And it looks like according to marinetraffic.com that the Yi Peng 3 is indeed at full stop surrounded by at least 3 Danish navy vessels.

1. article in Finnish https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000010845324.html

Kind of a "Who watches the watchers?" type of thing.

For example: banning the conflation of opinion and fact, like what's going on (and always goes on) in this thread, a behavior that is protected (doing otherwise "is not what this site is for").

If an imperfection is noted: log it, investigate, improve. Rinse, repeat.

Also: best prepare one's will, life insurance, etc before undertaking such a project.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_con...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_c...

In many professional fights the competitors start matches with light, quick jabs to probe their opponents defense.

This feels just like that now that you put it this way. I never connected those dots though.

Not sure we understand "probing" differently. Russian currently is at the edges, testing the responses from things like cutting cables and otherwise interfering with the infrastructure. This is what "probing" means for me. "Beyond probing" would be actually launching attacks one way or another, which we haven't seen yet (except of course, for the Ukraine invasion).

he's saying "this was not a probe, this was an actually launched attack"

A submarine cable is an attractive target for Russia because Russia doesn't have cables of their own exposed: Russia is a continental power, not a maritime alliance. A cable attack is an asymmetric attack, difficult to respond to appropriately.

> The 1,000 kilometre (620 miles) Baltika cable belonging to state-owned Rostelecom runs from the region of St. Petersburg to the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad on the southern Baltic Sea.

> A gas pipeline linking Finland and Estonia and two other telecoms cables, connecting Estonia to Finland and Sweden, were also damaged last month. Finnish police believe damage to the Baltic connector gas pipeline was caused by a Chinese container ship dragging its anchor along the seabed but have not concluded whether this was an accident or a deliberate act.

> The Finnish coast guard said the Russian outage may be linked to the previously reported damage.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-says-russian-ba...

On the contrary. The attacks have been ongoing for years now. You're looking for the tanks and missiles when the attack is actually happening right under your feet. Rot and corruption are more powerful than any bombs or missiles.

The developed world knows this even better. Offering yachts, real estate, supercars, prostitutes, and other luxuries to oligarchs. Thanks to this their military is rather in shambles right now.

It's historically, financially, and strategically incoherent. Trying to bribe people who are already rich with hard-to-hide things, just to make them extra-corrupt in the vague hope that it somehow results in pilfered AK-47s being sold on the black market?

Sorry, but no: Being shaken down by Russian traffic cops for bribes every week is a domestic problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK7l55ZOVIc

Russia started invading Ukraine six months before Nord Stream blow up. Previously Russia invaded Crimea in 2014.

The next invaded country, will be also an escalation?

All of this is about a few psychopaths filling their pockets with the money that generates the corpses of their criminal business, some encouraging the production of war, others encouraging the waging of war.

Why are these psychopaths and their "business" not prosecuted?

Quoth Churchill: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile-hoping it will eat him last."

The crocodile is still intent on eating you, even if you're nice to it. I really wish Europe would start understanding that.

https://youtu.be/Z_EnkvE6LZA

This conditioning is how you prepare for an actual attack, so that they're not prepared at the actual time of the real attack. It's also why some military exercises near a country is considered provocative, even tho it's "just an exercise".

Not to mention that it drains resources to respond/monitor these cry-wolf fakes.

Boxers learned from the art of war, not the other way around.

"Probing attacks" are a standard doctrine. It's not always a clear signal of intent to increase hostilities because it's also just useful as an intelligence gathering exercise.

Doesn't always work

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shoo...

I cannot find any lists (either in English or Swedish) but I remember Russia has been accidentally breaking into Swedish airspace like once a year for as long as I can remember. Submarines also sometimes "accidentally" end up close to Swedish shores.

It'd be interesting to see some total numbers, and compare other countries with how often it happens between Sweden/Russia.

If the EU decides to join the US the war is over and Russia will keep the occupied lands. If the EU decides to support Ukraine then because of the devastating sanctions there is a strong chance Russia loses.

So it's in Russia's interest to make life as difficult as possible for Europe over the coming months in order to convince them that ending the war is in their best interest.

> devastating sanctions

Devastating for Europe, you mean.

Also it would be better if any Russians here could answer a similar question

Russia: inflation around 8-9%.

EU: inflation around 2%.

Recently, a professor I know wrote an article about his impressions of Russia and Germany when he attended meetings in both countries.

Can you help to check what he said?

> Macroeconomic data indicates that the European economy is not doing well, but the economic conditions I experienced during my days in Berlin could be described as depression. What surprised me the most was that there were not many people or cars on the streets of Berlin during the daytime on weekdays. Berlin in early October is not yet cold, but the desolate feeling on the streets does not match the image of the capital of Europe's largest economy. Europe's inflation, which started later than in the United States, has also clearly hurt the lives of the people, which was my perception from conversations with taxi drivers during my rides.

    > the European economy

> (In Vladivostok) War typically leads to a rise in prices. Several Russian sources have reported that compared to two and a half years ago, current prices have roughly doubled, and housing prices have also increased significantly. However, it is somewhat comforting that the wages of most people have also increased proportionally, so people's lives have not been greatly affected so far. The supply of goods on the market is still quite abundant. Due to financial sanctions from the US and Europe, as well as multinational corporations, many brands' products and services are no longer available in the Russian market. Nevertheless, this does not prevent Russian citizens from drinking cola or eating American fast food. It is said that these brands have localized, but the products remain essentially unchanged: for example, the taste of Russian cola is not significantly different from Coca-Cola, as they can purchase the concentrate from third countries and mix it themselves.

> The official unemployment rate published by Russia is only 2%, and I believe this data is likely accurate. The reasons are not only because the war itself requires the hiring of a large number of young people, but also due to the wealth redistribution, increased consumption, and robust production that the war has brought about. Russia is a country with severe wealth disparity, where the lower classes traditionally lack money for consumption. This war has provided an opportunity for lower-income families to obtain cash flow: by sending their sons or husbands to the battlefield, families can receive a one-time subsidy of nearly 500,000 yuan. Even prisoners in jail can receive this benefit. This sum of money, equivalent to targeted transfer payments and proactive fiscal policies aimed at the poor, has given lower- and middle-income families a chance to gamble their lives for money. This has led to cases where some people join the military to escape punishment and receive subsidies, serve for a year, return home, and then reoffend and go to jail again, relying on a second enlistment to escape punishment and receive another subsidy.

> The increased cash flow among the lower-income population has led to a surge in consumer demand, and the robust production of military goods has also stimulated employment, income, and consumption. While the products of military industry are indeed consumed on the battlefield, for the macroeconomy, what matters is the flow rather than the stock; production and consumption are meaningful in themselves. As for whether the produced goods are expended as shells and missiles on the battlefield or become paper wealth on the other side of the ocean as export commodities, there is no fundamental difference for the current macroeconomic operation.

There are rumors circulating on Chinese self-media about how much the ruble has depreciated on the black market in Russia. I specifically went to restaurants and other consumer venues in Vladivostok to test for any significant difference between the official and black market exchange rates by using US dollars and Chinese yuan for payment. However, neither Russian-run nor Chinese-run restaurants offered discounts for payment in US dollars or Chinese yuan cash. This phenomenon is usually sufficient to debunk rumors about the Russian ruble black market.

The current social mood in Russia is relatively stable, which may be due not only to a decent economic foundation but also to strict control over public opinion. According to our research feedback, even in private settings, if colleagues or neighbors make remarks against Putin or the war, and are reported, those who oppose the war or Putin may face legal troubles.

But his claim of a "desolate feeling on the streets" being an indication of "economic conditions ... could be described as depression" read like badly written propaganda. There's nothing to be checked there, just some vague feelings. Berlin isn't as crowded as he expected, so the only explanation is that nobody can afford a car and half the population is sitting at home wallowing in misery due to economic depression? Really?

Berlin has the lowest car ownership of any Germany city. Part of that is the excellent public transit. Another part is the extensive network of bike paths (combined with flat topography).

Trains run from 04:30-00:30 on weekdays. On weekends they run 24 hours a day. During rush hour the trains come every five minutes, and the cars are standing room only. (I checked a couple of hours ago.)

As for weekends, why would you drive a car to a beer garden when you can take BVG and talk with your friends on the way?

[Also, Berlin in October is normally f*ing cold. This year was a freakish exception.]

On the other side, Europe buys billions of dollars of oil and gas from Russia. That money goes in the opposite direction, from Europe to Russia, and is used toward soldier salaries, Iran drones and North Korean mercenaries.

https://energyandcleanair.org/august-2024-monthly-analysis-o...

It is hard to know how much Russia has been harmed, because both sides probably exaggerate the figures.

I wonder whether "more harm" is the right question. The question should be whether the sanctions have any impact on Russia's war economy, which they do not. If anything, they make Russia more independent and strengthen Russian ties with China and India.

This is all to the detriment of the EU, the only one here who profits is the U.S. by making the EU more dependent.

> The question should be whether the sanctions have any impact on Russia's war economy, which they do not

Ruble is below a single penny.

Interest rates are at 21%, highest since 2003.

Inflation is out of control.

> they make Russia more independent and strengthen Russian ties with China and India.

ah, so that's why Putin went to North Korea to beg for troops and ammunition?

https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/RUS

Germany has 2.4% inflation and 0% growth:

https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/DEU

I do not believe the German inflation numbers. Health care got 30% more expensive with more hikes coming, rents are exploding, groceries are 20% higher since 2022.

From my recent visits to Lidl, groceries have massively fallen in price. Last year my shopping bill was ~70 EUR, yesterday and the weeks before it is around ~50 EUR. I'd even say groceries are cheaper than before (eggs, oatmeal, apples,...).

Energy prices in Germany with my provider have dropped two times in a row and I got a letter this week announcing a new drop in prices on the 1st of January 2025.

The only thing that is too expensive is Döner. And here, several shops have closed to be replaced by new ones with lower prices, now that groceries (also frying oil) and energy are cheaper again.

I don't know about the Russian GDP, one would assume the growth is mostly from increasing weapon production and from replacing Western imports with in-country production. I don't think Russia is spontanously more productive. Both do not make life easier for people.

From 1.1.2025 on: 29,60 ct/kWh down from 38,22 ct/kWh (-23%)

[0]: German https://www.stadtwerke-stralsund.de/news/details/stadtwerke-...

They are not, if you take the larger context into account - and that is China and their saber rattling not just against Taiwan but also against everyone else in what China thinks is "their" influence sphere such as the Philippines.

Russia's warmongering (not just in Ukraine, but also via Syria, Iran and Yemen!) is breaking apart both the US and EU internally - recent elections have shown that both populations are pretty much fed up with the wars and their consequences, and once enough countries either fall to Putin's 5th column outright or their governments pull a Chamberlain, China can be relatively certain no one will intervene too much when they decide that now is the best time to annex other countries.

American Secretary of Defense: "Mr. President, the Chinese just destroyed our Naval base in the Philippines, killing hundreds of US servicemen. As part of a plan to annex the country or something."

American president: "Let's not intervene too much."

The only response the entire West was able to give in years of Chinese transgressions were strong words, about as effective as "thoughts and prayers". China is a bully that escalates continuously (similar to Russia's behavior in Syria with the countless "red lines" that were crossed, eventually including chemical weapons) and needs to be brought to its knees before they one day trigger WW3 by accident.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/chinese-coast-gua...

[2] https://maritime-executive.com/article/philippine-official-a...

This is what one would do to a school yard bully. They push you, and you immediately do a full face punch and knee to the nose. Fight to the death from the first push/shove, and let it escalate. One fight, and the bullying is over, or you both get injured sufficiently to go to the hospital. There should be no middle grounds.

That this is not as big a deal as you think was the reason for my grandparent post. The "US citizens wary" thing can reverse itself the moment Americans are killed by a hostile adversary.

So yeah, the US absolutely got outplayed here.

I think it's unlikely that the world will pick an economic partner that:

- builds 90% of the new coal fired plants while the rest of the world (including the US) is decarbonizing

- has 280+% debt to GDP ratio

- has capital controls on its currency (the real exchange rate could change suddenly at the drop of a hat)

But I'm also well aware of the fact the US has gone through extremely dark periods and its past success is not a promise of future success. At the end of the day a country very possibly plunged into Great Depression II and almost certainly with trade policy changing by the day is not a good trading partner.

There is a very real possibility that we deport our way into a famine. The US economy cannot possibly sustain the type of deportations that have been promised and are already being put into motion by the incoming administration.

Obviously most of that devastation was from the war itself, but if every enslaved person in the country were shipped back to Africa (as many proposed at the time), it absolutely would've had deeply negative near-term consequences. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that economies don't actually depend on labor. Dismissible on its face! And to be explicit: those near-term consequences were morally necessary to bear anyway.

> In fact, it is unsustainable to encourage illegal labor and immigration.

Not sure what this is responding to, tbh

> Not sure what this is responding to, tbh

I think this is related to this here:

> The US economy is absolutely sustainable by paying citizens legal wages.

They do have a point there - their argument (as I read it) is that the widespread use of undocumented/illegal labor and the exploitation of these laborers in agriculture has led to an economic gridlock situation: employers make big bucks by not paying their fair share in social security and taxes, fair employers have a hard time competing on price because the cost of fair, legal labor is too high, and they cannot raise prices to a sustainable level because the consumers have no money to pay for that because they themselves don't get paid fairly.

The associated economic theory is commonly associated with the economic effects of minimum wage hikes - these lead (despite all the Corporate Whining) to economic growth because the lowest rungs of society, those actually living on minimum wage, go and immediately spend their additional money, similar to what happened with the Covid stimulus checks, while the upper levels of society hoard additional income and do not directly contribute to economic growth.

"The US economy cannot possibly sustain the type of deportations that have been promised" is not saying "an economy cannot function without illegal labor." It is saying exactly what it says: an economy cannot sustain (i.e. remain healthy through) the mass expulsion of a huge portion of its lowest level labor force.

I made it explicitly clear that I am talking about an (almost certainly) non-permanent problem: "I also believe America will almost certainly recover from whatever dark period it's (probably) about to endure."

By analogy: The statement that the US economy cannot sustain a 90% reduction in equity values market-wide doesn't mean an economy can't exist that's 10% the size of the United States'. It doesn't mean an economy 10% of the size of the United States' can't grow to become as big or bigger than the United States'. It doesn't mean a 90% drop in equity values would delete the United States from existence.

It means that a sudden 90% drop in equity values would shock the system in intensely undesirable ways.

Mass deportations as proposed would be a gigantic shock to the system, and that shock will almost certainly make the US an undesirable trading partner for some time.

Well at least in prior crises, the US had sensible leadership on both sides that was willing to put country before party.

The 47th however? Not just the man himself but especially the cabinet picks are an utter joke. None of the currently known picks are known for any kind of competence or even experience in their respective fields, and there are ideas floating to have the Senate go into recess so the 47th can appoint them without the usual review process - astonishing in itself given that the Republicans control the full Congress, they shouldn't have to fear any of their candidates not getting past the Senate. What politics they want to follow is just as dangerous - Musk and DOGE slashing 2 trillion $ from government expenditure for example, large parts of the government will literally be unable to do their job (which is, among others, to handle crises).

As far as stability goes, the comment above you talked about a stable trading partner, not a stable economy. China is probably more stable as a trading partner than the US is. The US changes trade policy too often.

Of course that can and does also happen in democracies, but at least most reasonable democracies have some sort of "checks and balances" that at least prevents open war from breaking out.

How well did that trade war go last time he was in office? Trick question, farmers got fucked, and rational minds agree that the US lost.

>Initiating steel and aluminium tariff actions in March 2018, Trump said "trade wars are good, and easy to win,"[54] but as the conflict continued to escalate through August 2019, Trump stated, "I never said China was going to be easy."

It doesn't matter what you claim to want to do or who you claim to "hate" if your sheer incompetence prevents you from accomplishing your desire.

Maybe putting a serial business failure in charge of a trade war isn't very effective?

Biden didn't get rid of them, because it's basically impossible to unwind a trade war, and then put some more limitations on solar panels. I don't think there is a clear answer yet on Biden's addition to the trade war. Probably will be "meh".

A trade war between the US and China is almost always going to be extremely negative sum. Both of our countries rely on each other for prosperity and nice shit.

But alternatively, it is the outgoing Biden administration that do not want a freeze, and are escalating their involvement in the war, by giving permission to use their long-range missiles to attack inside Russia, in order to derail any potential 'agreement'.

And they are now sewing the press with 'hybrid war' mania. I see news sites are now plastered with fearmongering stories about embassies being closed in Kyiv, that Ukraine front might collapse without aid, and so on and on. Note that none of it is actual Russian attacks or any actual events, just fear of them. It looks very much like a media campaign to me.

edit: oh dear, a few people on HN really do not like this take, without offering any take-down, which just makes me think there's probably something to it.

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-war-latest-us-shuts-...

The current U.S. administration wants to make the most out of the remaining 60 days. Perhaps they have a little help:

https://www.wired.com/story/inside-the-77th-brigade-britains...

How is allowing Ukraine to use ATACMS on military targets in Russia an escalation?

It is a very clear escalation in US/European involvement. Ukraine were prohibited from using long-range western weapons to attack targets inside Russia up until now.

I'm not saying if it's right or wrong.

But it's a very clear escalation in western 'participation'. Russia have for a long time been saying that such action would be tantamount to a NATO attack, and so everyone involved surely understands that this is an escalation in the NATO-Russia face-off.

They say this every time. When Obama sent non-lethal aid, they used the same line.

It is not that Ukraine are escalating the war by using long-range missiles. Of course Russia have been using them all along.

But it is a clear escalation in western 'participation' in the war.

From that follows the logical conclusion that it’s not the US’ or NATO’s job to “reply to constant attacks”, and instead getting involved in the conflict is just that — waging war against Russia.

Joining in on a war that you're not part of is a deliberate and calculated choice in the same manner starting a war is.

What exactly are we even arguing about? I think it's massively irresponsible of NATO to get involved in the war through military aid. Sanctions and humanitarian aid are one thing, but every single NATO member should have been involved in finding a peaceful way out of this conflict since 2010 or before.

If what you're saying is the opposite, that NATO should attack Russia with as much force as possible to "win the war" (that we have no business being part of in the first place), then I'll just call you crazy and move on. Enough brave soldiers have died on both sides, it's time to find a solution that ends the killing, not amplifies it.

Normally, if we show up at the flagpole at noon to confront each other, and you throw a punch, you have escalated things to a fistfight, and then my return punch is not an escalation. If I pull a knife, I have escalated things to a knife fight. We escalate from fist to knife to gun. Reciprocation - self defense - does not count.

The only way to torture the term into contextual use is to suggest that Russia is not firing rockets at NATO because Ukraine is not NATO, but NATO is firing rockets at Russia because all these missile systems are not Ukrainian, but NATO. This is Putin's framing, and it incorporates the idea that the missile systems are actually being manned but US & EU soldiers.

If you are not adopting that frame, "escalation" only really works if you explicitly define the context as a Great Powers proxy war with a potential nuclear endpoint, where Ukraine is stipulated for the sake of argument to have no agency.

My point: I think USSR (and Cuba) had a good reason to install those missiles. It wasn't an unprovoked action.

There is some analogy here for the Ukraine NATO situation.

Arguably, this would even be in Russia's favor, given its manpower advantage. But Ukraine might agree to it to stop civilian terror and power infrastructure attacks.

With all the backlash here, I feel like some kind of radical, but here is a BBC article from 2 DAYS AGO that basically says what I'm saying: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2nrlq1840o

Although they miss out the bit about a media campaign, and so on, of course.

This is the BBC, pretty much the mouthpiece of the UK government.

And although they frame recent actions as trying to give Ukraine an advantage in any Trump negotiations with Russia, the truth is that these missiles will probably not advance Ukraine's military position, but will certainly change Europe and America's standing, possibly to the point of derailing any possibility of negotiation.

No "too"

It is only that.

If Russia retreated behind its internationally recognized borders and returns Crimea today, Ukraine would stop attacking it today.

That tells you everything you need to know about who the aggressor and escalator is in this conflict.

Anything else is a Russian talking point in service to their trying to lose fewer troops while invading a neighboring country.

Oh, sorry, I was under the impression you wanted a discussion.

> edit: oh dear, a few people on HN really do not like this take, without offering any take-down

If you just wanted to complain, but not have anyone challenge your opinions, you should have phrased the above differently.

I took your comment to be a dismissive 'Russia should just retreat' directive.

Ain't gonna happen.

And The problem is, Ukraine really is not just a simple country that got invaded. It really matters, for the whole world, if we let Russia get away with aggression. It matters if we push too hard and in the chaos Russia unleashes nuclear weapons. It matters how the west conducts supposed peace-keeping operations, etc. It's reallt is not just about Ukraine, and the very fact that you (probably not Ukrainian or Russian) are commenting is evidence.

Unfortunately for the world, that's an extremely dangerous propaganda approach to take, because it blurs the actual red lines that Russia would resort to nuclear retaliation. (Of which Russia certainly has some! And possibly even some within Ukraine's military ability to inadvertently cross)

Trusting that "Russia never means what it says" is problematic on so many levels.

Imho, the biggest mistake in the West's approach to the entire war has been its failure to proactively announce military aid changes and the conditions that would trigger them.

It's like the West collectively forgot how to properly create deterrence in the 1960s sense.

F.ex. the West could have publicly announced "If Russia receives military aid from North Korea or Iran, in the form of ammunition or soldiers, then we will provide additional long range strike options to Ukraine and authorize their use against Russian territory."

That might have encouraged Russia to self-limit and not pursue those actions.

Instead, it's been a hamfisted, weak display of waiting for Russia to do something, then hurriedly conferring behind closed doors, then announcing a reaction.

Which... the entire point of deterrence is to cause the opponent not to take the action in the first place. >.<

Yes, exactly. Everything is justified post-hoc. It's almost as if they are deliberately treating Russia like a naughty child. The last thing we want is a tantrum.

> Russia has set out “red lines” before. Some, including providing modern battle tanks and fighter jets to Ukraine, have since been crossed without triggering a direct war between Russia and Nato.

This is the latest of a long list of small, slow, racheting-up responses to unilateral Russian aggression. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukraini...

And no-one has been 'getting anything across to me', inferring that I'm 'not getting it'. They've been throwing incomplete or irrational arguments, like yours, or simply downvoting.

Sure there have been 'red lines' by Russia, and the US has continuously pushed across them.

But this one was also a US 'red line'. Consistent with keeping a proxy-war in-theater.

Why have they crossed it, now?

What do they hope it will achieve?

Most likely very little militarily.

But maybe quite a lot in shaping or constraining future US policy.

For the same reason they crossed all the others - continued Russian aggression.

Each expansion of US aid or reduction in restrictions on how that aid is utilized has followed logically from Russian actions. Obama started with non-lethal aid; we've initially balked at every single step since that before eventually going "ok, now it's warranted".

It's very clear the US is keeping responses small and incremental to take the wind out of Russian bluster about nuclear holocaust if they do this one more little thing to piss Putin off. It's also very clear the Russian "no don't send Javelins/HIMARS/Patriots/Abrams/MiGs/F-16s/ATACMS, we'll be very mad" has lost a lot of its potency.

And, backtracking, how aware have you been about the situation in Ukraine, or baltic sea infrastructure, in the past few months (even year), compared to the last week? Just a marginal increment, no doubt.

I'd first reject the use of the term "red line" entirely for the ATACMS situation.

"No, not ever" is a red line. The Russians love issuing these for other people, but it's embarassing when they're crossed without significant consequence.

"No, not now" is not a red line. The US tends to shy away from issuing them - one of Obama's biggest mistakes was proclaiming one in Syria and then looking a bit feckless when they violated it. (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-president-bli...)

Letting Ukraine hit Russian territory with ATACMS is like the fourth or fifth expansion of how they're permitted to use that weapons system so far, as was giving them ATACMS in the first place after HIMARS (which saw a similar set of gradually reduced limitations; https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/07/08/us-to-send-more-...).

> And, backtracking, how aware have you been about the situation in Ukraine, or baltic sea infrastructure, in the past few months (even year), compared to the last week? Just a marginal increment, no doubt.

I've closely followed the situation in Ukraine since Euromaidan.

No doubt, but the fact is the US told Ukraine they couldn't use ATACMS to target Russia, and now, they can.

And it really is not just another incremental change. Previous red-lines involved what weapons could be deployed within Ukraine, consistent with a 'proxy theater of war'.

This concerns attacks on Russia itself, by Ukraine, but if we're honest, proxy the US, and is qualitatively different.

"I've closely followed the situation in Ukraine since Euromaidan." Then you must recognize that this is not just routine. Unless you're a boiling frog, who also don't pay attention to the news cycle, which is currently full of fearmongering.

It would be silly to claim, that evening, that I violated my own red line by letting them have phone time after dinner.

You continue to mix up “not now” and “not ever”.

They said you may not use phones for social media. At all.

And then changed their mind.

Which says nothing at all about the conflict being "a proxy war".

It exactly states that Biden might be stirring things up in anticipation of Trump sueing for a freeze.

Either way -- according the definition in Wikipedia, it is a proxy because one side is strongly supported by an external power. Sounds reasonable, and I can go with it (on at least a technical basis).

Where people go wrong (not saying you here) is when they accept the term "proxy war" and assume (or insinuate) that it means or supports the idea that Ukraine is simply a puppet state, not really fighting out of its own motivations.

I am not the OP, but I think your interpretation is not as obvious as you make it to be. This often leads to misunderstandings.

AFAIK military analysts use the term escalation as a morally neutral term. Escalation is anything that goes up on the 'scala' (= "ladder", the Latin root of the word). In this interpretation, D-Day would be an e_scala_tion (climbing up the ladder) simply because opening a new front means number_of_fronts_today > number_of_fronts_yesterday. In this interpretation, self-defense and escalation are not mutually exclusive.

Apparently, the term changed meaning. Many people now treat it the way you do (if I understand you correctly) as something associated with aggression. Therefore, they assume that when someone labels something like an escalation, they mean it is an act of aggression, unjustified, something you should not be allowed to do, and not morally neutral.

I am not saying you are wrong. I am just pointing out that when people talk about escalation, it is worth checking whether they mean the same escalation.

The question in this thread is more along the lines of "if the robber shouts 'fighting back is a red line!', should we avoid fighting back?"

The current war in Ukraine is a direct result of the international community not making much fuss when Russia, largely unopposed, took chunks of Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine over the last few decades.

As with appeasing Hitler, we prioritized short-term quiet for longer-term encouragement of aggression.

And was this just a post-hoc justification, or had the western powers declared that they would retaliate if Russia involved other armies?

In any case, surely the 'punishment' should be directed at North Korea?

North Korean troops are helping Russia invade Ukraine (by freeing up Russian garrison troops to participate in their offensive).

Ergo, redress is something that helps Ukraine resist the military advantage North Korean involvement gives Russia -- e.g. being able to target Russian military targets supporting the invasion, in Russia.

The problem is at least as much Russia inviting NK as North Korea positively responding, aiding Ukraine works against all the belligerents aligned against it, NK as well as Russia, and the North Koreans in Russia are not protected by the Armistice the way North Koreans on the Korean peninsula are.

nobody likes to lose a war and the side they cheer for is losing so downvote is the tool available to vent the frustration

Wrong. Using long range missiles is not an escalation. Russia has been using them against Ukrainian lands for years now. Why shouldn't Ukraine be allowed to use them against Russian land?

Russia are at war with Ukraine, so they are bombing them. Ukraine have every right to reply with their own long range weapons too, and that would indeed not be an escalation in the fighting itself.

But, the west clearly prohibited the use of their donated long range weapons in direct attacks on Russia, in order to limit their liability, responsibility, 'participation' or whatever, until now.

Russia have been very clear that such permission would constitute an escalation OF WESTERN 'PARTICIPATION' in the war, and even be tantamount to a direct NATO attack, and so it is at least an escalation.

Whether it is right or wrong is not the point, it is a clear change in the depth of western involvement.

This seems like an arbitrary line [0] drawn exactly where it suits your argument. How does having North Korean soldiers fighting for Russia stay on the right side of that line? What about any components that originated outside of Russia but are employed in Russian weaponry or equipment (for example chips)? The information war is a part of "the war", is an "official" non-Russian hacker or troll crossing the line? Or a non-Russian boat or crew employed for acts of sabotage.

[0] It can be fair to draw an arbitrary line, at least you know it's straight and will intersect whatever is unfortunate to be in its way regardless of the side you prefer. But you're trying to draw tiny arbitrary circles around whatever you don't like and that's feeble.

Ukraine is quite obviously not just a plucky country defending it's sovereignty (though it is that too), but the theater of a great-power proxy war.

The rules of that game are that you keep the conflict within the theater, or risk a world war.

That was already breached by Ukrainian incursions into Russia, armed to some extent with western weapons, but this is much more direct, and a clear escalation of US participation in the conflict.

In what insane alternate Marvel universe is Russia not part of the Russo-Ukrainian War theater?

Since the war started, Russia has moved their red lines dozens of times. The “escalation” argument lost it's meaning.

How did that not work then yet?

Because it's a war.

The Nazis were mopping the floor with Europe until they weren’t. The Japanese were conquering Asia until they weren’t.

Why wouldn't russia use a tactical nuke in west Ukraine to destroy tank factories? They already are a international Pariah, that is why they align with North Korea.

The only answer is - to remain the last standing they have. But at some point, they might not care. It is dangerous to put someone with nukes in a desperate position. Putin would not survive retreating from Ukraine - he would be in a desperate position if the odds of war are against him - currently they ain't.

Because the Biden administration communicated to its regime (in late 2022) that this would definitely trigger a massive kinetic response. In particular it indicated that its ground forces in Ukraine would be utterly destroyed (as Putin knows it is very much capable of doing).

Don't you see, how this can turn out wrong?

But from the fact that the warning was expresed privately, and using carefully chosen language (unlike Putin's warnings, which are generally aimed at the public sphere, and are full of bluster) -- and considering, again, that the US is fully capable of carrying through with its promise in this regard -- it seems likely the message was received as intended.

Could still go wrong, but the likelihood of things going wrong by not promising any sufficiently serious consequences at all to Russia's regime if it actually deploys nukes seems to be (unequivocally) far greater.

I see, you have personally checked the russian nukes and found they are all worthless? Or have access to top secret informations confirming that?

Otherwise it seems a bit out of this world, to claim the country with the most nukes on earth is a paper tiger.

And the russian conventional military is far from a paper tiger as well. That tale comes from the fantasy, that Ukraine is facing russia alone. But the whole NATO is supporting it. Without NATOs weapons and money, Ukraine would have been russian since over 2 years.

But yes, I do have fear. But more from people like you, who look at reality in a way, that fits their ideology.

Just assume for a moment, you are wrong. What would happen as a result, if the people in command would think like you?

> And the russian conventional military is far from a paper tiger as well.

Lol okay.

> Just assume for a moment, you are wrong

How about you assume that you are wrong, and you are volunteering for a world where once a nation acquires a nuclear weapon they are allowed to run roughshod over the entire world, raping whoever they want, torturing whoever they want, and cowards will just line up and beg the victims to allow them to continue? Do you hear yourself?

The alternative here is not sunshine and rainbows. The alternative is an even more vigorous race to nuclear weapons from the most vicious regimes on the planet and more horrific crimes committed and excused under nuclear blackmail.

If Russia launches a nuke, they are the criminals. Not the people who stood up to them and "forced" them to do it. Russia has all the agency in the world. They could turn around and march back to Moscow today. How about you go do your "peacemaking" beggar appeasement routine on VK and tell Russians to tremble in fear of the United States deleting their civilization?

Yes, I can hear myself. And I never said anything like it. And I doubt you can point to where I said or wrote such things. All this thread was about the question if russia would use nukes.

It is telling, that for you just the realisation of this possibility, automatically assumes surrender.

Well, not for me. I am a strong proponent of weapon delivery and training for Ukraine. Despite the chance, that russia might use a tactial nuke. Rumors have it, that at the succesful Ukrainian Cherson offensive 2 years ago - there was serious fear in russian command and increasing pressure of using a small nuke, so much that some western agencies saw the chance at 50%. If the offensive would have moved on towards Krim, then it likely would have happened. And this still did not change - russia (beyond Putin) is very unwilling to give up the Krim. And I can see worse outcomes, than the Krim remaining russian.

Or do you just want the rule of international law and criminals must not be rewarded for aggression? Yeah, I would like that, too. But before demanding total victory over russia for the sake of law at the risk of an allout nuclear war, I see some other chances of improving international law. For example doing something about turkeys conquering. Or Aserbaidschan. Or get the US to abolish the hague invasion act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr.... Or look at some other allies. Etc.

"Russia will not use nukes."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42197260

Would you embark on some argument about how technically they might actually be able to do that?

It is real, that russia made nuclear threats and expresses increasing frustration that their threats get ignored.

It is also real, that many people, also here, say the threats are completely empty.

And I am sceptical about that claim.

No idea how your gasoline river fits in that reality.

  National security adviser Jake Sullivan told NBC News' "Meet the Press" on Sunday that the consequences "would be catastrophic if Russia went down the dark road of nuclear weapons use."

  Secretary of State Antony Blinken used similar language in an interview with CBS News' "60 Minutes."

  "It's very important that Moscow hear from us and know from us that the consequences would be horrific, and we've made that very clear," he said, adding that the U.S. response would be "catastrophic" without elaborating.

A most interesting question is: Would survive Trump?

Russia is getting bombed every day and doesn’t even hold all of its initial territory. It is not clear who will win this.

It is extremely obvious that Russia would be crushed within days by a confrontation with NATO (but this conflict almost certainly wouldn't materialize due to nuclear weapons).

It's interesting the extent to which people haven't internalized this. Russia's industry has really ramped up on military production in the past two years, and their military will eventually get to the point where it can cause tremendous damage against a poorly-equipped Ukraine, through attrition. But the invasion revealed how far behind they are technologically, and a combined NATO force would turn off their entire military's command and control on day one of a real conflict.

It's an inversion of the situation forty or fifty years ago, when Europe had to rely on the the nuclear threat because the Russian conventional forces were considered to be overwhelming.

Ruble is below a single penny.

Interest rates are at 21%, highest since 2003.

Inflation is out of control.

Not really all that rosy.

All of it are merely suffering that the russian citizens suffer, but canwithstand. Russia does not import food, does not need to import fuel, and can import most consumer goods from china and bypass western sanctions.

Therefore, russia's gov't can allocate most of their internal resources for war production.

Also, the discussion was about the effect of the sanctions. But the inflation is going up not because of that, but because of the huge amount of Russian government money that's flowing to the military and to the weapon industry.

I'm not sure how useful that exchange-rate data is when the Russian government has made it harder to for their people to actually trade away rubles even at a price they like. [0]

I'd also expand the time window: The Jan-2022 ruble had already taken geopolitical damage, because of how Russia attacked Ukraine using insignia-less forces in 2014. In contrast, a 2012 ruble was more like $0.30.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/31/russia-capital...

In any case Russia losing its oil refineries one by one is the real deal here.

As a European, I'd say there is just about 0 chance of the EU unilaterally supporting Russian taken any occupied areas to themselves and Ukraine surrendering. Not only would it signal to Russia that they can take European land without consequences, but public opinion is very much against any sort of cessation of defenses. In my ~30 years I've never seen as strong NATO support from the common man in countries like Sweden and Spain as there is today.

https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1454716/umfra...

51% are against further shipments, 38% are in favor of further shipments, 11% are undecided.

In Ukraine, 52% want to negotiate as soon as possible. Interestingly, also 38% want to continue:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/653495/half-ukrainians-quick-ne...

I still stand by my original statement that unilateral decision in EU of stop supporting Ukraine and letting Russia keep the occupied territories.

Support in other European countries does not differ much from Germany:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/21/barely-10-per-...

Yes, it seems to differ in at least one place by a lot: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42193290

I'm sure that's true for other places too.

The linked article is about the opinion of Germans about shipments of German weapons. When you don't specify that in the context of this thread, which is about Europe, not Germany, people might mistakenly interpret that as data about Europe.

I agree, but it's not about accepting or saying it's a good idea, it's about whether European countries can replace the US support enough that Ukraine can reasonably keep defending themselves.

I'm guessing that if US pulls their support, EU will try to add as much to cover up for it as humanly possible, as most compatriots see Ukraine as the frontline of something that can grow much, much bigger which because of remembering history, we'd obviously like to avoid.

The Patriot system is one the of best examples. EU doesn't really have anything in this space, but Ukraine needs more of it yesterday.

Are you talking about SAM capabilities or something else? Because there are plenty of SAMs produced by European countries; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surface-to-air_missile...

This has turned out to be a major problem, as the US has used their re-export restrictions on components to block very significant parts of planned European military aid to Ukraine.

I speculate that there will be (already is) some extremely heavy investments in military tech R&D to remove/reduce dependence on American components going forward. As a continent, we can't have our hands tied like this in future conflicts.

Being a Swede myself, and knowing how apathetic Swedish people are about basically anything, something having that large of support is pretty uncommon and signal a strong will to make NATO and EU defenses stronger, if anything.

Even people I know who been historically anti-"anything military" in the country have quickly turned into "We need to defend our Nordic brothers and sisters against the Russians" which kind of took me by surprise.

> UE is full of Trump supporters

That won't ever happen. Even right-wingers (Europe right, not US right) are laughing at Trump and the Republicans.

Any examples you can point to?

Your economy is nearly 10 times the size of Russia.

If Russia can continue, then you can almost 10 times more easily.

It's not a "can" issue. It's a "are you willing to do more than absolute minimum?" issue.

Alone from that reason, USA will not pull their aid. USA cannot afford losing Europe as an arms client

Unsurprisingly this week after Macron speech, "French" farmers decided to organize again on groups directed by leaders and block and destroy Spanish cargo trucks at the frontier, without any policemen to be found at place.

Is obvious that somebody is trying again the old trick to confront and divide in the EU. We had seen the same before in Poland, etc.

But a trick overused can became counterproductive. I'm sure that Macron and other in EU can sum deux and deux and understand that surrender is not an option anymore. Is not just Ukraine but also their own political survival what is at stake. If they let this agents roam free and grow, they will lose gradually the power.

Applying the same logic, Ukraine should retaliate against Russia for bombing their hospitals with an attack on.. Iranian civilian infrastructure? Did I get that right?

This is entirely straighforward. Nothing that requires any struggle to understand.

As for the core of your question: there is no benefit, it's just his mentality. "The West" supports Ukraine so let's just do some harm, retaliate in some way. Burn some buildings here and there, plants some inflammable materials on airplanes etc. Pointless for you and me, meaningful for that guy.

"So - according to Russian federal port records, the Chinese ship suspected of cutting the communications cables in the Baltic Sea was captained by a Russian citizen (one Stechentsev A.E.). Interestingly Yui Peng 3 was only transferred to its current owner in China earlier this month.

The ship is carrying goods/oil from Ust-Luga in Russia, to Port Said in Egypt. Same captain also comandeered URSUS ARCTOS also carrying goods from Ust-Luga to Egypt. Mapped using @SensusQ . "

What we don't know is if China knew they were going to try this beforehand or not. Flag of Convenience is common enough that we can't be sure. This could have been planned on the high level from China and we would never know - something conspiracy theorists will run with! If China knew they would probably give the crew a sever punishment, but unofficially it is for getting caught and not doing the act. Most likely though China didn't know before hand.

Assuming it bears out that the Russian state is the perpetrator.

NATO's political unity and ability to respond is tested with these attacks. Russia does them one after another gradually escalating. Russia maintains plausible deniability or does so small operations that they can always walk them back.

Eventually, some country invokes Article 4 or 5 consultations. Russia hopes that US, Hungary, or Germany waters down NATO response. The conflict continues, but between individual countries not under NATO. NATOs as a organization may continue, but raison d'être is gone.

You cannot be serious with that kind of belief

If you mean poison as in disinformation, then you'd be wrong there as well. We literally "bombed" Iraq with pamphlets from airplanes encouraging them to rise up against Suddam and we'd be there to support them; we didn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_...

NATO and Europe did quite a lot to normalize relations with Russia. Russia was invited and became participant of the NATO program Partnership For Peace [0].

   The program contains 6 areas of cooperation, which aims to build relationships with partners through military-to-military cooperation on training, exercises, disaster planning and response, science and environmental issues, professionalization, policy planning, and relations with civilian government

  - Population will demand political influence.
  
  - Mindset. A criminal thinks in terms of I win, you lose. Might makes right. Complete opposite of what makes up the dna of the free world. 

Notice how on our part, helped via tech oligarchs, there is an incessant bombardment to undermine support for those values. Kremlin troll factories are a thing, but the Chinese are speading up rapidly in the information sphere too. Especially youngsters are targeted.

The war has already begun, but we don´t want to see it. And that is dangerous.

___

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership_for_Peace

You may also want to be careful (or not):

- all countries engage in these things

- how things are seem like how they seem, but this is very often not the case...and rather than consciousness raising warnings for such situations, it very often does the opposite

As always, I recommend a meta-perspective on geopolitical stories, it is much more fun than being a Normative, poorly constrained imagination actor like the vast majority of people.

And thus the disinformation campaign has succeeded, as you've turned off your brain and refused to address the threat.

Geopolitical affairs are indeed difficult to follow. It requires deep internal domain(s!) knowledge, which does not fit your average corporate media business model. The niche outlets that do have a capable editorial board are threatened by takeovers [1, 2] from the likes of Axel Springer [3]. 1 Billion USD for Politico. An idiotic sum for a buyer that small, Wikipedia might pique your interest [3]. That is not to say that Politico is useless now, but you can count on journalistic degradation over time.

But sweeping statements are not of help to get a sharper picture. Instead they risk promoting false equivalence and may turn participants(!) of democracies into passive nihilists. Which is precisely the aim of the foreign influence we are talking about.

___

1. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/06/axel-springer-politico-...

2. https://countercurrents.org/2021/09/a-right-wing-german-news...

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Springer_SE#Criticism

And if you do now: do you wonder if this is 100% coincidence, or oversight? How often do you hear the idea even discussed, as compared to, say, how often we hear about "misinformation", and the need for more "critical thinking"?

I am glad this situation has a substantial humorous aspect to it, otherwise I'd probably get stressed out about it.

The post you're responding to, already predicted and addressed this claim:

> Bothsidisms and False Equivalency are some of the common tools in muddying the information sphere.

Does it? The post in question observed 2 things:

1. Russia invests a lot in disinformation campaigns and spreading (conflicting, but that is part of their doctrine) narratives.

2. Bothsidisms and False Equivalency are some of the common tools in muddying the information sphere.

Is your point of contention with the truthfulness of either of these observations, or with their proximity to each other?

One might think skill in logic would prevent such things, but I'd expect most of the HN crowd is well above average in logic, yet few can't avoid having their cognition controlled by these sorts of simple memes.

  The point is to invalidate whatever criticism is being made of the imperium

To craft such a take you don't even have to lie, you can take a (half) truth and meme your way to hide what should not be discussed.

This just works and is far more effective than fighter jets pro ruble spend.

The worrying things in the US should certainly be discussed, this is rather an understated point. In other comments I mentioned the war on terror for instance.

For that, you are not served by simplistic sound bytes.

I am glad that I find the mess you people have made of the world funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

It takes one hour to listen. Take notes and verify the facts afterwards. No disinformation there, much less Russian.

Just one rebuttal, but there are many more to be found on the internet.

https://euideas.eui.eu/2022/07/11/john-mearsheimers-lecture-...

Can you cite anything that he has actually said that even resembles this?

Sound the fire alarm over a birthday cake candle several times a week, and people learn the alarm means there's no fire, no need to rush, they've got time to finish that e-mail and grab their coat.

Once you see them as gangsters, it's not difficult to see why they would do this.

*A full link with exact timestamp of Kotkin saying this is [1]. Here he talks about why Merkel kept making oil deals with Putin even though in hindsight this was probably not the best idea. Kotkin argues that, yes, according to econ 101 trade is good for both parties, but not when the opposite party is a gangster. Merkel thought that Putin was thinking like her, but he wasn't.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/live/jJSDdCPpbto?t=4410

Russia is literally run buy thugs who ran protection rackets not so long ago. So there's much more to this than just a fitting figure of speech. Someone from the worst parts of LA would be better equipped to understand and deal with such people than those who spent their teens and early adulthood playing Model UN at a foreign relations club.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Sobchak

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Zolotov

The international order is often called the 'US-led rules-based interntional order'. Russia, China, and some others dislike the first element, of course. The second element refers to the legal, rules-based structure (rather than power-based anarchy, which led to the centuries or millennia of war before the 'order' was created post-WWII). Aggressive international warfare is outlawed, for example; if France and Germany have a dispute, there is no question of violence - they use a legal structure to resolve it, which wasn't always true!

Grey zone activities accomplish illegal things without reprocussions. And therefore they also serve the goal of undermining the international order by demonstrating its powerlessness in these situations. In some ways, it's like trolling.

Russia uses grey zone tactics heavily - for example, they used them to capture Crimea (which was before the clear act of war, their 2022 invasion). They use them to run destabilizing 'grey zone' campaigns throughout the world, including directly interfering in elections. The tactics suit Russia in particular because they cannot compete miltarily with the democratic world.

China uses them too, for example using their 'coast guard' and 'civilian' 'fishing boats' to attack (up to a point) and intimidate ships from other countries in the South China Sea. If China used their navy, it would possibly be acts of war. A Chinese coast guard ship shooting water cannon at a fishing boat, though illegal in international waters, isn't going to start a war. 'Civilian' 'fishing' boats from China blockading access to a reef won't either.

Edit:

Before you look at Russia and China and other Grey Zone actors as miscreants, understand that it's just the normal behavior of 'revisionist' powers - those who want to change the current rules. The current rules serve the interests of the 'status quo' powers, who get all self-righteous about 'illegal' activities.

In a more common situation on HN, think of IP outsiders, who break the 'rules' made by major IP holders, such as DMCA or those extending copyright for decades or restricting access to scientific knowledge - the IP holders want the status quo and call violations 'theft' and the outsiders 'criminals', etc. If the US wasn't a status quo power, they'd be doing grey zone things.

(That doesn't at all justify Russia and China's goals of stealing land, oppressing people's freedoms, and solving problems through violence.)

There's the actual international law (and the UN) and there's the US-led rules-based international order (ie, what the US wants basically). They're completely at odds - often times the US (and Israel or a couple of other minor countries) vote against or simply flout whatever the rest of the UN wants.

The US is king of Grey zone actions. Random drone strikes, funding insurgency and terror groups, invading countries without international approval, blockading Cuba, etc. - the list is very long.

So when the US complains about Russia doing similar things (often responding to provocation by the US or NATO), the complaints can easily be filed in the "hypocrisy bin".

https://towardfreedom.org/story/archives/americas/the-u-s-ma...

Those are the same 'order', the same thing. The UN and international law are unquestionable, essential parts of the international order.

> often times the US (and Israel or a couple of other minor countries) vote against or simply flout whatever the rest of the UN wants.

Agreed, as I discussed in the GP: the US and its partners often violate those rules and let themselves off the hook, as status quo powers tend to do. It doesn't excuse it at all, but that's not inconsistent with the rules-based order.

Also, with a veto on UN Security Council decisions, if the US votes against something then it's not law.

So when russia complains about the US doing similar things (often responding to provocation by russia), the complaints can easily be filed in the "hypocrisy bin".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...

You have to look deeper into what kind of government has a problem with an international rule-based order. It is not the democratic countries with trias politica that have a problem with that, but autocratic regimes.

How are you going to ethnically cleanse Uyghurs in a rule based order, or run international crime networks at the level of statehood?

The question is: how are you going to integrate criminal and very powerful clangs in a world that is past the French Revolution? We tried, we failed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership_for_Peace

Answer is: you can't, unless the common people take ownership over their own countries. Very difficult.

The democratic countries follow the pattern of status quo powers. Is that because they are democratic or because they are status quo, or some of both?

The rules are of the status quo powers (matching their political cultures), by the status quo powers, for the status quo powers. Of course they follow those rules and support them. The rules seem to require a country to be a democracy to be legitimate - I agree with that as necessary to legitimacy (not sufficient), but obviously that doesn't suit non-democratic countries.

And like status quo powers, when they break the rules - most prominently the US many times, such as the Iraq war; the EU treatment of refugees and undocumented immigrants; and currently by Israel with US sponsorship - then they let themselves off the hook. They engineer technicalities, such as the weak UN resolution arguably authorizing the Iraq invasion; or just look the other way. They say they can't be handcuffed etc. (And some of those actions may be the right choice - I'm not judging - but they certainly violate the rules.)

That might seem so, and all individuals have some degree of hypocrisy at times, the more a body of multiple countries. Without rules this devolves into warring tribes and fiefdoms, a lesson the societies in the west had learned themselves.

Everyone is invited to be critical and keep your representatives in check. When the people speak loud and clear about what they accept and what not, representatives will have to listen.

  If you have rights, use it or lose it. 

You mentioned the US making transgressions. That they get this room internally is certainly a problem of society and the state of ethics. Let´s not devolve in relativism, it will make things worse!

At the same time, there is some of the same status-quo-power corruption going on.

Good point. If we do not halt the corrupting forces we will loose out on the above.

I went into more detail here about hypocrisy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42203997

With the far right on the rise, the rules will disappear, because their ideology is "might makes right". That is the mindset of a maffia boss. War and conflict will follow, those who are not powerful enough get trampled.

I also assume you don´t want to know what a non rule based international order will look like. Things are depressing, but can get worse than where we are now.

Society needs to get their act together, but also desperately needs a healthy debate. Corporate media effectively block that, they rather sell the Politeia as entertainment. Still, the onus is on the people.

But also, cutting these cables doesn't stop communications. There are other land and undersea routes, and maybe terrestrial radio/satellite routes as well. You might damage these cables so that communications travel other routes which are more observable (or less observable). Or you might damage these cables so you can modify them elsewhere to enhance observability before they're repaired (or as part of the repair process).

Or it could be a training mission for your elite squad of cable biting sharks.

Lots of potential for intrigue here.

(i.e. the European countries might be more wary about boarding a Chinese ship compared to a Russian ship, because escalating against China is scarier...).

It's not dissimilar to the way criminal gangs will ensure that they have dirt on anyone joining or intentionally implicate others in order to ensure compliance.

Doesn't mean its current Russian captain is serving Chinese interests, of course, but at least it seems to be Chinese owned.

Of course Putin knows this hence him somewhat taking the p.

Similar to both Russia and China gaining from war and disruption in the Middle East.

There are many possibilities here.

On average, it seems like undersea internet cables break 200+ times per year. For example, Vietnam's internet cables break on average 10 times per year.

What would be the motivation for a Chinese trade ship to deliberately cut an internet cable? It has next to no impact on internet communication and only serves to annoy a small amount of people for a short period of time. In addition, China and Europe are trying to have a better relationship in general so it doesn't make sense for the Chinese government to order this.

Money. Russia is reportedly bribing people into doing sabotage in western nations.

There's also reports that Yi Peng 3 is captained by a Russian national, which would also be another reason for a Chinese trade ship to conduct sabotage operations beneficial to Russia.

The most charitable reason is that they don't give a fluck. Same reason why their rocket boosters just fall wherever they fall, population center or not

Edit: https://x.com/Tendar/status/1859147985424196010

> The skipper of the Chinese ship is a Russian national and the route leads from Ust-Luga (Russia) to Port Said (Egypt).

I think we need a total ships sailing for country / cuts.

[0] https://www.csce.gov/briefings/russias-genocide-in-ukraine/

Absolutely no way this wasn't intentional.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/03/16/23/68797949-11868975...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Pipe

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-explos...

The US destroyed the Nordstream pipeline for certain and Sy Hersh has the evidence.

It is more than probable that this incident indicates possible collusion between the Chinese and Russian governments to sabotage European interests. The simplest fix is for Sweden and Denmark to ban Chinese and Russian ships from their territorial waters until they deliver accountable assurances that this sort of behavior will not happen again. Until then, they must be stopped and European countries must play hardball because that's the only language these criminals understand.

>he worked for a decade to get built

that is sweet of you. I just imagine Putin himself welding under water. Not the billions dollars steal by his childhood buddies what typically such Russian megaprojects are.

https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the...

Snopes only offers FUD but not a single contradiction or refutation of any of Sy Hersh's reporting or claims other than it boils down to "it relies on a single source". Sometimes, in secret operations, that's the reality. There exist genuine anonymous sources who cannot be revealed themselves. Part of the principle of benefit-of-the-doubt is trusting that Sy Hersh isn't merely looking for a quick payday to sellout his journalistic integrity for a few dollars and that he isn't an easily-fooled novice when it comes to doing due-diligence on sources and facts. It's mostly a disrespectful hit-piece lacking in evidence. With all likelihood, like the identity of Deep Throat, the truth will come out once the source retires and write a book about it.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/02/10/hersh-nord-stream-sab...

(Could it be true? Maybe. IDK. No dog in that particular fight. But if you, as an anonymous source, go to Sy Hersh, you're an idiot or don't want large numbers of people to believe what you're saying. Occam's razor suggests the former)

Hersh's (good) works were truly monumental. I'm not aware of anything that Maté has brought to the table that would be even remotely comparable. And unlike Hersh (who for many years enjoyed a reputation seemingly beyond reproach), Maté seems to have started shooting himself in the foot pretty soon after he became widely known.

What a farcical depiction of the world. There is more to Russia than Putin's opposition to the west.

definitely. That "more" is the backwater Grand Duchy of Moscow how it was before Peter The Great.

Secondly, education is not a "european" value, as much as the west would like to claim it.

Russia Georgia Energy Crisis (2006)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_...

Turkmenistan (2009)

https://www.rferl.org/a/Pipeline_Explosion_Stokes_Tensions_B...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

You will even see Kessler cited as some sort of barrier to leaving, which is nonsense.

Imagine there's a 1x1m spot where on average once per week, entirely at random and without warning a giant boulder falls from the sky and if you're there you will be crushed under the boulder. Clearly living on that spot is a terrible idea, you'd die. But merely running through it is basically fine, there's a tiny chance the boulder hits you by coincidentally arriving as you do, but we live with risks that big all the time. If you're an American commuter for example that's the sort of risk you shrug off.

Likewise, Kessler isn't a barrier to leaving, humans won't be leaving because there's nowhere to go. The only habitable planet is this one, and we're already here.

Edit: I guess I was assuming geostationary. There's a whole sphere of geosynchronous orbits to play with.

Edit2: I was right the first time, GEO (geosynchronous equatoral orbit) / GSO (geosynchronous orbit), apparently. Now my head hurts.

"cramped" the way that like, Alaska is cramped on account of how everybody has to live on the surface, not evenly distributed through the volume of the planet?

Like yeah, it's "just a circle" but did you check the radius of that circle?

Remember if there's debris, the debris isn't stuck in the circle, but, any time it's not in the circle it's harmless. This has the effect of significantly defusing the problem, so in total it's too low risk to be worth considering.

The most likely explanation for the unexplained disassembly is that Boeing made it. Second, most likely, is a collision with a hunk of something invisible.

Also, your focus on cost was not the point. The point was numbers necessary. You need $lots of bullets, but you don't need any where near the same number of jets/tanks. You don't need $lots of satellites. You need a much smaller number closer to the number of jets/tanks. At least based on Starlink constellation numbers.

That of course assumes that Putin stops at Ukraine. The point is that this isn't our war.

After the dust settles on the Ukraine war, if Putin still has the capacity to wage war, he will not likely stop with Ukraine. It is by now obvious that a limited incursion into Poland, for example, will not spark a global thermonuclear war.

Ukrainian suffering is both the litmus test and the vaccination against nuclear escalation that Putin needs to contemplate further expansion.

Political alignments aside, if I were based in Europe I would be very, very concerned.

Ukraine is a corrupt third world country competing in the same league with Botswana and Zambia.

False.

Ukraine not only has everything to do with Europe -- it is unequivocally European in culture, language, historical involvement and (to the extent that Russia is also considered to be unequivocally European) geography.

It isn't something one can even have an opinion about. Any more than one can have an "opinion" about India being a part of Asia.

Ukraine's GDP is close to 10x that of Botswana, and in the last year has grown 10 percent over that of 2022.

To make your discussions easier and less embarrassing in the future, assume that 100 % of the time when someone speaks of GDP, they're speaking of GDP at purchasing power parity per capita.

And you can assume that 100 % of the time when someone speaks of the size of their gas tank, they're really talking about MPG while in cruise mode.

But given the wildly untenable opinion statement of yours that this now long-flagged thread started off with -- and the obvious irrelevance of any economic performance measures to the Russo-Ukraine conflict -- we see that the entire thread has been utterly silly, from the get-go.

" Think about comparing two families: the Smiths have 5 people and earn $100,000 per year, while Jones is just a couple earning $70,000. If you only looked at total household income, you'd think the Smiths were doing better. But when you realize the Smiths have to split that money five ways ($20,000 per person) while the Joneses get $35,000 each, the picture changes completely.

That's exactly what happens when we compare countries by total GDP. China's total GDP might dwarf Denmark's, but China has to spread that wealth across 1.4 billion people, while Denmark only needs to support 6 million. It's like comparing a pizza between a huge family reunion and a dinner date - the total amount of pizza matters less than how many slices each person gets.

This is why economists prefer to use GDP per capita - it's like looking at how much pizza each person at the table gets, rather than just admiring the size of the whole pie. "

I presented some hard to digest (for some) facts in my opening comment here. You'll only need to read European, Ukrainian, and Russian history for 30 minutes to know that. Of course you wouldn't, you're just a parrot repeating propaganda. You have no interest in the truth.

She is on a wartime footing, with her very existence as a country once again in jeopardy at the hands of a much more powerful, longtime aggressor.

Realigning political positions in a way that keeps them firmly aligned with the martial interests of the state is expected and required. For better or for worse, Ukraines civil government is, for now, primarily a military organization as the country and its people are fighting for their lives.

This is the one specific case where it is reasonable, just, and needed to require loyalty, focus, and vigor within an otherwise democratic system. There is a reason why martial law grants the president extraordinary powers. If Ukraine survives, she will have to sort out the return to normal democratic rule, but for now the government is at war.

Russia is clearly attempting to annex a neighboring country through military adventurism, and is doing so in contravention with all international law, and also in a way that is intentionally cruel and borderline genocidal.

Russia has lost all legitimacy as a nation worthy of being taken seriously as a global citizen, and has reduced itself to a kleptocratic mad-dog rouge state.

After all I mentioned that corruption has gotten better and you responded with a cookie cutter response about authoritarianism, which is not necessarily the same as corruption.

You've basically eaten Russian talking points and regurgitated them wholesale without even stopping to critically think about context.

While the EU may not be at war with Russia, Russia is already at war with the EU.

The purpose of this is to unite enough of the domestic population to suppress dissent and keep the current regime in power.

The reality is that it is actually at war with only one small neighbor, which is going so badly that they have had to import troops from North Korea. Embarrassing.

If they actually engaged in war with the EU, more specifically a member of NATO, they would lose quickly. So they stay well back from that line.

We might be able to stop it before it becomes a hot war, but the ambition is there, the indicators are there, the opportunity is there. Assume it's a war. (Unless you're German. I guess our national sport is now making excuses for Russia)

It makes it pretty real when 7 year old me is wondering if this one has any nukes on board, and if this will be the day that they drop.

Russia is not to be trusted, imho. They do not honor their international commitments in good faith, and they will expand their territorial claims if they are allowed to do so. Europe, like a frog in a pot, is in peril and they need to take steps to make sure that Russian war fighting capabilities are destroyed through exhaustion in Ukraine.

This of course is tragic for Ukraine, because it means that she will be utterly razed in the process. But if Russia prevails or backs down with strength, it will happen again. And again.

Russias ability to project force in a strategic way must be destroyed. They are not trustworthy stewards of coercive force.

Having fighters scramble from Eilison was not unusual at all, and when hunting out in that area with my father we saw a few of those. It was pretty distinct from the training and combat training they did, so it wasn’t that hard to distinguish the intentionality and risk tolerance that was reserved for that kind of urgency.

Anecdotally, I’m pretty darn sure that I saw a bear flying overhead just a few miles east-southeast of Fairbanks. I watched it be turned by 3 F4 phantoms. I was with my father and a few of his friends, as well as my brother that would have been 13 at the time. Everyone there remembers the event, and it was talked about for days in Fairbanks, we even had a subsequent training the next week in my elementary school on survival in the event of a nuclear attack lol.

Perhaps it was some kind of clandestine fuckery, perhaps it was an authorized flight, or perhaps it would have been to embarrassing / inflammatory to make it an event of record? I’m sure the answers are quietly sitting somewhere in a musty filing box.

I for one am in favor of giving Wagenknecht a list of must haves for a ceasefire and peace treaty, which obviously will contain giving back all territory to Ukraine, costly reparation for many years to come, and denazification in Russia. With that list we send her to Russia to negotiate. She is only allowed to return, when the points on that list are achieved. She will be the negotiator, the change she will be the change she wants to see. (If it is not obvious to someone, this is rather a joke, since she cannot be trusted to have meaningful negotiations with her idol.)

Satellites can serve multiple purposes including communications, navigation, overhead imagery, signals intelligence, weather, etc. They are also vulnerable, but it's possible to launch replacements faster than repairing damaged cables.

Who is now threatening nuclear war?

Imagine the US engaging in an invasion of Mexico as equally stupid and unprovoked as Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Then not only would Mexico have a perfect right to seek whatever help it needed to resist the aggression directed at it, we would -- unless we were damned fools -- fully expect Mexico to seek and obtain that help.

I'd like to see your version of maritime law that doesn't allow freely roaming over important cables. Your country's enemies would gladly drop cables totally encircling you and say "uh uh uh, important cables!" if you tried to leave your perimeter

I realize US politics may suggest otherwise but I can't imagine the military is just gonna stand by and entertain such a farce..

and try to plot a path between them without crossing an undersea cable:

https://www.submarinecablemap.com/

Yes, I know the undersea cables are privately owned too.

But that's an awfully gray area after the last few months

This happend a very, very long time ago. Destroing things years after the fact is not logical and is not longer a defensive response. Using this as justification is just trying to escalate.

> its reasonable to expect shortened lifetimes for undersea cables and sattelites

Why is this reasonable? It seems like a pointless attack that achieves little other than reminding the world that horrible, oppessive governments are dangerous to everyone. Oppression is incredibly expensive for humanity, and only benefits the few that are the oppressors.

It happened on 26. September 2022. That is not a long time ago.

> It seems like a pointless attack that achieves little other than reminding the world that horrible, oppessive governments are dangerous to everyone

It sends a message, as sabotaging communications is frequently done before an attack. Also it damages morale and is a show of power.

Yes. Saltellites.

But it's not really in the same category as casually cutting internet lines to your peacetime competitors out of pique or whatever.

Between this and the coyness of most European countries governments at the time to comment on investigation, it's not too far fetch to think that Ukraine might be involved.

A coup from disaffected underlings unhappy with the status of the Ukraine war is hardly a weird theory. He's fought off one already!

Russian involvement is a bit far fetched to me. It severely limited their ability to export at a good price when gaz sell is how they finance the war in the first place, and removed their main pressure point on Europe therefore making the war considerably harder to win.

A third party would be more likely (there is a long list: could be the USA, a European country which wants the block to align strongly with the USA, or another power benefiting).

Who did benefit most from the north stream sabotage?

At the end of the day -- nobody of course, as the whole idea that the sabotage could bring any significant strategic benefit (even in terms of the "psychological" front) was pretty much braindead from the start. Meanwhile all it seems to have brought to the table was added instability, more paranoid thinking all around (in addition to the quite substantial methane release).

But it's definitely easy to see why (at least some of) the Ukrainians thought their side could gain something from of it; or they may not have been thinking in terms of any specific strategic advantage, but rather simply spite.

Either way -- the decision was made, and the job was done.

I believe they are only wondering about details now and trying to hear the guys.

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-explos...

https://www.intelligenceonline.com/government-intelligence/2...

https://www.france24.com/fr/europe/20240814-sabotage-de-nord...