141–150 of 1001 posts
So to keep score, in the last year we've seen cables sabotaged between Finland and Germany, Lithuania and Sweden, Estonia and Sweden, Estonia and Finland. Any others I missed? You might say it's too early to call it sabotage, but the earliest two cable incidents were exactly the same, so it's hardly a coincidence at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those 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 impa…
You are evidently unaware of UNCLOS and the adoption of many of its provisions into customary international law
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-pipeline-gas-patrushev-putin... I guess they warned in their own way, of "nice cables you've got there, it would be a shame if someone... sabotaged them".
They're constantly saying this about everything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what's left? The other pipelines. Their shadow oil fleet. There are lots of options. But to my knowledge, only the British, French and Americans are capable of the long-range clandestine operations.
Their shadow oil fleet is operated by third parties and shell companies. We are dealing with a mafia state here. https://windward.ai/knowledge-base/illuminating-russias-shad...
Would be a shame if they started having engine troubles in the middle of the ocean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> 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.
Give nukes to Ukraine, even pretend ones and war will end in minutes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey, hold your horses. Biden also threatened to blow up the Nord-Stream 2 pipeline, yet after the sabotage, everybody said "it was Russia". Now about this incident, to be consistent, I'm inclined to think it was the Americans.
Biden also threatened to blow up the Nord-Stream 2 pipeline, Nope. He said it would be "ended", meaning the one thing that it obviously means -- that it would be shut off. everybody said "it was Russia" Nope -- some people said that. The reasonable, level-headed people said: "We just don't know yet".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The only time NATO has actually gotten involved in a conflict was in Afghanistan after 911. So no, it is not only because of Russia.
No, it's not; 9/11 was the only event that has led to invocation of the mutual defense commitments under Article 5.
It has, however, gotten involved in other conflicts, both in response to UN calls and as a result of regional security consultations under Article 4. These include, most notably, Libya beginning 2011, Kosovo beginning in 1999, and Bosnia beginning in 1992,
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those 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 impa…
> 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.
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/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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also sends two messages: "We can do this to any of your cables", and "we're willing to" – with an implied "we could easily do it to all of them at the same time". And the last scenario is the real problem: While there are enough cable repair ships to continuously handle a normal rate of simultaneous peak failures, fixing multiple cuts can quickly exceed their capacity. (There's nothing that says an attacker can on…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> yet NATO/EU just looks weak and pathetic in the process Really? Russia, with the 6th largest army in the world, had to pull in Iran and Pyongyang to not get invaded by the 13th largest [1][2]. Moscow is being a nuisance. That doesn't make NATO or Europe look weak, it makes Russia look pathetic. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/13/world/europe/uk…
13th largest backed by the whole NATO and other US-aligned countries. They send almost everything they can outside of nuclear weapons, the most cutting edge military tech, and people (well, outside of a limited contingent of "advisors"). Let's be honest, without this backing the war would've ended in the first month as was drafted in Istanbul.
The West didn't really help Ukraine in the first month [1]. We thought the Russian army was competent and would ride into Ukraine like we did in Iraq. It wasn't until after the weakness was made apparent that aid started dripping in.
Ukraine repelled a Russian invasion on its own. Our generations-old anti-air systems are downing their latest weapons. Meanwhile, our generations-old missiles are taking out their state-of-the-art systems.
To the degree Russia has been able to claim any victory, it's in not being demolished. That's the standard. Not winning. Simply surviving.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukrain...