Comment by lawn

2 days ago

Weird how these accidents has started happening so often...

The European countries needs to stop being so soft.

127 comments

lawn

Reply
dmos62  2 days ago

I find it funny how if you marginally, but consistently, offend a geopolitical entity (Europe), you can actually train it to reduce the limits of what it considers acceptable. Just like a dog, or a person, I guess.

  • munksbeer  2 days ago

    The problem is, what more can Europe do? Sanctions are already in place. What is the next step? Conflict?

    • dmos62  2 days ago

      Sanctions are partial, the shadow fleet is operating, support for Ukraine is partial, China and India are not experiencing notable repercussions for supplying Russia, Europe is buying Russian gas. There's a lot Europe could do to show that it's serious about security, without troops in Ukraine. Oh, troops and training personnel in Ukraine's rear is another one.

      2 replies →

    • DannyBee  1 day ago

      If you aren't willing to move to conflict (or whatever the next step is) at some point, then you are, in fact, just bluffing, and you are being called out on that bluff.

      You can choose what that point is, but it's weird not to expect enemies to continually test where your line is, and walk you right up to it.

      I'm not sure what you expect to see here?

      Let's assume for a second armed conflict is the "natural" next step.

      Either you are willing to get into an armed conflict over it or not. If you aren't, and they are willing to accept everything other than armed conflict (sanctions, etc), why should they care at all what you think or do? They already know you won't escalate past a certain point. As long as they are willing to accept how far you are willing to escalate, ....

      In the end, people monitor actions, not words.

      4 replies →

    • maxglute  2 days ago

      EU is just being out greyzoned by RU in this area - greyzone because under UNCLOS subsea infra regulations, RU suppose to pay for indemnities but we know that's not going to happen unless EU returns siezed RU $$$. TBH RU still has 100B+ more worth of cables to sabatoge and other shenanigans going forward in response to EU shooting firt with greyzone seizing of RU assets. People calling for blockades / shooting ships think that's worth escalating to actual kinetic war, in which case EU will simply be the relative larger loser since a 20T EU economy vs 2T RU economy has much more to lose, i.e. would be fairly easy to just fuck up EU energy / energy import infra.

      2 replies →

    • codedokode  9 hours ago

      Do sanctions work? Russia is buying things I am not going to name without issues while some European countries buy Russian LNG.

    • preisschild  2 days ago

      Investing a lot more into Ukraine's military, so Ukraine can defeat Russia for us.

      Also increase Sanctions even more. We still have Banks like the Austrian Raiffeisenkasse that operate in Russia.

  • lawn  2 days ago

    I'm a Swede and I'm mostly upset that my government isn't acting more forcefully.

    • powerhugs  2 days ago

      As another swede, I'd be happy to se Kristersson show some backbone. But he's apparently made out of snail so that won't happen.

      Not condemning the aggressor over and over make us look soft, indeed.

      6 replies →

  • bpodgursky  2 days ago

    Actually slow stress is how you build muscle.

    Europe is a case of being crippled by assistance, like a man who uses an electric wheelchair until his leg muscles atrophy. They've leaned on US security guarantees so long that most countries have no functioning deterrent (look up the German air force sometime if you want to be sad).

    • FirmwareBurner  2 days ago

      >Europe is a case of being crippled by assistance

        Good times create weak people.
  Weak people create hard times.

      Europe has past its good times phase and is hitting the reality of the hard times.

      The question is if it can overcome the next phase without another Adolf or war.

        Hard times create strong people.

      18 replies →

gizajob  2 days ago

Should European countries position military craft at 1km intervals on the surface along the route of every cable? Or do you mean they should start cutting Russian cables?

  • Trasmatta  2 days ago

    There are many possible methods of deterrence and reciprocal action. If you do nothing, the enemy has no reason not to escalate.

  • peterfirefly  2 days ago

    [flagged]

    • hagbard_c  1 day ago

      Because it is not the entire crew of those vessels which are complicit in these actions. It is far more likely that one person dropped the anchor - which does not seem to register on the bridge, no warning lights seem to be installed if I can trust what I've read and seen on this subject - so it would bounce over the bottom. The autopilot will take care of keeping the vessel at its programmed course and speed until the anchor gets stuck (which seems to have happened the last time a cable was cut somewhere off Gotland, the vessel suddenly went from 6 kts to 0 kts and staid around that speed for about 30 minutes).

      That does not mean such vessels should be let off. They should be held at anchor until the responsible person(s) have been identified and the vessel's owners should be held financially responsible for the damages. Once a few owners have been made to pay up they'll make sure it becomes impossible for an individual to go out to the bow at night to drop an anchor without anyone noticing.

llm_nerd  2 days ago

Undersea cable breaks have been an ongoing issue for decades. To the tune of hundreds per year. Usually it's completely accidental and sometimes just environmental (it is a pretty hostile environment).

It became newsworthy and a part of the zeitgeist so every incident is heavily reported on now, making it seem like there has been a big uptick when this stuff has always been happening.

As to those countries being soft, this is happening in international waters and they have been seizing ships. Not sure how much more they are supposed to do. Anti-ship missiles?

  • bluGill  2 days ago

    There is an uptick on what looks strongly like intentional breaks. The question is how many of those "accidents" in the past where not, but we didn't realize it.

  • lawn  2 days ago

    There's a very large uptick in these events in the Baltic sea and it's not just because of media reporting.

InDubioProRubio  2 days ago

<BotTemplate> Foggy first sentence of agreement Nuclear Threats for deterrence Political divisive topics </BotTemplate>

ssijak  2 days ago

What do you suggest?

  • tgsovlerkhgsel  2 days ago

    The diplomatic option: Severe penalties for such damage and requiring insurance/bonds for it could be one option. Let the insurance companies figure it out. Insurance companies might decide that ships with a Russian crew or going to/from Russian harbors are uninsurable or very expensive.

    The "language that Russia understand" option: "If you do this one more time, ships going to/from your harbors won't be allowed through the straits anymore, IDGAF what international law says". Should it happen again, inform any such ship that they're not allowed passage and will be fired upon if they try. If they try, follow through.

  • lawn  2 days ago

    Obviously I don't have all the answers.

    But just a few weeks ago us Swedes released a ship that was pretty obviously acting with malicious intent because of limited research or due to incompetence.

    I'd like that to stop.

    • pergadad  2 days ago

      While I agree in principle, we can't throw the rule of law overboard just because others don't respect it. It was a commercial vessel with Maltese/Bulgarian links and russian crew if I'm not mistaken. While I'd hope that such vessels stop serving russian ports and would get rid of any involved crew there would be a need to prove intent do directly penalise and impound the vessel/owner.

      1 reply →

  • Trasmatta  2 days ago

    I quite like the idea of a united EU army. It's something that's been floated quite a bit recently.

    • wolvesechoes  2 days ago

      "I quite like the idea of a united EU army."

      Won't happen, at least not in any meaningful form.

      Baltics or Poland are existentially threatened by Russia, Spain or even Germany are not, even if Russia can do a limited damage to them. What is supposed to create "unity" in that regard? What would force Spain to contribute as much as, let's say, Finland? We can see even now, with all these US threats, not every NATO country was willing to increase its spending on military. And even more importantly, who is going to command such EU army? Commission?

      18 replies →

    • blitzar  2 days ago

      I would like to see unified command and control facilities, interoperability agreements, combined purchasing and a within EU military industrial plan. Most of this already exists in the form of NATO and can be repurposed for near $0.

      There is no need for anything more, nor are the institutions really designed for a single president / general to direct everyone in a conflict. Putting in place all the capabilities to work together in a conflict should be done however.

    • trinix912  2 days ago

      I, on the other hand (as an EU citizen), would like to not be drafted to fight in a conflict by two random governments of countries I don't live in and share nothing ideologically with. Sure, we can all do taxes together, share the currency, etc. I know that NATO already is that way, but the EU is not a military alliance and should never be.

      2 replies →

    • atoav  2 days ago

      Zelinsky was by no means the first, I heard talks of this since the crimean annexation.

lo_zamoyski  2 days ago

Any recommendations? Or is this a case of double secret probation[0], or putting the invisible locks on the door[1]?

Frankly, the EU is guilty of neglect in this respect for years. Poland, for example, had been urging things like more energy solidarity since it joined the EU, something Germany consistently shot down or waved away. Mustard after the meal in some ways.

A stronger response will require more defense investment to counter hybrid warfare.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3LzJzQ3wj4

[1] https://youtu.be/7L8UwOZRejA?si=GPvx4hZw4vGMeXkE&t=48

backyardflock  2 days ago

[flagged]

  • datameta  2 days ago

    He was actually one of the presiding members (forgot their title) who was completing his term. He got emotional over the gravity of the transition. To shed tears is not a mark of weakness. It serves as that signal only for the emotionally repressed.