11 ms·
The constant Russian interference, combined with the regular escalation from the jets patrolling, and the radar jamming, really needs to be dealt with. We're s
by tetrisgm 2y ago
The constant Russian interference, combined with the regular escalation from the jets patrolling, and the radar jamming, really needs to be dealt with.
We're stuck between having to do timid actions and full NATO escalation. This feels like constant creep.
- VyseofArcadia 2y agoI have read reams of rhetoric regarding relations with Russia rehashed as "don't poke the bear". No one ever seems to want to discuss what to do about the bear going around poking everyone else.
- stackskipton 2y agoThose discussions are had all the time. One of downside of this bear is bear strapped with explosives that could kill us all if bear gets angry enough. Also, once you are 12 miles offshore, technically you are in international waters and thus cannot be stopped by any Navy except your own unless there is UN Sanctions. If NATO Countries decided to violate that, it obviously opens up massive can of worms that could impact worldwide trade.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoThat’s a good point, there’s no formal mechanism to punish any country that has ‘anchor accidents’ 12.1 nm offshore. It’s probably not even a de jure crime, so what is there to punish on the record?
- echoangle 2y agoIn what country is intentional property destruction not a crime? You’re not arguing that it’s really accidental, right?
- MichaelZuo 2y ago12.1 nm offshore is not any country, which is the point…The laws of zero countries matter, and only certain multilateral agreements matter, at least on paper.
- echoangle 2y agoIt’s still a de jure crime on the ship itself, because the laws of the flag country apply there. If the captain of the ship intentionally damaged something in international waters, he still committed a (de jure, which was the question) crime.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoNo? Why would the laws of the flag country matter for an anchor slowly drifting to the seabed detached from a vessel several km away? Edit: I’m pretty sure most, if not all, such countries don’t even ascribe any legal status to wrecked and sunken lifeboats, let alone anchors. Probably most countries don’t even have a formal penalty, of any kind, for lifeboats detached and sunken, for any reason, for anyone on the ship.
- echoangle 2y agoThe „anchor accidents“ with cables are normally when a ship is dragging an anchor over the cable. That’s property damage of someone else’s stuff, which is a crime in pretty much any country. And even if you drop your anchor to intentionally destroy someone else’s property, that would be a crime anywhere. You don’t need a specific law for anchors.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoDo you not know how ships typically operate? Vessel captains drop anchor all the time if they are caught out of port in a stormy area. And if it’s a big enough storm they are quite literally dragged around along with the anchor. It literally happens every month on Earth. It just’s implausible that dragging alone would be a crime in any flag country. Edit: Maybe they can criminalize dragging it for a very long distance, say 10+ km, but I’m pretty sure the most popular flag countries do not, e.g. Liberia.
- ocatzzz 2y agoYou are evidently unaware of UNCLOS and the adoption of many of its provisions into customary international law
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoAlso the practical reality of countries not giving a shit about any of that when someone starts breaking their shit. There is a reason Russia is knocking out European lines while leaving American ones alone.
- stackskipton 2y agoI'm completely aware, used to be involved in this stuff. In international waters, these are UNCLOS requirements to board a ship not of your Navy Flag. (a) the ship is engaged in piracy; (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade; (c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109; (d) the ship is without nationality; or (e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship Which one would you like to use to board and/or force the ship to depart against Russian cable cutting ships?
- ocatzzz 2y agoTo be clear, I am not proposing boarding Russian ships. That is pointless. But the answer to your question is a. Referring to UNCLOS 101(a)(ii) the cables are "property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State".
- Wytwwww 2y ago> Which one would you like to use to board and/or force the ship to depart against Russian cable cutting ships? High seas (which is what that list applies to) is not the EEZ. I don't think anybody could legally argue thar a country wouldn't have the right to board (or fire at, if it didn't comply) a foreign ship from it's coast 24 nautical miles if it suspected it was doing something illegal. Whether that right extends to the entire EEZ isn't exactly clear. However there are no "high seas" areas in the Baltic so all of the listed items are irrelevant.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> technically you are in international waters and thus cannot be stopped by any Navy except your own unless there is UN Sanctions What? No? How do you think we arraign pirates? > it obviously opens up massive can of worms that could impact worldwide trade No? Why? Worst case it would be considered an act of war. Practically, they'd just be arrested.
- stackskipton 2y ago>What? No? How do you think we arraign pirates? Because piracy is one of exceptions to "No stopping not your flag ships in international waters." Here is list of exception: (a) the ship is engaged in piracy; (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade; (c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109; (d) the ship is without nationality; or (e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship. https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unc... >No? Why? Worst case it would be considered an act of war. Practically, they'd just be arrested. So under which clause would you like to stop Russian ships cutting cables in international waters? UNCLOS does have this provision around submarine cables: Every State shall adopt the laws and regulations necessary to provide that the breaking or injury by a ship flying its flag or by a person subject to its jurisdiction of a submarine cable beneath the high seas done wilfully or through culpable negligence, in such a manner as to be liable to interrupt or obstruct telegraphic or telephonic communications, and similarly the breaking or injury of a submarine pipeline or high-voltage power cable, shall be a punishable offence. This provision shall apply also to conduct calculated or likely to result in such breaking or injury. However, it shall not apply to any break or injury caused by persons who acted merely with the legitimate object of saving their lives or their ships, after having taken all necessary precautions to avoid such break or injury But Russia is obviously ignoring the rules so now what?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> So under which clause would you like to stop Russian ships cutting cables in international waters? Piracy. Duh. That or you'd break the treaty. (Like China has been [1].) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Sea_Arbitration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Sea_Arbitration
- maxglute 2y agoHigh Seas "international water" start at after 200 nautical mile EEZ. There's a few explicit articles dealing with malicious submarine cable damage. But IIRC the TLDR is it has to do with indemnities and putting a vessel/person up for prosecution after the fact. And it doesn't apply if cable damaged while trying to prevent injury, which RU can always claim. More broadly I think you're correct on paper... RU damaging subsea infra is under UNCLOS is technically punishable, but after the fact. And they're not going to lol pay damages to countries that sanction them. NATO kinetically trying to prevent RU damaging subsea infra (especially in highseas), in lieu of formal UN policing mission against such acts, is closer to act of war.
- dragonwriter 2y agoNATO kinetically trying to prevent Russia from damaging subsea infrastructure WITH a formal UN policing mission is also an act of war, its just more clearly not an act of aggression. Of course, that would also be true of NATO doing so as part of a broader collective defense operation reported to the Security Council, directed against Russia and explicitly aimed at rolling back the Russian (UNGA-condemned) aggression in Ukraine under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
- maxglute 2y agoFair distinction. International law can be selectively applied for different party according to different scenarios (relative to different geopolitical power). NATO triggering art5 (self defense) won't make it valid / feasible to trigger at parallel UN art51. RU using UN art51 to target UKR a soveign territory, is also going to be different than NATO / or NATO country using art51 to do whatever they want on non-soverign / international high seas. All of which is to say while international law doesn't matter much to the motivated, not everyone is powerful enough to normalized/destablize with impunity. NATO might, but not without RU security council (trumps UNGA) approval, of course NATO can supercede from UN Charter framework which IIRC that NATO explicitly states they operate within. But then we have NATO going independant of UN, which goes back barrels of worms.
- exceptione 2y agoThe bear metaphore is indeed nonsense. Russia is not a bear, you are dealing with a bunch of state level criminals. The state of Russia is essentially better understood as a criminal gang masquerading as a country. Those stealing, money laundering, killing, trafficking an warring circles of oligarchs are heavily rooted in Intelligence Services, inside and abroad. Some of those oligarchs even have private militaries. Those people primarily care for themselves. They know they can get away with a ton of insane and inhuman shit, as they calculate the other well-behaving party will back off. They however do not want to get nuclear consequences themselves, it is pure bluff.
- sofixa 2y ago> The bear metaphore is indeed nonsense. Russia is not a bear, you are dealing with a bunch of state level criminals With nukes, which makes them pretty scary.
- abraxas 2y ago[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> problem starts if (when?) Trump and his clown posse turns the US into a similar setup Lots of institutional checks in America that post-Soviet Russia lacked.
- jiggawatts 2y agoTrump now controls all of them. He said he has a mandate. I really don’t know what you’re talking about when he or his party control the governors, congress, the senate, the presidency, and the Supreme Court. America is about to speedrun some things and you won’t like it.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Trump now controls all of them No, he doesn't. The GOP narrowly controls the House and Senate, and Trump has strong influence over them. That doesn't mean he controls them. And that's before we get to the states and lower courts.
- Svoka 2y agotime to cut its paws off, tbh
- meiraleal 2y ago[flagged]
- georgeecollins 2y agoThe only time NATO has actually gotten involved in a conflict was in Afghanistan after 911. So no, it is not only because of Russia.
- RobotToaster 2y agoYugoslavia?
- VagabundoP 2y agoThat was not a NATO action.
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoYes, it was [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia
- PKop 2y agoWhy do you say that?
- sabbaticaldev 2y agobecause he’s a normal brainwashed westerner. Still not understanding why they lost the NATO/ukraine vs russia war
- dragonwriter 2y agoI’m not sure if you are referring to the NATO intervention in the first part of the wars as Yugoslavia broke up (Bosnia, primarily starting in 1992) or later (the NATO-Yugoslavia war over Kosovo, starting 1999) or layer yet (the NATO involvement in the internal conflict of then-NATO partner North Macedonia in 2001), but all three were official NATO operations (and listed as such on NATO’s website.)
- dzhiurgis 2y ago[flagged]
- grapesodaaaaa 2y ago> Maybe a strategic nuke on Kaliningrad if any provocation happens. Surely you must be joking about a first-strike nuclear provocation or larger. I would think almost anything other than a border incursion could be dealt with in other ways. Should Putin be held more accountable for his actions? Absolutely, but a nuclear response is not going to go well unless absolutely justified.
- cynicalsecurity 2y agoYou are replying to a Russian bot, most likely.
- dzhiurgis 2y agoInteresting twist… I chose “provocation” because thats what russians often use (and call for nuking west pretty much every day for decades now).
- dzhiurgis 2y agoFear is the greatest weapon. You can keep sanctioning them, but you’ll never get anywhere. Give nukes to Ukraine, even pretend ones and war will end in minutes.
- thinkingtoilet 2y agoI agree. Do you want to sign up and go fight in a war? Or should other people besides you die? It's easy to say it "needs to be dealt with" but it's not an easy thing to do.
- tetrisgm 2y agoI lived in Finland most of my adult life. Gladly. Freedom isn’t free, I understand that
- nazgob 2y agoSome of us live close enough that it's not really an option, surrendering to Russians don't work that great if you live in Eastern Europe. I will volunteer first day to join Polish Army.
- abraxas 2y agoDitto. Even though I'm an expat right now if Poland calls to arms I'm coming home and fighting to defend my country.
- tetrisgm 2y agoI can't tell if you guys or the Finns are better at dealing with invaders, but I can't think of a higher compliment on this matter.
- throw2343223434 2y ago[dead]
- ocular-rockular 2y agoIt's never an easy thing to do or one that should come to fruition, but yes, I would contribute to the effort for my country if it was so.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoIf you would have asked me while I was a young Marine I'd say, "hell yes." I recall the commandant visiting in Afghanistan and Marines were asking him where the next combat zone is because they are eager for more action.
- petre 2y agoBest course of action at this time would be to properly arm Ukraine.
- andrewflnr 2y agoIt's the right thing to do anyway, but especially as a way to respond to Russia.
- johnisgood 2y agoWhich happened and kept happening for a long time now, including the US sending billions of dollars and weapons (among other things). That did not help, did it?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Which happened and kept happening for a long time now We've been drip feeding and hand tying Ukraine. Practically every military expert has said this is not the way to win a war.
- johnisgood 2y agoI heard US sent so many weapons that even US' supply of weapons were running low if and when it came to defending themselves. Is it true? I have no clue.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> heard US sent so many weapons that even US' supply of weapons were running low if and when it came to defending themselves. Is it true? I have no clue. No, it's not. For small-scale war, we are amply stocked. For large-scale war, stocks don't matter, production does.
- Hamuko 2y agoSurely if the US was actually in a situation where it was attacked and had to defend itself, they’d be able to do that. If nothing else, the civilians have a whole lot of guns too and attacks on the US (think Pearl Harbor, 911) have a massive rallying effect. As far as I know, the biggest thing preventing a civilian semi-automatic from being converted to an automatic firearm is the risk of a long prison stint.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> We're stuck between having to do timid actions and full NATO escalation If only there were someone applying pressure to Russia we could have fight for us!
- PKop 2y agoSo sacrifice more Ukrainian men for the meat grinder? What has that accomplished so far?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> sacrifice more Ukrainian men for the meat grinder? To the extent there's a meat grinder, it's of Russians [1]. > What has that accomplished so far? Russia's disqualifying itself as a conventional military threat for at least a generation. It's not yet there yet, largely because Ukraine has been unable to target its war marchine. But the startling inefficacy of its army and technology has been made clear. Moreover, the front line has been maintained in Ukraine: that keeps them further from NATO and thus American and European boys at home. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Total_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrain...
- PKop 2y ago>To the extent there's a meat grinder, it's of Russians It's of both. Why deny the fact Ukrainian men are dying in droves? This is disrespectful of those that paid the ultimate sacrifice. Pretending this is not extremely costly to Ukraine in manpower is denying reality. They have been increasing the age of conscripts as they're running out of young men.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Why deny the fact Ukrainian men are dying in droves? Nobody is. Meat grinder means excessive loss relative to necessity. The Ukranians are being slaughtered, but not mindlessly. They're fighting efficiently in respect of manpower. Also, had we given Ukraine all the weapons it asked for in 2022, we probably wouldn't have had a meat grinder.
- jerlam 2y agoFrom history: "Flexible Response" was a policy implemented by JFK in 1961, in response to previous administration's over-reliance on massive retaliation. Of course, it dragged the United States into Vietnam as things slowly escalated.
- armchairhacker 2y agoIMO the right action is to counterattack with equal force, ideally in the same way. So cut one of their undersea cabals, fly jets near or over their airspace, etc. That way, there's a clear line for what NATO will and won't do that Russia can understand. If attacks escalate it will be Russia that escalated every time. If Russia feels it's threatened, all they have to do is stop the attacks and NATO will stop. If Russia is going to nuclear warfare over not being able to unevenly harass NATO, because we can't read Putin and the oligarchs' minds, and what objective measure would allow that but not allow Russia to go nuclear warfare over not enslaving all of NATO, or claiming they can/others can't do everything not written unambiguously in a treaty (which would extend to new technologies like partitioning the solar system that we couldn't have thought ahead-of-time)? But I'm no diplomat, so maybe I'm wrong and my idea would be catastrophic.
- fuoqi 2y ago>fly jets near It's regularly done by both sides. And not only with jets, but also with nuclear-capable strategic bombers. >over their airspace Shooting it down will be a no-brainer for Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident >If attacks escalate it will be Russia that escalated every time. So sending jets into their airspace is not an escalation, but shooting down the plain is? Yeap, you are not a diplomat. Should I remind you how US reacted to the Soviet military presence in Cuba? On the US scale Ukraine is somewhere between Mexico and Texas in importance for Russia from the military point of view.
- armchairhacker 2y agoI don't know whether Russia is flying jets over NATO airspace. If they're not then NATO shouldn't be flying them over Russia. In my idea it would be essential to confirm Russia is responsible for anything before the even counterattack. If there's an attack NATO can't confirm, the only thing they would do is defend and monitor more closely in case Russia tries the same attack in the future. Only the things that the Russian government definitely does to NATO, NATO would do to them.
- paganel 2y ago> really needs to be dealt with. Ignoring the passive voice, who do you suggest should deal with that, more precisely? And how do you suggest "dealing" with one of the two nuclear hyper-powers in existence? (the other one being the Americans)
- tetrisgm 2y agoMaybe I should clarify that I am not in charge of any executive or military branch in the EU or NATO. I express my frustration with our leadership. If you're interested in how I think it should be sorted: the cables are between Finland and Germany. I think we start with Finland and Germany: - stepping updiplomatic pressure. - Expulsion of Russian and Belarusian diplomats. - Confiscation of Russian owned properties. - Freezing bank accounts. - Increasing tariffs on their goods - Reducing overall trade. - Increasing spending on national defense - And weapons production. - Increasing aid to Ukraine. The military leadership is seriously considering that Russia might push for the Baltics (meaning, the EU) within 4 years. The EU is not at peace with Russia. They are biding time for a war they need to prepare for.