5 ms·
What about if Russia switch to just using Chinese boats as a proxy? What about a boat registered to some anonymous trust in the canaries? It's a lovely theory
by matt-p 2y ago
What about if Russia switch to just using Chinese boats as a proxy? What about a boat registered to some anonymous trust in the canaries?
It's a lovely theory but in practice you have to have a rule that says we can board any ship we feel like and that's super problematic.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> What about if Russia switch to just using Chinese boats as a proxy? Beijing has no interest in this. If anything, it has an interest in becoming one of Russia’s sole buyers. > you have to have a rule that says we can board any ship we feel like and that's super problematic Why? China is literally doing this right now outside its territorial waters. It’s fine. America would too, if foreign trawlers started cutting its lines. Again, if one person is playing by restrictions everyone else has already abandoned, it’s not difficult to conclude who’s the sucker at the table.
- matt-p 2y agoIt's highly unsociable to ignore international law and agreements just because they're not convenient. Classic American view point. Win at all costs, ignore the rules yourself but use another countries lack of adherence as an excuse to invade/bomb them. You really think this is how we get a peaceful and civilised world order? You think this builds trust? Moral leadership? Long term reputation? Relationships? Ridiculous. Sorry to be controversial but breaking international law should be avoided at almost any cost. I guess one man's "sucker at the table" is another man's "gentleman who plays by the rules, and can be trusted"
- bdangubic 2y agointernational as well as any other law only works if there are consequences to breaking the law…
- matt-p 2y agoAny punishment that involves breaking the same law to administer isn't the correct one. It infers no superiority and just kicks off the race to the bottom.
- fnordsensei 2y agoI’m sure Putin would love it if the west continued to turn the other cheek. No, if your point is reasonable, it still doesn’t apply when dealing with a psychopath. Who TF cares about moral superiority in the face of an existential threat? If moral superiority is so important, let Putin lead with it.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> unsociable to ignore international law and agreements just because they're not convenient My entire point is this is already the status quo. Nobody—other than Europe—is following the post-WWII rules anymore. There is a new set of conventions being de facto agreed to, and they will be set by the players actually at the table.
- sampo 2y ago> > What about if Russia switch to just using Chinese boats as a proxy? > Beijing has no interest in this. The first cable and gas pipe sabotages using the anchor dragging method in the Baltic Sea in 2023 and 2024 were done by Chinese ships: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newnew_Polar_Bear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newnew_Polar_Bear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Peng_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Peng_3 So obviously Beijing in already into this on the Russian side.
- Applejinx 2y agoin peacetime. It's looking like right now isn't peacetime. When a country is breaking every peacetime rule to conquer its neighbors and not-even-neighbors, the rules saying you can't, become super problematic as they'll be weaponized like everything else.
- matt-p 2y ago[flagged]
- mort96 2y agoIt's an act of war, and invading neighbouring countries is certainly an act of war. Nobody said all acts of war are identical, stop shadow boxing against invented positions nobody holds.
- tharzj 2y agoThen the Nordstream sabotage was an act of war and Germany is at war with Ukraine.
- mort96 2y agoI wasn't aware that it has been confirmed that the Ukrainian government is behind the nord stream pipeline sabotage. Do you have any reputable sources? Regardless, "country A sabotaged infrastructure owned by country B" doesn't automatically mean "countries A and B are at war", it's not that simple. But when acts of war happen repeatedly between countries in an area, it's a sign that the area isn't exactly in a time of peace.
- RealityVoid 2y agoWhile I fully agree with your point, and I absolutely _despise_ what Russia is doing, it's pretty well agreed by this point that it was Ukraine that sabotaged Nord Stream. There was a pretty detailed breakdown by a dutch newspaper that even identified the Ukrainian commandos that did it. And they even have an arrest warrant on the name of one of the suspects. And let's be honest here, Ukraine benefits the most from that sabotage. But from a realpolitik point of view, Russia must somehow be slapped for these sabotage acts.
- wasmitnetzen 2y agoThe last boat used for this stunt was Chinese, this one is registered in the Cook Islands. This is already happening. There is no way out of the Baltic Sea without crossing the territorial sea of either Sweden or Denmark. Countries have full jurisdiction in those, cutting cables on purpose is at least a criminal act, if not terrorism. There's no problem handling this, even if you're fully playing by the books. Russia would then need to switch to ships running only to Kaliningrad, which makes it even more obvious that it's an act of war.
- matt-p 2y agoI agree it should be handled and if we can board the ship and arrest everyone inside international law it should be done. I just don't agree this is something worth breaking international law over.
- dagenleg 2y agoI don't think there are many penalties for breaking the international law. Clearly, in the environment where Europe's adversaries are flagrantly breaking it on the daily basis, keeping to it meticulously would be foolish and dangerous. Just like pacifism, abiding by the international law in this case will only serve to embolden the totalitarian regimes, which neither desire peace, nor obey the law.