5 ms·
in 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
by Applejinx 2y ago
in 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.
- The_Colonel 2y agoThat Nordstream pipeline is/was owned by Russia.
- really1827 2y agoGazprom has 51%, the rest is EU-owned: https://www.nord-stream.com/about-us/our-shareholders/ https://www.nord-stream.com/about-us/our-shareholders/
- toss1 2y agoThere is an ENORMOUS gap between "Please don't..." and WWIII Nuke war. And adhering to "Please don't..." is rightly seen by bullies and authoritarians of all stripes as "I won, I got away with it, I have permission to make even bigger offenses." The law is the law only if it is backed up with enforcement. Only most of the people play by the rules. Those who don't will rapidly take everything if the law has no teeth. And the teeth must come into play rapidly and reliably when the "Please dont'..." fails to work.
- matt-p 2y agoSo what enforcement do you want to happen? You're willing to break international law to enact punishment for breaking international law?
- yuliyp 2y agoInternational Law is not a law like city, county, state, national laws. There's no court and enforcement agency that can just enforce it. It's a set of agreements between countries. Enforcement (if any) is done by countries based on the goals of those countries. There's no sense of honor here. Yes breaking international law to punish others breaking international law happens, and is sometimes the only reasonable action to take.
- matt-p 2y agoI can see where you're coming from but also is there much point in having this agreement if we don't honour it?
- toss1 2y agoThe point in having the International Agreements is indeed to honor it. But only as long and as fully as is possible in the real world When bad actors deliberately refuse to live within the agreements, e.g., Putin, who has broken nearly EVERY agreement he signed, there are only two choices. Push back with force, or surrender. At the end of the day, the agreements work to prevent war, but only so long as everyone agrees to be bound by them. When one party unilaterally decides to break out and try to take territory and rule by deception and force, if we fail to respond, the agreements all become moot; the facts on the ground will be that the one who broke the agreements owns and rules everything. It's brutal, but the agreements exist only as long as everyone follows them.
- coffeebeqn 2y agoWe tried that. This is the 3rd incident in a couple of months. We should just let Russia sever all the cables and pipelines in the Baltic? I’m guessing you don’t live here
- matt-p 2y agoSo you think it's ok the break the law to punish law breakers? I'm not saying it's ok, I'm not saying no punishment. I'm saying the punishment shouldn't break the law.. I'm in Europe, but not the Baltic states - correct.
- coffeebeqn 2y agoI’m not really sure what you’re getting at. Breaking what law exactly? Finland is certainly within rights to capture a vessel that is actively destroying its infrastructure and has an open criminal investigation against it
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dralley 2y agoWe've been following the "please don't" strategy for 10 years. It doesn't seem to be working very well.
- matt-p 2y agoSo what would you do? Assuming the boat is no longer in your or your friends waters?
- Zigurd 2y agoNot appeasement. That's been tried.
- matt-p 2y agoWhat WOULD you do?
- scotty79 2y agoEye for an eye. Or better yet two eyes. Escalate boldly and actively till the bully backs off and maybe a bit more to make sure he's not faking.
- Animatronio 2y agoWhoa, lots of tough guys here! I didn't know Java programming turns regular Joes into superwarriors.
- scotty79 2y agoI started with PHP... 4.3... 20 years ago. And that was just the beginning. Java is for peacenicks. Alas, I still don't have a single tank to my name, so it's not me that will be doing the shooting. Or even deciding to shoot. At 45 years I already lived too long and seen too much. I don't mind universe giving me its best shot at mythical thermonuclear war. I fully expect it to be pathetic.