4 ms·

The "problem" of Western countries is that the political sphere operates under different moral compasses: like taking down a shadow fleet tanker would be a natu

The "problem" of Western countries is that the political sphere operates under different moral compasses: like taking down a shadow fleet tanker would be a natural disaster... taking down many would mean many disasters. The real question is, should security and defense concerns be placed on hold? If our basic freedoms and rights are being attacked, how big of a deal would be a shadow fleet tanker catastrophe?

toomuchtodo 2y ago
Those ships are going to be transiting somewhere unloaded. That is when you engage them.
- DiggyJohnson 2y ago
  That would be in the busiest shipping ports, channels, and anchorages in the entire world. Aka the most bananas place to interdict.
  - mlyle 2y ago
    If something bad happened to a mostly empty Russian shadow tanker in the Gulf of Finland, that impact is going to be mostly confined to Russia. i.e. past the major Finnish and Estonian ports. As long as we're all playing silly only-kinda-deniable games, that's an option on the table.
    - geniusplanmate 2y ago
      That's not where that shadow fleet is operating. The gas sold by Russia to France, Germany, etc. is transported using normal vessels, AFAIK.
      - mlyle 2y ago
        https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/09/30/7477500/ https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/09/30/7477500/ Plenty of targets in the Gulf of Finland.
    - petre 2y ago
      Except it isn't in the Gulf of Finland but the East Sea or Soth China Sea. Most of these ships are transporting oil to China, India, Singapore, The Middle East. The only allies able to interdict most of these ships are Japan and South Korea. Japan doesn't engage in such activities after WW2 and South Korea is reluctant to because of retaliatory actions from Russia and China. Maybe they'll change course after the DPRK has sent triops into Ukraine, but don't hold your breath.
      - mlyle 2y ago
        https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/09/30/7477500/ https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/09/30/7477500/ Plenty of targets in the Gulf of Finland.
      - wbl 2y ago
        What exactly do you think we spend all that money on fast attack subs and frigates and destroyers for? Of course the US Navy (and the French and British) can interdict those ships anywhere on the high seas.
jojobas 2y ago
Western countries have intelligence services with sabotage departments and in general are not above blowing up things their leaders don't like. If the CIA or US Navy don't have the technical means to blow up the Crimea bridge with plausible deniability they haven't been paying attention.
- petre 2y ago
  Thry do but it only benefits Ukraine. So they're the ones who should blow it up, preferably with with weapons of their own in order to avoid NATO escalation. Just lke the Moskva sinking.
  - lottin 2y ago
    How does destroying the Crimea bridge not benefit the West? They destroy our infrastructure, we destroy theirs. That's the whole idea.
  - jojobas 2y ago
    If Russian leadership doesn't change there's just no chance it will stop at Ukraine. Next those sharing your sentiment will say "it only benefits Poland".
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  The problem is we (The US) used to swing our """nation building"""/Imperialism dick all around, coup'ing and invading whoever we want, but after Vietnam and wasting trillions bombing sand for 20 years, a lot of us have softened on the idea of forcing our desires through explosions. Add to that a natural conservative tendency in the US to jump at isolationism whenever there's an easy excuse (the guy you like is doing the "bad thing" so you don't actually want to stop him, the war is literally somewhere else and doesn't exactly involve us) So it's hard for people like me, who used to be pretty pacifist, to decide that yeah maybe violence is the right option sometimes? Also, the entire time we are trying to shake off bullshit "Democrats are warhawks" nonsense from the party that did the desert bombing just because Bush wanted to defend his daddy's memory. The same people who call the Dems warhawks spent the 2000s screaming that "you're either with us or against us" and calling anti-war people pussies so I guess they don't have very good memories. So for various reasons, some good, the US is extremely gunshy right now. Even those of us wholeheartedly in support of Ukraine, wishing we gave them a thousand Bradleys and tanks, feel uncomfortable with the idea of boots on the ground. Meanwhile Europe has forgotten what intervention is, and seems utterly unwilling to do anything, lest they have to get off their holier than thou pedestal. Appeasement definitely doesn't work, but the middle east is full of examples of "just bomb them all" also not working very well. Everyone is very nervous. It sure seems like Russia won't stop their horseshit until someone makes them stop, but that's going to require a million dead.

toomuchtodo 2y ago

Those ships are going to be transiting somewhere unloaded. That is when you engage them.

DiggyJohnson 2y ago
That would be in the busiest shipping ports, channels, and anchorages in the entire world. Aka the most bananas place to interdict.
- mlyle 2y ago
  If something bad happened to a mostly empty Russian shadow tanker in the Gulf of Finland, that impact is going to be mostly confined to Russia. i.e. past the major Finnish and Estonian ports. As long as we're all playing silly only-kinda-deniable games, that's an option on the table.
  - geniusplanmate 2y ago
    That's not where that shadow fleet is operating. The gas sold by Russia to France, Germany, etc. is transported using normal vessels, AFAIK.
    - mlyle 2y ago
      https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/09/30/7477500/ https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/09/30/7477500/ Plenty of targets in the Gulf of Finland.
  - petre 2y ago
    Except it isn't in the Gulf of Finland but the East Sea or Soth China Sea. Most of these ships are transporting oil to China, India, Singapore, The Middle East. The only allies able to interdict most of these ships are Japan and South Korea. Japan doesn't engage in such activities after WW2 and South Korea is reluctant to because of retaliatory actions from Russia and China. Maybe they'll change course after the DPRK has sent triops into Ukraine, but don't hold your breath.
    - mlyle 2y ago
      https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/09/30/7477500/ https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/09/30/7477500/ Plenty of targets in the Gulf of Finland.
    - wbl 2y ago
      What exactly do you think we spend all that money on fast attack subs and frigates and destroyers for? Of course the US Navy (and the French and British) can interdict those ships anywhere on the high seas.

jojobas 2y ago

Western countries have intelligence services with sabotage departments and in general are not above blowing up things their leaders don't like. If the CIA or US Navy don't have the technical means to blow up the Crimea bridge with plausible deniability they haven't been paying attention.

petre 2y ago
Thry do but it only benefits Ukraine. So they're the ones who should blow it up, preferably with with weapons of their own in order to avoid NATO escalation. Just lke the Moskva sinking.
- lottin 2y ago
  How does destroying the Crimea bridge not benefit the West? They destroy our infrastructure, we destroy theirs. That's the whole idea.
- jojobas 2y ago
  If Russian leadership doesn't change there's just no chance it will stop at Ukraine. Next those sharing your sentiment will say "it only benefits Poland".
mrguyorama 2y ago
The problem is we (The US) used to swing our """nation building"""/Imperialism dick all around, coup'ing and invading whoever we want, but after Vietnam and wasting trillions bombing sand for 20 years, a lot of us have softened on the idea of forcing our desires through explosions. Add to that a natural conservative tendency in the US to jump at isolationism whenever there's an easy excuse (the guy you like is doing the "bad thing" so you don't actually want to stop him, the war is literally somewhere else and doesn't exactly involve us) So it's hard for people like me, who used to be pretty pacifist, to decide that yeah maybe violence is the right option sometimes? Also, the entire time we are trying to shake off bullshit "Democrats are warhawks" nonsense from the party that did the desert bombing just because Bush wanted to defend his daddy's memory. The same people who call the Dems warhawks spent the 2000s screaming that "you're either with us or against us" and calling anti-war people pussies so I guess they don't have very good memories. So for various reasons, some good, the US is extremely gunshy right now. Even those of us wholeheartedly in support of Ukraine, wishing we gave them a thousand Bradleys and tanks, feel uncomfortable with the idea of boots on the ground. Meanwhile Europe has forgotten what intervention is, and seems utterly unwilling to do anything, lest they have to get off their holier than thou pedestal. Appeasement definitely doesn't work, but the middle east is full of examples of "just bomb them all" also not working very well. Everyone is very nervous. It sure seems like Russia won't stop their horseshit until someone makes them stop, but that's going to require a million dead.