for longer-term encouragement of aggression.
And was this just a post-hoc justification, or had the western powers declared that they would retaliate if Russia involved other armies?
In any case, surely the 'punishment' should be directed at North Korea?
North Korean troops are helping Russia invade Ukraine (by freeing up Russian garrison troops to participate in their offensive).
Ergo, redress is something that helps Ukraine resist the military advantage North Korean involvement gives Russia -- e.g. being able to target Russian military targets supporting the invasion, in Russia.
The problem is at least as much Russia inviting NK as North Korea positively responding, aiding Ukraine works against all the belligerents aligned against it, NK as well as Russia, and the North Koreans in Russia are not protected by the Armistice the way North Koreans on the Korean peninsula are.
Wrong. Using long range missiles is not an escalation. Russia has been using them against Ukrainian lands for years now. Why shouldn't Ukraine be allowed to use them against Russian land?
Russia are at war with Ukraine, so they are bombing them. Ukraine have every right to reply with their own long range weapons too, and that would indeed not be an escalation in the fighting itself.
But, the west clearly prohibited the use of their donated long range weapons in direct attacks on Russia, in order to limit their liability, responsibility, 'participation' or whatever, until now.
Russia have been very clear that such permission would constitute an escalation OF WESTERN 'PARTICIPATION' in the war, and even be tantamount to a direct NATO attack, and so it is at least an escalation.
Whether it is right or wrong is not the point, it is a clear change in the depth of western involvement.
This seems like an arbitrary line [0] drawn exactly where it suits your argument. How does having North Korean soldiers fighting for Russia stay on the right side of that line? What about any components that originated outside of Russia but are employed in Russian weaponry or equipment (for example chips)? The information war is a part of "the war", is an "official" non-Russian hacker or troll crossing the line? Or a non-Russian boat or crew employed for acts of sabotage.
[0] It can be fair to draw an arbitrary line, at least you know it's straight and will intersect whatever is unfortunate to be in its way regardless of the side you prefer. But you're trying to draw tiny arbitrary circles around whatever you don't like and that's feeble.
Ukraine is quite obviously not just a plucky country defending it's sovereignty (though it is that too), but the theater of a great-power proxy war.
The rules of that game are that you keep the conflict within the theater, or risk a world war.
That was already breached by Ukrainian incursions into Russia, armed to some extent with western weapons, but this is much more direct, and a clear escalation of US participation in the conflict.
In what insane alternate Marvel universe is Russia not part of the Russo-Ukrainian War theater?
Since the war started, Russia has moved their red lines dozens of times. The “escalation” argument lost it's meaning.
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-war-latest-us-shuts-...
The current U.S. administration wants to make the most out of the remaining 60 days. Perhaps they have a little help:
https://www.wired.com/story/inside-the-77th-brigade-britains...
How did that not work then yet?
Because it's a war.
The Nazis were mopping the floor with Europe until they weren’t. The Japanese were conquering Asia until they weren’t.
Why wouldn't russia use a tactical nuke in west Ukraine to destroy tank factories? They already are a international Pariah, that is why they align with North Korea.
The only answer is - to remain the last standing they have. But at some point, they might not care. It is dangerous to put someone with nukes in a desperate position. Putin would not survive retreating from Ukraine - he would be in a desperate position if the odds of war are against him - currently they ain't.
Because the Biden administration communicated to its regime (in late 2022) that this would definitely trigger a massive kinetic response. In particular it indicated that its ground forces in Ukraine would be utterly destroyed (as Putin knows it is very much capable of doing).
Don't you see, how this can turn out wrong?
A most interesting question is: Would survive Trump?
Russia is getting bombed every day and doesn’t even hold all of its initial territory. It is not clear who will win this.
It is extremely obvious that Russia would be crushed within days by a confrontation with NATO (but this conflict almost certainly wouldn't materialize due to nuclear weapons).
It's interesting the extent to which people haven't internalized this. Russia's industry has really ramped up on military production in the past two years, and their military will eventually get to the point where it can cause tremendous damage against a poorly-equipped Ukraine, through attrition. But the invasion revealed how far behind they are technologically, and a combined NATO force would turn off their entire military's command and control on day one of a real conflict.
It's an inversion of the situation forty or fifty years ago, when Europe had to rely on the the nuclear threat because the Russian conventional forces were considered to be overwhelming.
Ruble is below a single penny.
Interest rates are at 21%, highest since 2003.
Inflation is out of control.
Not really all that rosy.
All of it are merely suffering that the russian citizens suffer, but canwithstand. Russia does not import food, does not need to import fuel, and can import most consumer goods from china and bypass western sanctions.
Therefore, russia's gov't can allocate most of their internal resources for war production.
Also, the discussion was about the effect of the sanctions. But the inflation is going up not because of that, but because of the huge amount of Russian government money that's flowing to the military and to the weapon industry.
In any case Russia losing its oil refineries one by one is the real deal here.
As a European, I'd say there is just about 0 chance of the EU unilaterally supporting Russian taken any occupied areas to themselves and Ukraine surrendering. Not only would it signal to Russia that they can take European land without consequences, but public opinion is very much against any sort of cessation of defenses. In my ~30 years I've never seen as strong NATO support from the common man in countries like Sweden and Spain as there is today.
I agree, but it's not about accepting or saying it's a good idea, it's about whether European countries can replace the US support enough that Ukraine can reasonably keep defending themselves.
Being a Swede myself, and knowing how apathetic Swedish people are about basically anything, something having that large of support is pretty uncommon and signal a strong will to make NATO and EU defenses stronger, if anything.
Even people I know who been historically anti-"anything military" in the country have quickly turned into "We need to defend our Nordic brothers and sisters against the Russians" which kind of took me by surprise.
> UE is full of Trump supporters
That won't ever happen. Even right-wingers (Europe right, not US right) are laughing at Trump and the Republicans.
Any examples you can point to?
I'm guessing that if US pulls their support, EU will try to add as much to cover up for it as humanly possible, as most compatriots see Ukraine as the frontline of something that can grow much, much bigger which because of remembering history, we'd obviously like to avoid.
The Patriot system is one the of best examples. EU doesn't really have anything in this space, but Ukraine needs more of it yesterday.
Are you talking about SAM capabilities or something else? Because there are plenty of SAMs produced by European countries; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surface-to-air_missile...
This has turned out to be a major problem, as the US has used their re-export restrictions on components to block very significant parts of planned European military aid to Ukraine.
I speculate that there will be (already is) some extremely heavy investments in military tech R&D to remove/reduce dependence on American components going forward. As a continent, we can't have our hands tied like this in future conflicts.
Your economy is nearly 10 times the size of Russia.
If Russia can continue, then you can almost 10 times more easily.
It's not a "can" issue. It's a "are you willing to do more than absolute minimum?" issue.
Alone from that reason, USA will not pull their aid. USA cannot afford losing Europe as an arms client
Unsurprisingly this week after Macron speech, "French" farmers decided to organize again on groups directed by leaders and block and destroy Spanish cargo trucks at the frontier, without any policemen to be found at place.
Is obvious that somebody is trying again the old trick to confront and divide in the EU. We had seen the same before in Poland, etc.
But a trick overused can became counterproductive. I'm sure that Macron and other in EU can sum deux and deux and understand that surrender is not an option anymore. Is not just Ukraine but also their own political survival what is at stake. If they let this agents roam free and grow, they will lose gradually the power.
In many professional fights the competitors start matches with light, quick jabs to probe their opponents defense.
This feels just like that now that you put it this way. I never connected those dots though.
Not sure we understand "probing" differently. Russian currently is at the edges, testing the responses from things like cutting cables and otherwise interfering with the infrastructure. This is what "probing" means for me. "Beyond probing" would be actually launching attacks one way or another, which we haven't seen yet (except of course, for the Ukraine invasion).
he's saying "this was not a probe, this was an actually launched attack"
A submarine cable is an attractive target for Russia because Russia doesn't have cables of their own exposed: Russia is a continental power, not a maritime alliance. A cable attack is an asymmetric attack, difficult to respond to appropriately.
> The 1,000 kilometre (620 miles) Baltika cable belonging to state-owned Rostelecom runs from the region of St. Petersburg to the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad on the southern Baltic Sea.
> A gas pipeline linking Finland and Estonia and two other telecoms cables, connecting Estonia to Finland and Sweden, were also damaged last month. Finnish police believe damage to the Baltic connector gas pipeline was caused by a Chinese container ship dragging its anchor along the seabed but have not concluded whether this was an accident or a deliberate act.
> The Finnish coast guard said the Russian outage may be linked to the previously reported damage.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-says-russian-ba...
On the contrary. The attacks have been ongoing for years now. You're looking for the tanks and missiles when the attack is actually happening right under your feet. Rot and corruption are more powerful than any bullets or missiles.
The developed world knows this even better. Offering yachts, real estate, supercars, prostitutes, and other luxuries to oligarchs. Thanks to this their military is rather in shambles right now.
It's historically, financially, and strategically incoherent. Trying to bribe people who are already rich with hard-to-hide things, just to make them extra-corrupt in the vague hope that it somehow results in pilfered AK-47s being sold on the black market?
Sorry, but no: Being shaken down by Russian traffic cops for bribes every week is a domestic problem.
Russia started invading Ukraine six months before Nord Stream blow up. Previously Russia invaded Crimea in 2014.
The next invaded country, will be also an escalation?
All of this is about a few psychopaths filling their pockets with the money that generates the corpses of their criminal business, some encouraging the production of war, others encouraging the waging of war.
Why are these psychopaths and their "business" not prosecuted?
Quoth Churchill: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile-hoping it will eat him last."
The crocodile is still intent on eating you, even if you're nice to it. I really wish Europe would start understanding that.
This conditioning is how you prepare for an actual attack, so that they're not prepared at the actual time of the real attack. It's also why some military exercises near a country is considered provocative, even tho it's "just an exercise".
Not to mention that it drains resources to respond/monitor these cry-wolf fakes.
Boxers learned from the art of war, not the other way around.
"Probing attacks" are a standard doctrine. It's not always a clear signal of intent to increase hostilities because it's also just useful as an intelligence gathering exercise.
I cannot find any lists (either in English or Swedish) but I remember Russia has been accidentally breaking into Swedish airspace like once a year for as long as I can remember. Submarines also sometimes "accidentally" end up close to Swedish shores.
It'd be interesting to see some total numbers, and compare other countries with how often it happens between Sweden/Russia.
Doesn't always work
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shoo...
Applying the same logic, Ukraine should retaliate against Russia for bombing their hospitals with an attack on.. Iranian civilian infrastructure? Did I get that right?
This is entirely straighforward. Nothing that requires any struggle to understand.
As for the core of your question: there is no benefit, it's just his mentality. "The West" supports Ukraine so let's just do some harm, retaliate in some way. Burn some buildings here and there, plants some inflammable materials on airplanes etc. Pointless for you and me, meaningful for that guy.
"So - according to Russian federal port records, the Chinese ship suspected of cutting the communications cables in the Baltic Sea was captained by a Russian citizen (one Stechentsev A.E.). Interestingly Yui Peng 3 was only transferred to its current owner in China earlier this month.
The ship is carrying goods/oil from Ust-Luga in Russia, to Port Said in Egypt. Same captain also comandeered URSUS ARCTOS also carrying goods from Ust-Luga to Egypt. Mapped using @SensusQ . "
What we don't know is if China knew they were going to try this beforehand or not. Flag of Convenience is common enough that we can't be sure. This could have been planned on the high level from China and we would never know - something conspiracy theorists will run with! If China knew they would probably give the crew a sever punishment, but unofficially it is for getting caught and not doing the act. Most likely though China didn't know before hand.
Assuming it bears out that the Russian state is the perpetrator.
NATO's political unity and ability to respond is tested with these attacks. Russia does them one after another gradually escalating. Russia maintains plausible deniability or does so small operations that they can always walk them back.
Eventually, some country invokes Article 4 or 5 consultations. Russia hopes that US, Hungary, or Germany waters down NATO response. The conflict continues, but between individual countries not under NATO. NATOs as a organization may continue, but raison d'être is gone.
You cannot be serious with that kind of belief
If you mean poison as in disinformation, then you'd be wrong there as well. We literally "bombed" Iraq with pamphlets from airplanes encouraging them to rise up against Suddam and we'd be there to support them; we didn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_...
NATO and Europe did quite a lot to normalize relations with Russia. Russia was invited and became participant of the NATO program Partnership For Peace [0].
The program contains 6 areas of cooperation, which aims to build relationships with partners through military-to-military cooperation on training, exercises, disaster planning and response, science and environmental issues, professionalization, policy planning, and relations with civilian government
- Population will demand political influence.
- Mindset. A criminal thinks in terms of I win, you lose. Might makes right. Complete opposite of what makes up the dna of the free world.
Notice how on our part, helped via tech oligarchs, there is an incessant bombardment to undermine support for those values. Kremlin troll factories are a thing, but the Chinese are speading up rapidly in the information sphere too. Especially youngsters are targeted.
The war has already begun, but we don´t want to see it. And that is dangerous.
___
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
It takes one hour to listen. Take notes and verify the facts afterwards. No disinformation there, much less Russian.
Just one rebuttal, but there are many more to be found on the internet.
https://euideas.eui.eu/2022/07/11/john-mearsheimers-lecture-...
Can you cite anything that he has actually said that even resembles this?
You may also want to be careful (or not):
- all countries engage in these things
- how things are seem like how they seem, but this is very often not the case...and rather than consciousness raising warnings for such situations, it very often does the opposite
As always, I recommend a meta-perspective on geopolitical stories, it is much more fun than being a Normative, poorly constrained imagination actor like the vast majority of people.
Geopolitical affairs are indeed difficult to follow. It requires deep internal domain(s!) knowledge, which does not fit your average corporate media business model. The niche outlets that do have a capable editorial board are threatened by takeovers [1, 2] from the likes of Axel Springer [3]. 1 Billion USD for Politico. An idiotic sum for a buyer that small, Wikipedia might pique your interest [3]. That is not to say that Politico is useless now, but you can count on journalistic degradation over time.
But sweeping statements are not of help to get a sharper picture. Instead they risk promoting false equivalence and may turn participants(!) of democracies into passive nihilists. Which is precisely the aim of the foreign influence we are talking about.
___
1. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/06/axel-springer-politico-...
2. https://countercurrents.org/2021/09/a-right-wing-german-news...
And if you do now: do you wonder if this is 100% coincidence, or oversight? How often do you hear the idea even discussed, as compared to, say, how often we hear about "misinformation", and the need for more "critical thinking"?
I am glad this situation has a substantial humorous aspect to it, otherwise I'd probably get stressed out about it.
Sound the fire alarm over a birthday cake candle several times a week, and people learn the alarm means there's no fire, no need to rush, they've got time to finish that e-mail and grab their coat.
Once you see them as gangsters, it's not difficult to see why they would do this.
*A full link with exact timestamp of Kotkin saying this is [1]. Here he talks about why Merkel kept making oil deals with Putin even though in hindsight this was probably not the best idea. Kotkin argues that, yes, according to econ 101 trade is good for both parties, but not when the opposite party is a gangster. Merkel thought that Putin was thinking like her, but he wasn't.
Russia is literally run buy thugs who ran protection rackets not so long ago. So there's much more to this than just a fitting figure of speech. Someone from the worst parts of LA would be better equipped to understand and deal with such people than those who spent their teens and early adulthood playing Model UN at a foreign relations club.
The international order is often called the 'US-led rules-based interntional order'. Russia, China, and some others dislike the first element, of course. The second element refers to the legal, rules-based structure (rather than power-based anarchy, which led to the centuries or millennia of war before the 'order' was created post-WWII). Aggressive international warfare is outlawed, for example; if France and Germany have a dispute, there is no question of violence - they use a legal structure to resolve it, which wasn't always true!
Grey zone activities accomplish illegal things without reprocussions. And therefore they also serve the goal of undermining the international order by demonstrating its powerlessness in these situations. In some ways, it's like trolling.
Russia uses grey zone tactics heavily - for example, they used them to capture Crimea (which was before the clear act of war, their 2022 invasion). They use them to run destabilizing 'grey zone' campaigns throughout the world, including directly interfering in elections. The tactics suit Russia in particular because they cannot compete miltarily with the democratic world.
China uses them too, for example using their 'coast guard' and 'civilian' 'fishing boats' to attack (up to a point) and intimidate ships from other countries in the South China Sea. If China used their navy, it would possibly be acts of war. A Chinese coast guard ship shooting water cannon at a fishing boat, though illegal in international waters, isn't going to start a war. 'Civilian' 'fishing' boats from China blockading access to a reef won't either.
Edit:
Before you look at Russia and China and other Grey Zone actors as miscreants, understand that it's just the normal behavior of 'revisionist' powers - those who want to change the current rules. The current rules serve the interests of the 'status quo' powers, who get all self-righteous about 'illegal' activities.
In a more common situation on HN, think of IP outsiders, who break the 'rules' made by major IP holders, such as DMCA or those extending copyright for decades or restricting access to scientific knowledge - the IP holders want the status quo and call violations 'theft' and the outsiders 'criminals', etc. If the US wasn't a status quo power, they'd be doing grey zone things.
(That doesn't at all justify Russia and China's goals of stealing land, oppressing people's freedoms, and solving problems through violence.)
There's the actual international law (and the UN) and there's the US-led rules-based international order (ie, what the US wants basically). They're completely at odds - often times the US (and Israel or a couple of other minor countries) vote against or simply flout whatever the rest of the UN wants.
The US is king of Grey zone actions. Random drone strikes, funding insurgency and terror groups, invading countries without international approval, blockading Cuba, etc. - the list is very long.
So when the US complains about Russia doing similar things (often responding to provocation by the US or NATO), the complaints can easily be filed in the "hypocrisy bin".
https://towardfreedom.org/story/archives/americas/the-u-s-ma...
Those are the same 'order', the same thing. The UN and international law are unquestionable, essential parts of the international order.
> often times the US (and Israel or a couple of other minor countries) vote against or simply flout whatever the rest of the UN wants.
Agreed, as I discussed in the GP: the US and its partners often violate those rules and let themselves off the hook, as status quo powers tend to do. It doesn't excuse it at all, but that's not inconsistent with the rules-based order.
Also, with a veto on UN Security Council decisions, if the US votes against something then it's not law.
You have to look deeper into what kind of government has a problem with an international rule-based order. It is not the democratic countries with trias politica that have a problem with that, but autocratic regimes.
How are you going to ethnically cleanse Uyghurs in a rule based order, or run international crime networks at the level of statehood?
The question is: how are you going to integrate criminal and very powerful clangs in a world that is past the French Revolution? We tried, we failed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership_for_Peace
Answer is: you can't, unless the common people take ownership over their own countries. Very difficult.
The democratic countries follow the pattern of status quo powers. Is that because they are democratic or because they are status quo, or some of both?
The rules are of the status quo powers (matching their political cultures), by the status quo powers, for the status quo powers. Of course they follow those rules and support them. The rules seem to require a country to be a democracy to be legitimate - I agree with that as necessary to legitimacy (not sufficient), but obviously that doesn't suit non-democratic countries.
And like status quo powers, when they break the rules - most prominently the US many times, such as the Iraq war; the EU treatment of refugees and undocumented immigrants; and currently by Israel with US sponsorship - then they let themselves off the hook. They engineer technicalities, such as the weak UN resolution arguably authorizing the Iraq invasion; or just look the other way. They say they can't be handcuffed etc. (And some of those actions may be the right choice - I'm not judging - but they certainly violate the rules.)
But also, cutting these cables doesn't stop communications. There are other land and undersea routes, and maybe terrestrial radio/satellite routes as well. You might damage these cables so that communications travel other routes which are more observable (or less observable). Or you might damage these cables so you can modify them elsewhere to enhance observability before they're repaired (or as part of the repair process).
Or it could be a training mission for your elite squad of cable biting sharks.
Lots of potential for intrigue here.
Doesn't mean its current Russian captain is serving Chinese interests, of course, but at least it seems to be Chinese owned.
(i.e. the European countries might be more wary about boarding a Chinese ship compared to a Russian ship, because escalating against China is scarier...).
It's not dissimilar to the way criminal gangs will ensure that they have dirt on anyone joining or intentionally implicate others in order to ensure compliance.
Of course Putin knows this hence him somewhat taking the p.
Similar to both Russia and China gaining from war and disruption in the Middle East.
There are many possibilities here.
On average, it seems like undersea internet cables break 200+ times per year. For example, Vietnam's internet cables break on average 10 times per year.
What would be the motivation for a Chinese trade ship to deliberately cut an internet cable? It has next to no impact on internet communication and only serves to annoy a small amount of people for a short period of time. In addition, China and Europe are trying to have a better relationship in general so it doesn't make sense for the Chinese government to order this.
The most charitable reason is that they don't give a fluck. Same reason why their rocket boosters just fall wherever they fall, population center or not
Edit: https://x.com/Tendar/status/1859147985424196010
> The skipper of the Chinese ship is a Russian national and the route leads from Ust-Luga (Russia) to Port Said (Egypt).
I think we need a total ships sailing for country / cuts.
Money. Russia is reportedly bribing people into doing sabotage in western nations.
There's also reports that Yi Peng 3 is captained by a Russian national, which would also be another reason for a Chinese trade ship to conduct sabotage operations beneficial to Russia.
[0] https://www.csce.gov/briefings/russias-genocide-in-ukraine/
Absolutely no way this wasn't intentional.
And it looks like according to marinetraffic.com that the Yi Peng 3 is indeed at full stop surrounded by at least 3 Danish navy vessels.
1. article in Finnish https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000010845324.html
Kind of a "Who watches the watchers?" type of thing.
For example: banning the conflation of opinion and fact, like what's going on (and always goes on) in this thread, a behavior that is protected (doing otherwise "is not what this site is for").
If an imperfection is noted: log it, investigate, improve. Rinse, repeat.
Also: best prepare one's will, life insurance, etc before undertaking such a project.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_con...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_c...
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/03/16/23/68797949-11868975...
https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-explos...
The US destroyed the Nordstream pipeline for certain and Sy Hersh has the evidence.
It is more than probable that this incident indicates possible collusion between the Chinese and Russian governments to sabotage European interests. The simplest fix is for Sweden and Denmark to ban Chinese and Russian ships from their territorial waters until they deliver accountable assurances that this sort of behavior will not happen again. Until then, they must be stopped and European countries must play hardball because that's the only language these criminals understand.
>he worked for a decade to get built
that is sweet of you. I just imagine Putin himself welding under water. Not the billions dollars steal by his childhood buddies what typically such Russian megaprojects are.
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the...
Snopes only offers FUD but not a single contradiction or refutation of any of Sy Hersh's reporting or claims other than it boils down to "it relies on a single source". Sometimes, in secret operations, that's the reality. There exist genuine anonymous sources who cannot be revealed themselves. Part of the principle of benefit-of-the-doubt is trusting that Sy Hersh isn't merely looking for a quick payday to sellout his journalistic integrity for a few dollars and that he isn't an easily-fooled novice when it comes to doing due-diligence on sources and facts. It's mostly a disrespectful hit-piece lacking in evidence. With all likelihood, like the identity of Deep Throat, the truth will come out once the source retires and write a book about it.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/02/10/hersh-nord-stream-sab...
(Could it be true? Maybe. IDK. No dog in that particular fight. But if you, as an anonymous source, go to Sy Hersh, you're an idiot or don't want large numbers of people to believe what you're saying. Occam's razor suggests the former)
What a farcical depiction of the world. There is more to Russia than Putin's opposition to the west.
definitely. That "more" is the backwater Grand Duchy of Moscow how it was before Peter The Great.
Russia Georgia Energy Crisis (2006)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_...
Turkmenistan (2009)
https://www.rferl.org/a/Pipeline_Explosion_Stokes_Tensions_B...
You will even see Kessler cited as some sort of barrier to leaving, which is nonsense.
Imagine there's a 1x1m spot where on average once per week, entirely at random and without warning a giant boulder falls from the sky and if you're there you will be crushed under the boulder. Clearly living on that spot is a terrible idea, you'd die. But merely running through it is basically fine, there's a tiny chance the boulder hits you by coincidentally arriving as you do, but we live with risks that big all the time. If you're an American commuter for example that's the sort of risk you shrug off.
Likewise, Kessler isn't a barrier to leaving, humans won't be leaving because there's nowhere to go. The only habitable planet is this one, and we're already here.
The most likely explanation for the unexplained disassembly is that Boeing made it. Second, most likely, is a collision with a hunk of something invisible.
Edit: I guess I was assuming geostationary. There's a whole sphere of geosynchronous orbits to play with.
Edit2: I was right the first time, GEO (geosynchronous equatoral orbit) / GSO (geosynchronous orbit), apparently. Now my head hurts.
"cramped" the way that like, Alaska is cramped on account of how everybody has to live on the surface, not evenly distributed through the volume of the planet?
Like yeah, it's "just a circle" but did you check the radius of that circle?
Remember if there's debris, the debris isn't stuck in the circle, but, any time it's not in the circle it's harmless. This has the effect of significantly defusing the problem, so in total it's too low risk to be worth considering.
Also, your focus on cost was not the point. The point was numbers necessary. You need $lots of bullets, but you don't need any where near the same number of jets/tanks. You don't need $lots of satellites. You need a much smaller number closer to the number of jets/tanks. At least based on Starlink constellation numbers.
Satellites can serve multiple purposes including communications, navigation, overhead imagery, signals intelligence, weather, etc. They are also vulnerable, but it's possible to launch replacements faster than repairing damaged cables.
That of course assumes that Putin stops at Ukraine. The point is that this isn't our war.
After the dust settles on the Ukraine war, if Putin still has the capacity to wage war, he will not likely stop with Ukraine. It is by now obvious that a limited incursion into Poland, for example, will not spark a global thermonuclear war.
Ukrainian suffering is both the litmus test and the vaccination against nuclear escalation that Putin needs to contemplate further expansion.
Political alignments aside, if I were based in Europe I would be very, very concerned.
Ukraine is a corrupt third world country competing in the same league with Botswana and Zambia.
Ukraine's GDP is close to 10x that of Botswana, and in the last year has grown 10 percent over that of 2022.
False.
Ukraine not only has everything to do with Europe -- it is unequivocally European in culture, language, historical involvement and (to the extent that Russia is also considered to be unequivocally European) geography.
It isn't something one can even have an opinion about. Any more than one can have an "opinion" about India being a part of Asia.
While the EU may not be at war with Russia, Russia is already at war with the EU.
We might be able to stop it before it becomes a hot war, but the ambition is there, the indicators are there, the opportunity is there. Assume it's a war. (Unless you're German. I guess our national sport is now making excuses for Russia)
It makes it pretty real when 7 year old me is wondering if this one has any nukes on board, and if this will be the day that they drop.
Russia is not to be trusted, imho. They do not honor their international commitments in good faith, and they will expand their territorial claims if they are allowed to do so. Europe, like a frog in a pot, is in peril and they need to take steps to make sure that Russian war fighting capabilities are destroyed through exhaustion in Ukraine.
This of course is tragic for Ukraine, because it means that she will be utterly razed in the process. But if Russia prevails or backs down with strength, it will happen again. And again.
Russias ability to project force in a strategic way must be destroyed. They are not trustworthy stewards of coercive force.
Having fighters scramble from Eilison was not unusual at all, and when hunting out in that area with my father we saw a few of those. It was pretty distinct from the training and combat training they did, so it wasn’t that hard to distinguish the intentionality and risk tolerance that was reserved for that kind of urgency.
Anecdotally, I’m pretty darn sure that I saw a bear flying overhead just a few miles east-southeast of Fairbanks. I watched it be turned by 3 F4 phantoms. I was with my father and a few of his friends, as well as my brother that would have been 13 at the time. Everyone there remembers the event, and it was talked about for days in Fairbanks, we even had a subsequent training the next week in my elementary school on survival in the event of a nuclear attack lol.
Perhaps it was some kind of clandestine fuckery, perhaps it was an authorized flight, or perhaps it would have been to embarrassing / inflammatory to make it an event of record? I’m sure the answers are quietly sitting somewhere in a musty filing box.
Who is now threatening nuclear war?
Imagine the US engaging in an invasion of Mexico as equally stupid and unprovoked as Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Then not only would Mexico have a perfect right to seek whatever help it needed to resist the aggression directed at it, we would -- unless we were damned fools -- fully expect Mexico to seek and obtain that help.
I'd like to see your version of maritime law that doesn't allow freely roaming over important cables. Your country's enemies would gladly drop cables totally encircling you and say "uh uh uh, important cables!" if you tried to leave your perimeter
I realize US politics may suggest otherwise but I can't imagine the military is just gonna stand by and entertain such a farce..
and try to plot a path between them without crossing an undersea cable:
Yes, I know the undersea cables are privately owned too.
But that's an awfully gray area after the last few months
This happend a very, very long time ago. Destroing things years after the fact is not logical and is not longer a defensive response. Using this as justification is just trying to escalate.
> its reasonable to expect shortened lifetimes for undersea cables and sattelites
Why is this reasonable? It seems like a pointless attack that achieves little other than reminding the world that horrible, oppessive governments are dangerous to everyone. Oppression is incredibly expensive for humanity, and only benefits the few that are the oppressors.
It happened on 26. September 2022. That is not a long time ago.
> It seems like a pointless attack that achieves little other than reminding the world that horrible, oppessive governments are dangerous to everyone
It sends a message, as sabotaging communications is frequently done before an attack. Also it damages morale and is a show of power.
Yes. Saltellites.
But it's not really in the same category as casually cutting internet lines to your peacetime competitors out of pique or whatever.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/16/russian-spy-sh...
So definitely seems like a coordinated attempt to destabilise Europe ahead of anticipated peace talks early next year.
https://www.theportugalnews.com/news/2024-11-18/russian-ship...
Because that's what seems to be claimed here, that Russia are retaliating for that.
How long does it take a ship to travel to a 'suspicious' site like this?
versus, how long does it take to intercept the nearest Russian ship, and escort it away as a spy ship and 'potential saboteur'?
But only now are they being very publicly outed and moved on?
Similar to Nordstream destruction in 2022 it could have been either Ukrainians or CIA/NSA. This could be last attempt by current US administration elements to create leverage for the Ukraine before negotiations start.
All the way to Luga and decided to not dock. Large cargo ship pleasure wandering the sea like a yacht.
I would argue that interactions/treatment specifically toward Russia, especially by European nations in the last 20 years, was actually too positive and naive-- specifically because unlike Europe, Russia definitely did not leave its imperialistic ambitions behind, and treating/trading with it as a friendly somewhat flawed democracy during those years might have done more harm than good in hindsight.
I'm curious how you think about this?
The Kremlin may very well be behind this.
How is that "Orwellian"?
Russia has quite the recent history of poisoning civilians both native and foreign (do you dispute that?). Those acts are already a significant step above simple sabotage, so why would it be Orwellian to consider them a possible perpetrator?
In my view, common current western view of Russia is everything but:
Orwellian would be a strong, emotional public expressions of hate (with frequently switching target).
Current western view (can only really talk about central Europe) is more of a muted mix of disappointment, sadness and disgust about what Russia did/does in the Ukraine...
It has also been pointed out that this is a location with lively traffic. So if it turns out that is was an anchor (as in the New New Polar Bear case) that's extra suspicious because anchoring in such location is not normal. On the other hand if it were explosives like in the Nord Stream case, they could have been applied also weeks before.
including
> Social media reports said that the vessel had a Russian captain, although this has not been independently confirmed.
The US has two carrier groups there now, and has maintained a presence there for the last few years:
https://news.usni.org/2017/05/29/brief-history-us-freedom-na...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_tr...
China–United States trade war
An economic conflict between China and the United States has been ongoing since January 2018, when U.S. President Donald Trump began setting tariffs and other trade barriers on China with the goal of forcing it to make changes to what the U.S. says are longstanding unfair trade practices and intellectual property theft.
Then the Biden admin happened.
The Joe Biden administration kept the tariffs in place and added additional levies on Chinese goods such as electric vehicles and solar panels. In 2024, the Trump presidential campaign proposed a 60 percent tariff on Chinese goods.
It will be interesting to see what happens. 60% all at once would be too disruptive, I think.
So hardly "nothing further".
But if you're not testing, you're not doing anything.
https://www.cato.org/blog/5-years-later-united-states-still-...
I'm not sure that means much as far as China goes....
edit: forgot to shoutout above's username
I'm no international relations hawk though, so I'm keen to hear opposing viewpoints.
Our (the west's) response to warmongering has been to trickle just enough resources and monies to keep Ukraine from losing but not so much that they win. The "donated" resources of course need to be replenished, the military industrial complex is quite literally making a killing.
At this point the question of declaring a firm stand against warmongering is lost. It's three years and going, warmongering as it turns out is fine. I hate that. My tax dollars are going towards endlessly and needlessly extending human suffering for the benefit of the military industrial complex. I hate that.
So I say, enough of this bullshit. Unless we suddenly send in so much support that Ukraine decisively wins very quickly, I don't want to see a single cent more of my tax dollars going towards this. My taxes are not blood money and the military industrial complex can go fuck themselves.
The only thing is, what happens next if the West pulls out? Ukraine's military collapses, Russia moves in on Kyiv, Putin gains another Belarus-like satellite state, and at least considers encroaching on Estonia, Finland etc... . It's more than just the principle of whether warmongering is acceptable - a lot of people will suffer as a consequence and possibly for decades to come. We have to be really careful to consider which is worse in the long-term.
I think the West was making the best calculus it could as the situation developed. Sure, you can say we should have known Putin was bluffing about redlines. But the downside of all out war is high enough that, when multiplied by the probability, you still get a bad number. I think it's reasonable that Western governments played it cautiously and hoped for a different resolution (like a successful internal coup).
But yes, now we are where we are and it sucks for Ukraine.
For what it's worth, I've been critical of our (American, subsequently western) response since the first one. Speaking as an American, our response was and still are lukewarm and thus ineffectual in declaring a firm stand against warmongering. I was heartbroken and then angry at being told how (not) valuable world peace actually was.
What Putin did was declare war against the very notion of peace, and the west fucking surrendered it in the worst way possible after preaching so passionately about peace to everyone everywhere everytime.
And I think the attitude "its pointless to try and keep helping against the Russians, people have suffered from them for so long anyway" is completeley beside the point (and dangerous!)-- the main gain from helping the Ukraine in my view is discouraging the kind of neo-imperialistm that led to this attack, and stopping the support just sends a signal to ambitious tyrants all over the world that you don't really care about them plundering their weaker neighbors (and with having the biggest military comes some kind of obligation in this regard in my view).
I also think that you are patronizing the Ukrainians themselves in the worst way-- if anyone should get to decide how long it is worth it to fight for their country, it should be them.
That is precisely the benefitting of the military industrial complex that I am fed up with.
>"its pointless to try and keep helping against the Russians, people have suffered from them for so long anyway"
That is not what I'm angry about. I am angry that this war is dragging on far longer than there is any reasonable reason to be. If we hadn't trickled in support Ukraine would have lost already, if we had placed our full weight behind Ukraine they would have won already; either way the war would have ended long ago.
With the question of warmongering settled at this point (it's okay to warmonger, whether any of us like it or not), the only thing I care about is people not dying. I sincerely don't care how the war ends anymore, all I care about at this point is that it stops ASAP, that people stop dying.
>if anyone should get to decide how long it is worth it to fight for their country, it should be them.
If they want to continue fighting that's totally within their right, but I as an American taxpayer am not obliged to foot their bill much less in the manner we've been doing it.
This whole position just strikes me as misguided, because the numbers simply dont work. At all. Because if what you mainly care about is reducing US taxes flowing into weapon manufacturers, then the Ukraine is such a marginal portion that it basically does not matter at all:
If you said "lets reduce US spending on military to what all the rest of NATO together spends" (mind you, that is still the largest military budget in the world!), then that change alone would save in a single year over 4 (total!) Ukraine aid programs (and this is including all financial and humanitarian aid so far).
If you look at the stock price for major US arms manufacturers (RTX, LMT, NOC-- picked for being large and majority non-civilian revenue), then the whole Ukraine thing is basically not even a blip-- you would not even be able to tell (contrast the whole bitcoin/AI boom which is clearly visible in Nvidia price).
> With the question of warmongering settled at this point
I strongly disagree that this question is settled with a yes. I do absolutely agree with you that the answer from the US and especially its european allies should have been more decisive and unambiguous.
In the end, what the Ukraine war did and still does is establish a price on blatant imperialism. That price needs to be as high as possible to discourage and prevent repetitions as much as possible.
I would argue that this was a success in that regard already, but a small one, especially regarding the EU. Cutting further support would undermine and weaken this even more.
I'd also like to challenge your position on wanting to force an end to avoid further loss of life: How can you be confident that an (immediate) conclusion in Russians favor by cutting Ukraine military, humanitarian and financial aid (possibly also from allies) would actually be a net benefit in lives saved?
If you just look at the first and second Chechen war and the 8 years of insurgency directly after, what would make you confident that the exact same atrocities would not repeat at 20 times the scale?
To me personally, cutting support for the Ukraine when ones country is founded on principles of self-determination, freedom and democracy is peak hypocrisy.
Sources:
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/RTX
https://de.finance.yahoo.com/quote/LMT
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NOC/
Ukraine aid volume:
If you think Ukrainians are just going to roll over and submit if everyone abandons them and Ukraine must capitulate, you are an idiot.
These are people who's ancestors had their ethnicity half erased. Even this war is part of that erasure. Russia literally kidnaps children to ship them off who knows where.
The Ukrainian people will resist. It will be Afghanistan all over again.
Plenty will continue to die.
A lack of ATACMS will not change that. The ONLY outcome that stops people dying is Russia going the fuck home. Ukrainians have been dying to push out Russian invaders for 10 years now, not 2.
The west can definitely force Ukraine to sign a humiliating treaty, ceding land and freezing the conflict, there's plenty of leverage for that. If that happens, the days of Ukraine as an independent state are numbered - a new invasion will happen as soon as russians rebuild their forces, and this time it will be done right. People will continue to die even if the country gets erased from the map, just maybe not in the trenches, but in the torture chambers and prisons instead.
This is alongside war-support exhaustion from America. One of Trump's campaign promises was to end the war immediately ("in 24 hours", I personally think that specific timeframe is untenable), and he won the popular vote which cements that promise as a popular American mandate.
Wars are oftentimes inevitable, but I am strictly of the mind that if wars must be waged that they be decisive and swift so that human suffering can be kept to the absolute minimum. The war as it stands is neither decisive nor swift, and we (the west) absolutely share responsibility in the blood being shed.
And on the note of blood shed, another commenter asked "Whose lives?"[2] when I rebuked him for calling human lives "cheap". I believe we can all agree that all men are created equal with an unalienable right to life.
If we are seriously going to say certain lives are less valuable than others, then I think Putin has absolutely won his warmongering bet on every front possible. If we are happy to see Ukrainians die in place of our own countrymen so we (the west) can point at Russia and laugh, man maybe we deserve to lose the Pax Americana era.
[1]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/653495/half-ukrainians-quick-ne...
Do you think the folks who voted for him have a reasonable understanding of what is likely to happen on the ground (and its significance outside the US) after that "mandate" is carried out?
Or do you think they pretty much -- just don't care?
First off, this is a war that America (and indeed the west) isn't a direct party to. The cold hard fact is that this is "someone else's war", and we (America) just got done with the War on Terror which went on for over 20 years. We are war exhausted to begin with.
Secondly, the fact that our response has been lukewarm and insignificant for so long (almost 3 years!) makes the notion of refuting warmongering a laughing stock at this point. We missed the boat in about as glorious a fashion as we possibly could.
Thirdly and finally given the preceding, no: I think most Americans genuinely don't care anymore beyond that the war ends now, that people stop dying now. Keep in mind that the people who voted for Trump (that includes me) also effectively voted against warhawks like Cheney, Bolton, and so on. The American people want peace, tenuous and unfair as it may be.
As for whether Trump forcing the war to a closure would be for or against the notion of peace: Have no doubt about it, we will be losers coming to the negotiating table in shame and that's regardless whether it's Trump or Harris or even Biden for that matter. Putin won his bet, we had our bluff called and we would be there to try and make the best of the bed we made. But if the war ends, the war ends.
However, your final response ("As for whether ...") does seem to be largely avoiding the question it addresses. If we may try again:
"But if the war does end with parameters in the range of such that can likely expect under a Trump-Vance deal -- including of course major territorial concessions, along with likely some kind of statement acknowledging Putin's grievances, and another guaranteeing that he and his people will never be prosecuted; and very likely also, requiring that Russia pay at most a paltry share of the $1T in financial damages which Ukraine is squarely owed -- will the cause of peace be furthered, or will it hindered?"
Considering not just the current conflict, but possibilities of future aggression, and the likely impact on the international system of such a precedence being set.
(Tweaking the goalposts here, but only slightly)
The cause of peace will be hindered, but this won't entirely be Trump's (or Harris's in another timeline) fault because Biden already missed the boat on this at least two years ago. You can't board a boat that already left port.
The consequences of warmongering are meaningless economical and political sanctions, and a halfassed proxy war from the sanctioning side; this is set in stone now and there's no going back. Peace is actually valued quite low despite narratives to the contrary, as it turned out.
Looks like the popular sentiment over there is shifting towards a negotiated peace with territorial concessions. https://www.newsweek.com/ukrainians-changing-their-minds-war...
https://news.gallup.com/poll/653495/half-ukrainians-quick-ne...
Makes me kinda curious if there is still significant blame/resentment regarding the Budapest Memorandum (against the US specifically)...
I can't take in good faith this whole "suffering" rhetorics -- not containing the imperialistic expansionist nuclear-armed empire is sure to bring more suffering to the world.
No, I am angry because our response has been halfassed and lukewarm. We are keeping the war going with no end in sight, my tax dollars are being used explicitly to extend human suffering rather than end it. Sincerely fuck that noise. Either we go all in or do nothing at all, the current timeline is the worst one we could have possibly chosen.
I advise that you carefully read what I said again: "Either we go all in or do nothing at all,"
I am angry that we (the west) are conducting ourselves in the worst possible way, which is dragging the war on endlessly and thus extending the suffering more than what could ever be reasonably argued. Wars must be decisive and swift if they are waged at all, deliberately dragging wars on forever like we are doing is a crime against humanity.
If that is still hard for you to understand, let me break it down to brutal basics; I am fine with either of the following happening:
A) We add several more zeroes to financial aid and military resources sent to Ukraine. Perhaps even American, NATO, and/or UN PKO boots on Ukrainian soil to liberate the country.
B) We pull out everything and let the war reach its conclusion with no further input from us.
Either way the war and thus the suffering will end.
If we continue with C) which is dangling a carrot in front of the (war)horse, sincerely fuck that noise for reasons I've already stated.
Howabout saying "If it helps, ..." instead.
Human lives are not "cheap". Sincerely what the fuck, my dude.
There were plenty of options to pressure Ukraine into preventing Russia from having a causus belli in early 2022 (too bad the Biden admin didn't do any of those), but those are gone now and Russia currently controls much of the territory they had as military objectives.
Just enough to send the tide of attrition turning slowly the other way for a while.
After which HN will instantly fill up with comments about "how badly Russia is losing", "it's clear Ukraine has already lost", and so forth.
There were plenty of options to pressure Ukraine into preventing Russia from having a causus belli in early 2022
Russia never had casus belli in this conflict, and no one did anything to present it with such.
Here's a memo for you on Russia's causus belli. You can claim that they didn't have a legitimate one (I don't think they did), but they had one that got them enough local and international support to work in both 2014 and 2022: https://www.ponarseurasia.org/vladimir-putins-casus-belli-fo...
1. Prevention of NATO encroachment toward Russia
2. Protection of ethnic Russians in Donbas
Any and/or all of the following would have weakened or broken Putin's narrative:
1. Stop the military buildup in Donbas that had started in 2021
2. Cease admission of new NATO member states for 3-5 years
3. Stop the process of Ukraine getting closer to NATO and the EU
4. Reduce or stop US military assistance funding to Ukraine
5. Drop the Biden administration's economic sanctions of Russia
6. Continue implementation of the Minsk accords
7. Stop the planned deployments of US missiles to Ukraine
There are many more options. The US administration in 2020 was bringing Ukraine into the fold (because it wanted to be there), but that is not a recipe for peace. NATO had previously agreed not to get close to Ukraine or other states bordering Russia.
Putin's actual reasons, in turn, seem to have been primarily about:
1. Securing the 3 currently (as of Feb 2022) occupied regions, especially the Crimea, for permanent annexation. Russia's position in the Crimea in particular was at the time severely compromised, due to Ukraine's shutting off of its water access. It also "needed" a land bridge (around the Azov) in order to be reasonably secure in the long term. (We put "needed" in quotes here to remind ourselves that this was the regime's internal desire, not any kind of objective or real "need"). As gravy, or as a way of offsetting the cost for the whole operation, there was also the matter of the Donbas region's significant lithium reserves (estimated at $3T).
2. Permanent deterrence of any NATO bid on Ukraine's part, likely involving some form of formal declaration of permanent neutrality (Finlandization).
3. As gravy, anything it could have also won in terms of regime change in Kyiv, preventing whatever rump state (if any) that remained in Western Ukraine from joining the EU, or simply damaging its chances for success and prosperity generally ("wrecking it", in Mearsheimer's words) would have been a very signicant plus.
The thing is, (2) by itself could have been had without resorting to a full-scale invasion. The West was eager for some kind of deal to end the 2014-2022 conflict, and having Ukraine in NATO was always optional, as far as it was concerned.
But the price for Putin -- forgoing his paramount desire for (1) -- would have been far too high. Plus he thinks of himself as a visionary leader, destined to make his mark on history, and for many years had deluded himself as to Russia's actual capabilities for military adventures of this sort.
So that's why he went "whole hog" in Feb of 2022. The main point here is that there doesn't seem to be much logic in thinking the war could have been avoided by addressing the stated narrative. When Putin's real reasons for invading, with emphasis on (1) above, would be in no way addressed by tactical appeasement of this sort.
Of course there is but the Western allies are slow to arm Ukraine because they fear the Russian nuclear retaliation.
To recap, Ukraine received very few , around a hundred ATACMS missiles with severe restrictions on targets. They got less than two dozen F-16 jets. This is just nothing compared what the US might be able to send if they wanted to, they have over 300 Falcons at Davis-Monthan AFB (aka Boneyard) to begin with. There are near four thousand ATACMS missiles manufactured so far. And so on, with tanks etc.
If the "tap" were to open full stream instead of dripping, the war would be over very fast. The question is, which end would we get.
About the only thing you can rely on is that he’ll do whatever he and his equally loony and chaotic advisors think will make him look good in the short term, based on feels, backed by the might of the American military.
Given all that, is Putin really going to defy him when presented with a deal that Putin has any chance at of spinning as a win at home? Putin's singular leverage is threatening nuclear war, but that only works if you can convince your opponent you're more unhinged than they are, and Putin loses that particular metric to Trump every time.
I'm also not sure why you're citing Belarus here. It was split off from the Soviet union in 1990 and governed itself the whole time despite being essentially a vassal state of Russia. Belarus has not ceded any land to Russia, either.
Edit - I see what you're saying about control or territory. If you want control, directly controlling the territory is better than having a puppet government. While Russia would have accepted a puppet government, as they have in Belarus (since there has been no good opportunity to go to war with Belarus to take it over), they had the opportunity to go to war for direct control and the West made it clear that Ukraine as a vassal state was not an option (see the 2014 revolution). If you think someone wants control, why do you think that they see $0 of extra value in directly owning the territory?
It's obvious that Russia wants ukraine as a vassal as well. I would note that the invasion of Ukraine was launched _via_ Belarus, despite the fact that Russia does not formally control that territory. So again I ask, if Russia can get what it wants (which is _control_, not territory) without going to war, why would it do so?
Let's be plain - we are ultimately dancing around an empirical question, whether Trump will be hawkish or dovish towards Russia. Ultimately I think he's too chaotic for past behavior to be a good guide. So let's see what happens! I for one hope that you are right, but I think I have plenty of reasons to be cautious.
Did they? They took a chunk of Georgia in 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War) and have been actively occupying some of Moldova since 1990 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria_conflict).
If you think said stooge is likely to get reelected (which, except for COVID coming out of the blue, was highly likely) and that stooge is already making noise about isolationism, why interrupt?
2022 looks a lot like an "oh shit, plan B" scenario.
Because that's when he had intelligence leading him to believe the Ukrainian regime would crumble quickly or capitulate in the face of a large-scale invasion, and possibly also the NATO would fail to unite and respond, in part due to the success of Russian influence operations, which were not only directed at the US.
Geez, I'm glad you're not war minister. It's a Chinese registered ship with a Russian captain.
If a terrorist crashes a truck with Portuguese plates into the US embassy in Berlin, would that mean Portugal's declared war against the USA?
Due to an earlier generation's newspeak, that's "defense," not "war."
I happened to notice that at least in some cases, the change of terminology happened roughly when it became clear that offensive war was a losing proposition in terms of money and resources. I suspect that as invading the neighbours became financially irrational, the cool heads that tend to survive in management shifted their stand from mixed offense/defense to just defense.
A few years later it was clear that offense was necessarily a resource loss. Someone who wanted to build a career as a civil servant might then see a defense ministry as a viable option, but not any sort of offensive war. Offense was clearly not viable, and therefore not a good basis for budget allocations, and therefore the good career move for the civil servants was to focus the ministries entirely on defense.
But look around (even in these comments) and look at how many people are thinking "Chinese act of war!!!11!!"
That's really not all you are saying, and the difference is important. Maybe not to you, though.
But there is a "but", which is that in the articles of war, the flag of a ship does have quite a few implications. E.g. when two nations are at war, stopping ships flagged as belonging to the opposition gives certain rights of stopping and searching them, blockading their passage, seizing the vessels and cargo, etc.
And the relevant characteristic in that case is the flag, not the captain's nationality: > Art. 51. Enemy character. The enemy or neutral character of a vessel is determined by the flag which it is entitled to fly.
Of course this isn't really automatic and triggered by the smallest thing, both sides kind of have to "agree" to be at war, e.g. by a counter-attack, a declaration following the attack or something like that. And nobody really wants to take that bait, due to the huge consequences involved.
Yet, it is China playing with fire here, we all can be happy that none of the affected nations took them up on their "offer" of war.
They can later claim that the crew and captain acted on their own will, without orders from the Chinese leadership. They can duly punish the captain and crew or disavow the vessel and declare them renegade, disallow them to fly their flag. But without such a declaration, a nation such as China is responsible for the conduct of their fleets, be they civilian or military. And any vessel they allow to fly their flag is part of their (in this case civilian) fleet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience
> A ship's flag state exercises regulatory control over the vessel and is required to inspect it regularly, certify the ship's equipment and crew, and issue safety and pollution prevention documents.
Because US law is strong in this regard, the US military is by far the largest contributor to the count. Less than 200 civilian vessels are flagged in the US; https://www.statista.com/statistics/652126/us-flag-oceangoin....
China may back Russia to try to shift perception of the west's military might/will or to drain resources or just to buy Russia by making them dependant to get those juicy Russian natural resources but they aren't going to start world war iii to help Putin with his fetishistic "yet another European dictator" fantasy.
The Chinese know how to play the game same as the Russians and the US. All these little games are just calibrated psyops, why destroy, very publicly, comms lines when tapping it would be far more beneficial to a war effort and much quieter? Maybe to make the West look weak and unable to defend their borders which affects consequences domestically like say channeling political support to isolationist politicians who want to retreat from supporting Ukraine? Cause those politicians didn't make gains in the last European elections or nothing.
At the very least, the cooperation of Portugal's authorities would be expected to determine how the truck ended up being used for the attack, and if anyone knew about how the vehicle was to be used.
I expect the same amount of cooperation from China as the flag state.
I am sure if the cowardly Russians ever did this to USA, it would cause a much bigger drama and retaliation wave, and China would take the hit as well.
Regardless, there are satellites covering the area, so you wouldn't get rid of being tracked anyways, would just be a bit slower.
Over 55,000 suspected intentional disabling events of AIS signals were identified between 2017 and 2019, obscuring nearly 5 million hours of fishing vessel activity. This phenomenon accounts for up to 6% of global fishing vessel activity.
I don't think Russia is trying to hide their sabotage, though. Even with AIS disabled, there's no way European intelligence agencies didn't know what ships were floating above these cables at the time they went down.
This was a warning, not a secret operation.
I think this depends a lot on the location, as different areas seems to make it different levels of "mandatory". Are you speaking about the Baltic Sea specifically based on experience?
One has Russia and their ports, while the other doesn't. So preparedness and military presence certainly is different between the two at least.
China is not allied with Russia and China is unlikely to engage in sabotage like this because they stand nothing to gain from it.
They don't have a mutual defense treaty, sure, but they describe themselves as having a “friendship without limits”. I would agree that China has no interest in getting involved in Putin's idiot war in Ukraine though, and there's zero benefit to China in antagonizing Europe.
What the words are worth in a time of need remains to be seen. Neither side is exactly trustworthy :)
They are absolutely allies, though. Per Putin himself. https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-says-china-is-russias-al...
The CCP are aware of this fact and they're planning for it, but they're not ready yet.
This is what article 9 says: "When a situation arises in which one of the contracting parties deems that peace is being threatened and undermined or its security interests are involved or when it is confronted with the threat of aggression, the contracting parties shall immediately hold contacts and consultations in order to eliminate such threats."
The endgame here is to build a new world order with Russia and China calling the shots (actually, China calling the shots, but we're not supposed to say that yet).
Not even replying to the claims about world domination, I don't have time for these... "suppositions".
Poland has been warning about Russia at least for over 14 years now, since before Crimea annexation for sure. It started with Russia invading Georgia, I think.
Likewise, Poland has also been meeting NATO spending quota for years, upping it even more these days.
Poland refused to let another gas pipe from Russia through its territory without it going through Ukraine too, because it was obvious Russia would use it as leverage against Ukraine. This is what actually led to NS project which, for the same reason and this time additionaly because of the risk of creating leverage against other CEE countries, Poland refused to participate in and had been instead alarming that NS will result in troubles with Russia and security of Europe and Ukraine in particular.
Poland has been raising the issue of not only Ukrainian, but Georgian situation too. Many people forget, that Russia has been occupying parts of Georgia for over 16 years now.
Poland, despite paying penalties for that and being called racist etc., has been also blocking illegal immigration influx on its border with Belarus due to it being a hybrid war of Russia against Europe.
If anything, Poland did not sleep over Russia's plans. Quite the opposite, actually.
In my country saboteurs largely weren't Russian - it's easier to pay off a local than have ano5 Russian cross the border, when his predecessor gets caught.
Article indicates this isn’t the first time.
Russia is desperately trying to make the China-Russia thing a reality, and is probably trying to drag them in against their great resistance. China has zero credible reason to be dragged into Russia's nonsense, and a billion reasons why they want nothing to do with it.
The ideal outcome of this is that China realizes that Russia is outright trying to drag them into conflict, and that they repudiate that country entirely.
The Russians could have done this with a fishing trawler (they cut cables accidentally all the time), so like you I doubt we can infer some nefarious Chinese plot from the flag on the vessel.
(This is also a rare English-language tweet from an account that usually only tweets in Danish)
Denmark controls the waters of the seaway to Sct. Petersburg and Kaliningrad that are some of the strategically most important ports of Russia.
Blocking of traffic to these would be a severe escalation.
Regularly Russian subs pass through Danish waters - controlled and allowed.
(I do realize that in particular US citizens have very high confidence in their own military capacity and might be overly bullish on situations like these)
My take is that Russia's plan is to continue sabotaging and a weak (or lack of) response to that only emboldens them.
Also nuclear war with what? Their recent Satan II ICBM test demonstrated that they don't necessarily have the technical chops to launch anything sufficiently capable and it must have come as a surprise to them as well.
As severe as... say starting the largest war in Europe since WW2 right at our doorstep? Or as damaging our critical infrastructure? Or manipulating our democratic processes?
It's time the West pulls its head out of its ass. We're already at war, whether we want it or not.
I think you should complain about 'appeasement' abit longer before switching gear to 'to late YOLO'.
That would help your cause better.
If we reach the "to [sic] late YOLO" stage it won't matter what options we picked. That's why appeasement is a fundamentally pointless idea that the US has refused for decades. If you even once play the "give a mouse a cookie" game you will end up surrendering everything to a power that can threaten you with nuclear terrorism. Only a moron would appease Russia in this scenario.
The US have no qualms appeasing Netanyahu. Biden and his party was even fine arguably losing the election over it. I don't see any contradiction there.
Russia and the US from time to time more or less arbitrarily bombs or invades some other country. I guess Russia's Holywood need to make better movies depicting their own soldiers as victims of their own wars. Still glorying though. There is work to be done there for sure. The two I've seen depicted soldiers as pathetic losers.
I mean, trying to economically, socially and culturally isolate the US would probably make it wreck even more mayhem over the world than trying to have cultural exchange, be nice, and what not. And when this fails not throwing yourself on a spike might be preferable.
The US didn't give Israel Mandatory Palestine - Britain did. America selling arms to Israel is a moot point, and if we want to compare like-to-like then Russia is guilty of the exact same thing with India. But neither situation is an appeasement in the first place, so it's a plainly facetious argument.
> Russia and the US from time to time more or less arbitrarily bombs or invades some other country.
America hasn't arbitrarily invaded any country since the Philippines. Comparing bombings to occupation of a sovereign nation is a faux-pas that reveals you aren't arguing in good faith. They are drastically different things and anyone with a serious perspective of military escalation understands this. I pity you for not recognizing that these are incomparable situations and suggest that you reflect on whether or not this kind of judgement is worth sharing online. Every comment I've read from you repeats the same fearful tone without suggesting a serious response besides giving Russia what they want. You are either falling for propaganda or a blatant mouthpiece yourself.
> trying to economically, socially and culturally isolate the US would probably make it wreck even more mayhem over the world than trying to have cultural exchange, be nice, and what not
A perspective you could only possibly possess if you were economically, socially and culturally isolated from the rest of the world. Or is India and Iran enough to keep Putin company? Some world "superpower" Russia is.
Well, Britain didn't quite "give" all of Mandatory Palestine, or any of it technically, to the Zionists.
What it did do was first, proactively set a firm date -- at midnight on April 14/15 1948 -- for the Mandate to expire (which it needed to expire soon anyway as the UN was poised to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of the League of Nations). And agree to a pull-out of its forces around the vicinity of the date. Which, while not amounting to a transfer of sovereignty as such to the Zionists, amounted to telling them "have at it", basically.
It had also provided the Zionists with a "moral" mandate that there be some kind of "Jewish home" in Palestine, though that came earlier through various steps (including of course the Balfour declaration). By that time though, the Zionists strill controlled only something like 13 percent of the territory as such.
Grotesquely and profoundly false:
I've always wondered how subs handle tidal flows there, and how challenging the tidal flows are.
Both of the two Chinese registries are open, pretty much anyone can register ships there. It's a bit like the .tv domain — if you see something.tv you can't assume that it's a company in the country Tuvalu.
Look at the nationality of the captain and the beneficial owner instead.
how do you intend to "motivate" a sovereign country?
Consequences can range from inconvenient to existential.
https://nltimes.nl/2024/11/15/dutch-childrens-channel-outage...
All you have to do at this point is go look at the cable near the crossings.
If there is evidence of an anchor hitting the cables in both of these locations then you've got pretty clear proof.
Someone should obviously be checking into this right now. No point speculating until it's confirmed really.
I guess you might still want to board just to find out weather there is any evidence of intent rather than negligence in the case that this is confirmed to be the cause...
No one will want to implicate China in something that would support Russia's war and would all be afraid of the economic fallout.
The ship suspected of breaking the cables has been apprehended and it turns out it was currently sailing from Russia with a Russian captain [0].
> The speed of cargo ship Yi Peng 3 was affected negatively as she passed the 2 Baltic Sea cable breaks C-Lion 1 and BSC.
> Before the incidents she held normal speeds. After stopping and drifting for 70 minutes she again held normal speeds. By this time the two cables were broken.
> No. I checked the 5 most close ships heading the same way. They did not slow down similarly in the same wind. The ship most closely resembling Yi Peng 3 actually sped up. The Lady Hanneke.
- Putin calls the region "NATO Lake"
- German Defense Minister has called the line failure sabotage
- Danish Naval ships are now shadowing Yi Peng
The other part is that explicit accusations create a lot of political tensions. Obviously so does the actual act of sabotage. But definitive proof is quite difficult to actually reach. Unless there is literally a letter on that captain's desk from a military leader ordering the action (a "smoking gun") then it is easy to just blame the captain and/or crew, as Hank mentions. After all, a country should not be blamed for the actions of individual citizens not made with the direction of that country, though it is also important that countries hold their citizens accountable. Accusations will more depend on how hawkish the leaders are. Obviously all countries play games like this, but certainly some are more aggressive than others. One major country loves to play the victim card while creating "red lines" which violate international laws. So take it as you will
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_layer
> Cable ships also use “plows” that are suspended under the vessel. These plows use jets of high-pressure water to bury cable three feet (0.91 m) under the sea floor, which prevents fishing vessels from snagging cables as thrall their nets.
“Be like water making its way through cracks. Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way around or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves.
Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.”
- Bruce Lee
More like an echo chamber for the choir preachers.
That's what they want. A social club with an overton window they like.
It's designed for mass userbase so it can feel like a big party that "everybody" is at. But once "everybody" includes their parents then the party is over.
The Dead Internet theory is all too true.
When I see an article on Substack I always assume the worst. The signal-to-noise ratio is lower on Medium and Substack than any other social platform I browse, which is a tragic indictment of where long-form blogging has gone.
What kind of interest Chinese could have to damage such cables? IMVHO ZERO. Also I doubt Russians have interests to do so.
Who could be interested?
- some private company for makes and insurance/the public pay to fix something who need money from the owner for other reasons (like I break on purpose my car to get it repaired for free or at least less money than what it would costing me avoiding the self-sabotage);
- some countries wanting war at all costs trying to create a casus belli to justify the push toward WWIII
- some countries experimenting the resilience of their infra
I fails to see any other potentially interested party.
Cost of fixing cable = >>X
Damage = done