The last boat used for this stunt was Chinese, this one is registered in the Cook Islands. This is already happening.
There is no way out of the Baltic Sea without crossing the territorial sea of either Sweden or Denmark. Countries have full jurisdiction in those, cutting cables on purpose is at least a criminal act, if not terrorism. There's no problem handling this, even if you're fully playing by the books.
Russia would then need to switch to ships running only to Kaliningrad, which makes it even more obvious that it's an act of war.
> There is no way out of the Baltic Sea without crossing the territorial sea of either Sweden or Denmark. Countries have full jurisdiction in those [...]
I don't think it's as clear cut. Transit passage through straits is governed by special provisions in the UNCLOS; with a few exceptions, states can't just board vessels.
What could further complicate matters here is if infrastructure of states A and B is damaged, but a vessel leaves the sea through a strait bordering states C and D.
That's obviously only the theory, and it's unfortunately not like there is broad international consensus on matters of territoriality at sea at this point.
I don't think there are many penalties for breaking the international law. Clearly, in the environment where Europe's adversaries are flagrantly breaking it on the daily basis, keeping to it meticulously would be foolish and dangerous.
Just like pacifism, abiding by the international law in this case will only serve to embolden the totalitarian regimes, which neither desire peace, nor obey the law.
I think if you wanted to bring up meaningful words, those were not the best examples to give. In the recent years, somewhere amongst the endless nuclear threat screeching and the ignored ICC arrest warrants, they have lost a lot of meaning. The declaration of war is a pretty good example of that, actually, being an outdated and withered concept.
I'm simply pointing out that words do not matter as much, willingness to do something, to respond, to defend yourself, that's what matters. I'm not ignoring the value of laws, and rules, and regulations, but they clearly are not an ironclad defense. Just like Article 5 isn't.
Every nation uses novel words every time, to avoid parallels. In fact ambassadors have to research every historical speech when a president wants to coin a new term. It’s not rare we hear “He said […], a term not used since [last scuffle between countries]”, journalists do notice.
US has Guantanamo and they don’t call them prisoners of wars (PoW). Russia has special military operations. Australia doesn’t keep their illegal immigrants in detention centers but in “administrative residences”.
So declarations of war are very much not outdated, insofar as everyone _avoids_ those terms.
> declarations of war are very much not outdated, insofar as everyone _avoids_ those terms
One, sure, declarations of war aren’t academically outdated. By that measure neither are colonialism or chattel slavery, which are also avoided in modern speechwriting.
Two, we absolutely say we’re going to war with each other. We just don’t formally declare it. Declarations of war are obsolete, I’d be hard pressed to find anyone serious in government or international relations who claims otherwise.
> UNCLOS is ultimately just words, just like the Geneva convention, a formal declaration of war, a country's nuclear doctrine
UNCLOS is being ignored by China. The Geneva Conventions have been ignored by every current, former and emerging superpower, as well as several regional powers--again, without consequence. Nobody declares war. And Putin has been amending his nuclear doctrine by the hour, often with false starts.
Would I prefer these were law? Absolutely. Must I blind myself to the fact that they aren't? No.
> ways of responding to some UNCLOS violations while continuing to adhere to it
Sure. It's still, ultimately, a unilateraly rewriting of the terms. Something states can do in international law that individuals can't in a nation with the rule of law.
> because some states are violating it doesn't mean that we should throw the entire thing overboard entirely
Nobody is suggesting that. My point is we should be more open to such rewritings given they're commonly taking place. It doesn't make sense for Europe to treat UNCLOS as binding law when Russia, China and hell America treat is as nice-to-have guidelines.
International agreements were treated as law in the post-WWII era. That era ended some time after the fall of the Soviet Union. Slowly. Then suddenly.
They're now closer to LOIs. Some countries are realising this quickly. Others more slowly.
Trust is hard to earn and very easy to lose. The appropriate answer to somebody violating hard-won international laws and norms isn't to just also start violating them.
Laws are for participants who willingly obey them. If they don't they automatically shouldn't be covered by them. There might be separate subset of laws on how to treat them but they cannot be treated the same as conforming entities.
You have freedom but if you do a crime your right to freedom is void. Now you have right to get punished.
Not sure what to call a rule that immediately stops applying to any involved party as soon as one violates it, but "law" isn't a word that comes to mind.
Our usual understanding of law has an enforcement mechanism of the nation on individuals, not voluntary agreements sovereign nations enforce on each other.
Well then, maybe Russia is within its rights to punch some of these strawmen so that their heads fall off?
Unilaterally claiming more territorial waters and boarding ships is cool and all. Having a Russian Navy destroyer follow one of these ships and greet the boarding party would also be kinda cool.
> What about if Russia switch to just using Chinese boats as a proxy?
Beijing has no interest in this. If anything, it has an interest in becoming one of Russia’s sole buyers.
> you have to have a rule that says we can board any ship we feel like and that's super problematic
Why? China is literally doing this right now outside its territorial waters. It’s fine. America would too, if foreign trawlers started cutting its lines. Again, if one person is playing by restrictions everyone else has already abandoned, it’s not difficult to conclude who’s the sucker at the table.
It's highly unsociable to ignore international law and agreements just because they're not convenient.
Classic American view point. Win at all costs, ignore the rules yourself but use another countries lack of adherence as an excuse to invade/bomb them.
You really think this is how we get a peaceful and civilised world order? You think this builds trust? Moral leadership? Long term reputation? Relationships?
Ridiculous. Sorry to be controversial but breaking international law should be avoided at almost any cost.
I guess one man's "sucker at the table" is another man's "gentleman who plays by the rules, and can be trusted"
> unsociable to ignore international law and agreements just because they're not convenient
My entire point is this is already the status quo. Nobody—other than Europe—is following the post-WWII rules anymore. There is a new set of conventions being de facto agreed to, and they will be set by the players actually at the table.
Any punishment that involves breaking the same law to administer isn't the correct one. It infers no superiority and just kicks off the race to the bottom.
I’m sure Putin would love it if the west continued to turn the other cheek.
No, if your point is reasonable, it still doesn’t apply when dealing with a psychopath. Who TF cares about moral superiority in the face of an existential threat?
If moral superiority is so important, let Putin lead with it.
in peacetime. It's looking like right now isn't peacetime. When a country is breaking every peacetime rule to conquer its neighbors and not-even-neighbors, the rules saying you can't, become super problematic as they'll be weaponized like everything else.
I started with PHP... 4.3... 20 years ago. And that was just the beginning. Java is for peacenicks.
Alas, I still don't have a single tank to my name, so it's not me that will be doing the shooting. Or even deciding to shoot.
At 45 years I already lived too long and seen too much. I don't mind universe giving me its best shot at mythical thermonuclear war. I fully expect it to be pathetic.
It's an act of war, and invading neighbouring countries is certainly an act of war. Nobody said all acts of war are identical, stop shadow boxing against invented positions nobody holds.
I wasn't aware that it has been confirmed that the Ukrainian government is behind the nord stream pipeline sabotage. Do you have any reputable sources?
Regardless, "country A sabotaged infrastructure owned by country B" doesn't automatically mean "countries A and B are at war", it's not that simple. But when acts of war happen repeatedly between countries in an area, it's a sign that the area isn't exactly in a time of peace.
While I fully agree with your point, and I absolutely _despise_ what Russia is doing, it's pretty well agreed by this point that it was Ukraine that sabotaged Nord Stream.
There was a pretty detailed breakdown by a dutch newspaper that even identified the Ukrainian commandos that did it. And they even have an arrest warrant on the name of one of the suspects.
And let's be honest here, Ukraine benefits the most from that sabotage.
But from a realpolitik point of view, Russia must somehow be slapped for these sabotage acts.
We tried that. This is the 3rd incident in a couple of months. We should just let Russia sever all the cables and pipelines in the Baltic? I’m guessing you don’t live here
I’m not really sure what you’re getting at. Breaking what law exactly? Finland is certainly within rights to capture a vessel that is actively destroying its infrastructure and has an open criminal investigation against it
There is an ENORMOUS gap between "Please don't..." and WWIII Nuke war.
And adhering to "Please don't..." is rightly seen by bullies and authoritarians of all stripes as "I won, I got away with it, I have permission to make even bigger offenses."
The law is the law only if it is backed up with enforcement. Only most of the people play by the rules. Those who don't will rapidly take everything if the law has no teeth. And the teeth must come into play rapidly and reliably when the "Please dont'..." fails to work.
International Law is not a law like city, county, state, national laws. There's no court and enforcement agency that can just enforce it. It's a set of agreements between countries. Enforcement (if any) is done by countries based on the goals of those countries. There's no sense of honor here. Yes breaking international law to punish others breaking international law happens, and is sometimes the only reasonable action to take.
It's the prisoner's dilemma. It's better to cooperate, but if the other party defects, your best option is to also defect (which serves as a motivator to renew the cooperation).
The point in having the International Agreements is indeed to honor it.
But only as long and as fully as is possible in the real world
When bad actors deliberately refuse to live within the agreements, e.g., Putin, who has broken nearly EVERY agreement he signed, there are only two choices. Push back with force, or surrender.
At the end of the day, the agreements work to prevent war, but only so long as everyone agrees to be bound by them. When one party unilaterally decides to break out and try to take territory and rule by deception and force, if we fail to respond, the agreements all become moot; the facts on the ground will be that the one who broke the agreements owns and rules everything.
It's brutal, but the agreements exist only as long as everyone follows them.
Moreover there is an entire body of international law and established practice of proportional response. No, these are NOT necessarily "breaking international law".
Start with sanctions. Impound the ships, study the spy equipment, and sell them for scrap. Prosecute the ship operators (then trade them for our political prisoners they hold).
If that doesn't stop it, take proportional and escalating retaliatory measures. Perhaps start with cyber-attacks. Move to kinetic as necessary.
These are just rough outlines; experts in the area can make more refined suggestions.
Vladimir Lenin famously and concisely described the operational algorithm of every petty bully and global dictator:
— “You probe with bayonets: if you find mush, you push.
If you find steel, you withdraw”
Just observe how Putin operates and it will within become instantly obvious that this is exactly how he operates. Obama took no significant forceful opposition when Putin invaded Crimea, and when Assad w/Russia's backing used chemical weapons in Syria. So Putin invaded Donbas, propped up Assad (until he no longer could), then attempted to obliterate the very idea of Ukraine. In contrast, Finland and Sweden joined NATO despite Putin's threats of nuclear war, and Putin then removed troops from near the Finnish border. Putin has threatened nuclear response to "red lines" in Ukraine and EU at least 45 times in in the past three years, and backed down every single time. There are decades of examples.
Attacking other countries' critical infrastructure is an act that could legitimately trigger a NATO Article 5 kinetic response.
Putin is pushing the edges to do as much damage as possible until he gets a response. Diplomacy means nothing; he has and will break every agreement whenever he sees it convenient. The ONLY response he will understand is force.
That does not mean "you touch a chip on my shoulder and we'll nuke you", it means attacking our (collective) infrastructure, committing open murder on our soil, attacking other countries, etc., etc., etc. will see a prompt forceful response that is somewhat proportional and imposes greater costs on Putin.
THAT is the only thing that will stop dictators like Putin and Xi.
It's a lovely theory but in practice you have to have a rule that says we can board any ship we feel like and that's super problematic.