When they don’t want to be blamed for the actions in question. Which is not the case here. If NATO were to attack this ship it would be a warning for Russia to stop doing these things. It would be completely self defeating to keep their actions secret, they would want to be blamed. If everyone was like “oh how unfortunate a Russian ship accidentally blew up” it would make the whole thing pointless from NATO’s point of view.
Of course Putin is sending a message. That message is, “I can do anything I want, and the West is too weak and cowardly to stop me”.
By cutting a few wires? Yeah, right. The material effect to the West’s economy is negligible. The attacks, and the hamfisted way they are handled where it is OBVIOUS that Russia is intentionally acting maliciously, is the point and the means of communication. If Russia wanted to be subtle about this, there are ways they could do so. They aren’t choosing to attack us in subtle ways, because they want us to know that we are under attack.
Even more reason to take action first rather than letting them prepare as much as they like and then letting them choose the time and place at which hostilities truly begin.
Well, yeah - they are weak and rotten. That’s exactly my point.
If you blow it up publically, it’s an act of war.
If you blow it up in a way that’s plausibly deniable, it sends Putin a message: we aren’t going to let you push the envelope. You push, we push back. And most importantly, it sends the message that we have (and are willing to use) ways of pushing back that fall short of full put war.
Putin thinks that he can play this game where he pushed the boundary on what is acceptable and we don’t act because we are more scared of war with Russia than he is. But that’s stupid. Putin should be far more scared of us than we are of him, because as you correctly note, he is weak.
If we do not declare war but take out his spy ship, he has two choices. The same choices we currently have when he fucks around in the Atlantic. Publically call us out and go to war, which he won’t do because that would destroy the world and the world is where Putin keeps his stuff; or back the fuck down.
I think if the ship was mysteriously destroyed, and Putin didn’t know who did it, it would drive him nuts. He’s already as paranoid as an ex-KGB guy who rules a massive country with an authoritarian fist would be.
Whether or not an extra-crazed Putin would be better or worse for the world is debatable.
There is no such thing as plausible deniability when it comes to blowing up an opponents naval vessel in these circumstances. These two options are identical acts of war, it’s just one would be considered underhand terrorism.
An exactly how many nations have access to submarines capable of undectably sinking a Russian naval vessel in the north Atlantic? And how many of them are not allied with NATO?
Why would that be a requirement?
Because that is what it would take for this not to be an act of war. Whether it was the Suffren or the Victorious or the Scirè that launched the torpedo would make absolutely no difference. It would an act of war, no different to if it was announced via an official press release.
What you are either missing or intentionally ignoring is that PUTIN’S CURRENT BEHAVIOR IS ALREADY AN ACT OF WAR; we are just choosing to pretend that it isn’t so we don’t have to make an uncomfortable decision. That’s idiotic. We should put PUTIN in the position of being forced to make an uncomfortable decision. So if we respond in kind, with what should be an act of war if it wasn’t for the thinnest veneer of plausible deniability, then it puts Putin in the shoes the West is in now: he can respond by openly declaring war, or he can fuck off with his tail between his legs.
Since Putin doesn’t want the world destroyed since it’s where he keeps his stuff, he’ll fuck off like a whipped dog as soon as the world stops bending over backwards for him.
As annoying as they are, shining lasers at aircraft and messing with GPS signals are not considered Acts of War—low-intensity conflict at best.
There is no official definition of “an act of war”. It’s up to the leaders of the UK, etc. to decide that. If they decide that Putin’s actions do constitute an act of war (which wouldn’t be ridiculous, plenty of wars have been started over stuff like this), and that it’s in their strategic interests*, then they will start a war. That would probably start with a ultimatum like “withdraw the Yantar to port by the end of the month, or we will sink her” and then end with an overwhelming show of force to convince the captain of the Yantar (and his bosses) that they are serious and they should surrender.
What they will absolutely not do as it would do nothing to help their cause is secretly blow it up.
‘*’ - which it probably isn’t. Without the US on board they would probably lose the naval confrontation that would result.
I suspect that the Yantar is actually smuggling drugs from Venezuela to
the USA via the North Atlantic.
Nahh everyone involved is way too white for that 
I reckon the “Disappeared due to giant squid” idea won’t fly, as this boat is likely pinging the Mother Ship (Moscow/Krondstadt/wherever) every minute or so.
The UK has said “We’re watching you” and “Quit it” several times. If they’re in UK territorial waters and keep trawling along the coast of Scotland, Maritime Law gives them the right to board the boat. It doesn’t give them the right to blow it to smithereens, like what’s happening to Venezuelan boats. “You’ve been warned” -vs- “War Crime”.
My assumption with the Yantar would be that the Mother Ship would say, “Scuttle the boat,” and the sailors would be questioned, claim to be harmlessly studying fish, and sent back to Moscow via Turkey.
If I had to wager on it, it’d be they GTFO and hit the Baltic. The boat is too hot and probably pretty expensive to replace.
Though this (indirectly) brings up another reason why the UK is not triggering a war over this. Everyone knows trump is not getting the US involved in a war with Russia, whatever the NATO treaty says. But to actually demonstrate that fact would be crossing a line. Right now the US is on paper committed to defend its NATO allies from attack. To trigger a war over something that was not a blatant invasion of a NATO member and show everyone Trump has no intention of supporting US allies would be a huge win for Putin. It would also give Trump an “out”, why should American mothers send their sons to die because the brits didn’t like the ruskis bothering their cables?
Attacking undersea communication cables and gas pipelines absolutely are acts of war.
I think you’re absolutely right.
DONALD! DIDJA HEAR THAT? THE YANTAR IS A NARCOTERRORIST SHIP INBOUND TO THE GULF OF AMERICA! DO SOMETHING!
Maybe Trump doesn’t know that? Maybe we can tell him Yantar is spelled with a J and convince him it’s a name in Spanish?
Even that’s more of a maybe - depends on how it was done and who/how much it hurt.
When pen lasers became cheap and popular, most people caught lighting up cockpits didn’t even think they were doing anything wrong. Just having a bit of fun. In the “on-the-spot fine loving UK” you might need to pony up some cash and maybe so in the USA yet unlikely to spend any significant time in jail.
Ramp up to clearly fucking with GPS on target boats and as I said earlier, the US Coast Guard and the like in the UK will take quite a dim view of a repeat offender and you’ve gone way beyond harmless mischief.
That’s the line where this becomes more than “teasing” the UK and - if you’re lucky your boat gets seized and if not, blown to smithereens.
Everyone knows who messed with the gas pipelines, and the three-letter-orgs likely have proof of it. Chalk it up to the likes of a fraternity prank and move on.
I’m not saying these acts aren’t highly illegal and shouldn’t have repercussions - I’m just saying they are not (and should not) be considered Acts of War. I think that’s an unwarranted level of escalation. There’s a lot of things that can (an should) be done before you get into an outright shooting war with another country.