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.
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.
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.
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?
Baltics and Poland are only threatened by Russian TV commentators and sometimes Dugin, who depending on the mood of the day says that Poland and the Baltics are not part of the Eurasian project, and on other days says that Estonia is in the German influence sphere (!) but Latvia and Lithuania are in the Russian sphere. These people foam at the mouth and have little influence.
I have never heard any serious Russia politician claim that the Baltics or Poland should be invaded.
Ukraine and Georgia are fundamentally different (for them), which is why they always have been red lines as pointed out in the Burns diplomatic telegram.
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.
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.
> 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.
... because that worked out so well for Europe when Poland was invaded in 1939 and everyone looked the other way?
After the war, top German generals like Franz Halder, the Chief of the Army General Staff, revealed that their actual strength had been much smaller than the British and the French had feared. Anglo-French forces could have outnumbered them 1:5. The generals speculated that a well-coordinated allied attack from France could have defeated Germany in just a few weeks.
Yes (I don't know why you were downvoted), and others, but unfortunately I find it highly unlikely to happen. Or at least, it'll only happen when it's already too late, and Russia starts steamrolling more of Europe while the US does nothing (or actively supports it - the current admin is highly pro Russia).
The US is no longer a reliable ally to the EU or NATO. The EU must be able to protect itself.
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.
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.
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.
Intent is a distraction. The cable owners should require their governments to impounded the ship against costs to repair the cable.
If there is never any consequence for action we are left with only anarchy.
I quite like the idea of a united EU army. It's something that's been floated quite a bit recently.
"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?
Baltics and Poland are only threatened by Russian TV commentators and sometimes Dugin, who depending on the mood of the day says that Poland and the Baltics are not part of the Eurasian project, and on other days says that Estonia is in the German influence sphere (!) but Latvia and Lithuania are in the Russian sphere. These people foam at the mouth and have little influence.
I have never heard any serious Russia politician claim that the Baltics or Poland should be invaded.
Ukraine and Georgia are fundamentally different (for them), which is why they always have been red lines as pointed out in the Burns diplomatic telegram.
7 replies →
I think it has to be the french president, they’re the only EU country with nukes (I dont see UK as EU at this point)
8 replies →
Russian helicopters in the early days of the Ukraine war had “To Berlin” painted on them in Cyrillic.
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.
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.
I'm also an EU citizen and heavily in favor of an EU-military.
We could be a lot stronger with the same amount of money invested through economies-of-scale.
We can either take the chance to become a superpower or we will be taken over by aggressive countries like Russia.
> 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.
... because that worked out so well for Europe when Poland was invaded in 1939 and everyone looked the other way?
After the war, top German generals like Franz Halder, the Chief of the Army General Staff, revealed that their actual strength had been much smaller than the British and the French had feared. Anglo-French forces could have outnumbered them 1:5. The generals speculated that a well-coordinated allied attack from France could have defeated Germany in just a few weeks.
Imagine Europe if Hitler had been hanged in 1939!
Zelinsky was by no means the first, I heard talks of this since the crimean annexation.
By Zelensky, I think.
What? I'm pretty sure he said that.
Yeah, here it is: 'Army of Europe' needed to challenge Russia, says Zelensky
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgl27x74wpo
Yes, he spoke on it at the Munich Security Conference, to frequent applause
Yes (I don't know why you were downvoted), and others, but unfortunately I find it highly unlikely to happen. Or at least, it'll only happen when it's already too late, and Russia starts steamrolling more of Europe while the US does nothing (or actively supports it - the current admin is highly pro Russia).
The US is no longer a reliable ally to the EU or NATO. The EU must be able to protect itself.
2 replies →
[dead]
Yes, united behind a strong upright leader, or even führer.