That works for me, too.
Eh, it just means they aren’t likely to be openly attacked. Instead of mysteriously exploded by unknown forces.
I think these days it’s called a “rapid unscheduled disassembly”. It happens all the time and we’re assured that it’s fine.
How is that done? Is it necessary? I reckon all he’s (Putin has) said about its snooping fiber cables and hovering over them is that the ship is “scientific”, yet critical in “defense and security”.
Exactly what Jacques Cousteau never said about the Calypso.
Putin has said the British are being belligerent. The British have been extremely tolerant of this trespassing vessel. I dunno what exactly the chain of command is here, yet it certainly doesn’t involve a consult with the brain trust at the White House.
Current status of this science/defense/security vessel is: Not invited. GTFO.
Why would anyone do that? It would make almost no difference to how likely Russia are to start a war over it. And it would completely negate the whole reason for doing blowing it up, namely to show both Russia and their own constituents that they are are being tough, and not taking it anymore.
They’d do it to stop Russia from being able to continue. And it would reduce the chance of a war by leaving Russia have to guess who was responsible. And also because Russia responds to a refusal to strike back with escalating aggression.
“How likely Russia is to start a war over it” is 100%. Because they already have. The question is not whether Russia has started a war; the question is how we in the West respond to that.
Why would it stop them ? They have other ships and other minisubs.
What possible benefit would there be to doing it surreptitiously? The ship could hit an iceberg and Russia would treat it like Stamer personally launched the torpedo.
They are not currently at war with NATO. They have carried out some very provocative aggressive actions. NATO could treat those as acts of war, but they aren’t going to IMO, unless Russia seriously escalates things.
Whatever they do, there is absolutely no advantage to surreptitiously attacking the ship over openly doing so.
From the BBC on the 19th: How serious is the Russian spy ship move?
When three Russian fighter jets entered Estonian skies without permission in September, Italy, Finland and Sweden scrambled jets under Nato’s mission to bolster its eastern flank.
This is all interesting intel for Russia.
Italy is interesting intel to me. The absence of the USA is not at all a surprise to me. Putin would have had to make a call to the WH to straighten things out in that case.
Doesn’t matter who “starts” it, yet an attack on the ambiguous Yantar could be seen as an Act of War, or if it plays another GPS jamming/Laser lighting trick and the UK sinks it, the UK started it and do not look West for help from the USA.
The only NATO that might be counted on is in Europe. And Putin cannot take on Europe. Not unless Trump supplies him with money and materiel (not out of the question).
My take is these are classic “War Games”. Who is in, who is out. Italy might be in, the USA is out.
Submarines are the big question. Yet even Norway has some of the same Poseidon 737s Britain has. Europe can destroy Russia.
Then keep sinking them. They are rapidly decaying as a nation and have little ability to replace losses. Also, force is all that they respect, sinking their ships is about all that would convince them to stop.
The title of this thread was inspired by, either the saying/mandate or the movie "Sink the Bismarck!, a big fat German battleship to be sure, yet one that sank the York and was pursued and sunk.
I don’t know how much meddling with ships is allowed if they stay in international waters. Yet to gain the kind of intel that Yantar needs, you’ve got to have at the very least accurate coordinates, even if you’re not planting some kind of Putin-controlled sabotage bomb at that time.
It’s a good plan - a diabolical plan even - by Putin to be able to shut off the internet for days, unless he is paid “One Million Dollars”. Yet his plan is obvious, and he ought to quit it. The Yantar isn’t the Lusitania and isn’t going to start a war, even if the UK says they know nothing except there be Giant Squid in the waters of that part of Scotland.
Russia cannot afford a war with Europe, and Europe can’t afford the price of natural gas and petrol doubling.
If spanking the Yantar out of sight of Scotland or sinking it if they want to play more games causes an “incident,” let it happen. It already is. “We’re not gonna take it” applies not only here but to the hegemony of Russia, however things turn out. Fuck them, fight them if you have to, but put them in their place.
Umm, I believe you meant to say it sank the Hood.
Sinking the Yantar could certainly trigger a wider war. Right now, sinking it is almost certainly not worth the trouble doing so could bring. Boarding and it and capturing it if it entered the UK’s territorial waters would be more reasonable, and I’m not sure the UK would even go that far. Better to go to war when you choose to instead of when you are provoked, after all.
I did, and it was relentlessly pursued (probably as much IRL as the movie) and was eight months of Gernan engineering sunk. And it wasn’t till the Falkands War (complete with the French Exocet anti-ship missile) when Navies came to the conclusion battleships weren’t so great anymore.
If I were the British I’d prefer an intact Yantar (certainly not a Bismarck), though maybe the Russian sailors will successfully scuttle it and win a free ride (I believe it’s still through Turkey) back to Mat Rossiya.
Hate to say it, yet Trump demanding Eastern NATO pay more just might be a good thing. Meanwhile, Trump needs a horse and a ride up some Greenland Hill and declare victory like his hero Theodore Roosevelt. Or not. I believe he’s afraid of animals and probably hills he can’t 3-wood over. ETA: And doesn’t know who Theodore Roosevelt was.
That’s a naval war. Where NATO is trying to sink all the Russian ships and Russia is trying to sink all the NATO ships.
Without the US it’s one that would probably favor Russia (if it doesn’t they have a shed load more nukes than everyone except the US). Remember for almost 40 years it’s been assumed that the days of conventional great power naval conflicts was a thing of the past, and so the UK and other NATO members have been reducing their naval budgets to that effect.
So yeah the UK could use this as a reason to start a shooting war, wars have definitely been started for a lot less. But it’s very unlikely they will however.
Blow the fucking thing up in a way where no one nation is obviously responsible and tell Russia to suck it the fuck up, just like we’re supposed to when they rip up our cables “by accident”.
The shit Russia does on a daily basis is “how wars start”, when anyone but Russia is the one doing it. Putin just thinks that if he waves his big nuclear dick enough, we’ll let him get away with it.
Well, we’re letting him get away with a full fledged invasion of Ukraine, so why wouldn’t he think that? He’s clearly right.
What possible advantage in doing that? If the whole point if is to get Russia to stop doing this, why wouldn’t you openly blow it up with your most impressive weapon and the most dramatic way possible.
The basic calculus is the NATO (and Russia) is working on here, is what can we do to get the other side to do what we want, without triggering an actual shooting war with the other (nuclear armed) side, all while keeping allies and your own people in side.
Blowing it up surreptitiously only takes away from one side of the equation (as we can’t come out and say “here is our line in the sand that if you cross again we’ll keep on blowing up your ships”) while not adding anything to the other (as it will be obvious to everyone, from the most brainwashed daily mall reader to Putin himself, that NATO was responsible for blowing it up).
And it doesn’t help keep allies and your own people on side either. Surreptitiously blowing ships is not a power move, it has unsymmetrical warfare vibes, great powers openly project their power using the military might.
The same advantage that Russia gains from covertly destroying our communication lines? Why are they messing around with drunken cargo ship captains instead of doing it in “the most dramatic way possible”?
We can do exactly that through back channels.
Great powers do both, depending on the circumstance.
Because they aren’t trying to send a message or convince anyone to do anything. They are trying to materially effect the economy of NATO (and possibly lay the ground work for cyber warfare in the event of an actual war), without triggering a actual war. It is absolutely them working from position of weakness.
What!?! What possible advantage would there be in covertly blowing up a Russian ship and then telling them we blew it up! It makes no sense at all