5 ms·

Every single ship in/out of St Petersburg goes via the Gulf of Finland. All those ships will be "Russian" (have stopped in Russia). It doesn't mean they're "Rus

by amiga386 10mo ago

Every single ship in/out of St Petersburg goes via the Gulf of Finland. All those ships will be "Russian" (have stopped in Russia). It doesn't mean they're "Russian". Owner, charterer, flag, crew can all have very different nationalities. Which part or combination makes them "Russian", in the sense of "the Russian state asked asked the ship to harm Finnish infrastructure, and they actually did it"? You can lazily speculate about the aggressive, warmaking nation (that illegally annexed Crimea, is currently at war with Ukraine, is regularly sending submarines, ships, drones, jets into the territories of its neighbours) all you like... but if you want to be able to prosecute them, you need to be able to show evidence of the Russian state ordering this action, and that the cable damage was actually caused by that ship. Where is your evidence?

javier2 10mo ago
The crew on these ships are usually all Russians, the ship is often registered in Cayman, Panama or somewhere else. These ships often sail under a third nationality, but when the ships are seized, only complaints are filed from Russian lawyers. Take from that what you will.
- mmooss 10mo ago
  Is every American carrying out American government policy? It's a big stretch.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - computerfriend 10mo ago
    Every American destroying submarine cables might be, yes.
    - mmooss 10mo ago
      The crew of the ship? Do they even know what the captain is doing? Does the captain even know, or are they just following instructions (which still seems culpable if you are the officer in charge).
kelnos 10mo ago
This is the court of public opinion, not a court or law. For better or worse, evidentiary standards are much lower.
- dundarious 10mo ago
  The court of public opinion is a really shitty court to apply to potentially criminal damage that occurred well outside the area of interest and knowledge for 99.99% of said public. The standards are shit, the outcomes are shit (bad idea when the ramifications are huge). It clearly worked very poorly in the case of the recent "Russian drone interference" panic, many of which turned out to not even be drones, never mind Russian ones. https://www.dronewatch.eu/61-european-drone-sightings-analysed-heres-what-we-know/ https://www.dronewatch.eu/61-european-drone-sightings-analys... Or the "UFOs" over Pennsylvania.
nubg 10mo ago
Sorry but in times of war, the regular "proof beyond reasonable doubt" cannot apply anymore, or you lose said war.
- amiga386 10mo ago
  If you're at war then declare war. You get sweeping powers to deal with existential threats. Go ahead and declare your country is at war. Is it? If you declare war without there being a bona fide casus belli, you'll be whisked out of power so fast your head will spin. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_South_Korean_martial_law_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_South_Korean_martial_law_... If you don't declare war, you don't get those emergency powers. You only get peacetime powers. Russia loves to go right up to the line, and then cross it a little bit, just to antagonise you. But unless you're willing to be the instigator of WW3, you'll stick to peacetime powers and peacetime courts with peacetime standards of evidence
  - kspacewalk2 10mo ago
    >But unless you're willing to be the instigator of WW3, you'll stick to peacetime powers and peacetime courts with peacetime standards of evidence Clearly this will need to change somewhat, if the other side wants to engage in hybrid war tactics. Nothing new, Cold War was a thing.
  - nubg 10mo ago
    But what if the other side - Russia - does wartime tactics without having formally declared war with NATO? Why do they get to keep this privilege?
    - amiga386 10mo ago
      Because they're an authoritarian shithole with a strongman leader who openly murders dissenters, personally controls all branches of government, controls the military and has people arrested just for holding up blank sheets of paper. He can pretend the country is not at war when it clearly is, and suffer no consequence, because nobody can replace him or even censure him without the country completely collapsing. When he eventually dies, the ensuing power vacuum will make the entire country a basket case. It's a dead country walking. Do you want to make your country such a nightmare country, so you can also cheat like they do?

javier2 10mo ago

The crew on these ships are usually all Russians, the ship is often registered in Cayman, Panama or somewhere else. These ships often sail under a third nationality, but when the ships are seized, only complaints are filed from Russian lawyers. Take from that what you will.

mmooss 10mo ago
Is every American carrying out American government policy? It's a big stretch.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- computerfriend 10mo ago
  Every American destroying submarine cables might be, yes.
  - mmooss 10mo ago
    The crew of the ship? Do they even know what the captain is doing? Does the captain even know, or are they just following instructions (which still seems culpable if you are the officer in charge).

kelnos 10mo ago

This is the court of public opinion, not a court or law. For better or worse, evidentiary standards are much lower.

dundarious 10mo ago
The court of public opinion is a really shitty court to apply to potentially criminal damage that occurred well outside the area of interest and knowledge for 99.99% of said public. The standards are shit, the outcomes are shit (bad idea when the ramifications are huge). It clearly worked very poorly in the case of the recent "Russian drone interference" panic, many of which turned out to not even be drones, never mind Russian ones. https://www.dronewatch.eu/61-european-drone-sightings-analysed-heres-what-we-know/ https://www.dronewatch.eu/61-european-drone-sightings-analys... Or the "UFOs" over Pennsylvania.

nubg 10mo ago

Sorry but in times of war, the regular "proof beyond reasonable doubt" cannot apply anymore, or you lose said war.

amiga386 10mo ago
If you're at war then declare war. You get sweeping powers to deal with existential threats. Go ahead and declare your country is at war. Is it? If you declare war without there being a bona fide casus belli, you'll be whisked out of power so fast your head will spin. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_South_Korean_martial_law_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_South_Korean_martial_law_... If you don't declare war, you don't get those emergency powers. You only get peacetime powers. Russia loves to go right up to the line, and then cross it a little bit, just to antagonise you. But unless you're willing to be the instigator of WW3, you'll stick to peacetime powers and peacetime courts with peacetime standards of evidence
- kspacewalk2 10mo ago
  >But unless you're willing to be the instigator of WW3, you'll stick to peacetime powers and peacetime courts with peacetime standards of evidence Clearly this will need to change somewhat, if the other side wants to engage in hybrid war tactics. Nothing new, Cold War was a thing.
- nubg 10mo ago
  But what if the other side - Russia - does wartime tactics without having formally declared war with NATO? Why do they get to keep this privilege?
  - amiga386 10mo ago
    Because they're an authoritarian shithole with a strongman leader who openly murders dissenters, personally controls all branches of government, controls the military and has people arrested just for holding up blank sheets of paper. He can pretend the country is not at war when it clearly is, and suffer no consequence, because nobody can replace him or even censure him without the country completely collapsing. When he eventually dies, the ensuing power vacuum will make the entire country a basket case. It's a dead country walking. Do you want to make your country such a nightmare country, so you can also cheat like they do?