No, a shared resource worth billions and an avenue for trade and repaired relations between the EU and Russia being sabotaged and false flagged by another country has the onus on that country.
I never understand how people bought the propaganda on this. Why would anybody think Russia would blow up a pipeline that they spent years and billions of dollars building? It requires completely rejecting all logic. And then Western countries completely stonewalling calls for an independent international investigation at the UN - why would we do that?
I also very much doubt it was the Ukrainians in by themselves - as blowing up heavily reinforced pipes 80m under the water is a rather extreme task, but at least they would have had a reasonable motive. Russia was fueling the German economy, and Ukraine would have had a viable concern about Germany prioritizing their own economy over Ukraine. OTOH it seems somewhat obvious at this point that Russia would not have threatened to turn off the gas, so it was a terrible miscalculation by whoever did it.
> I never understand how people bought the propaganda on this. Why would anybody think Russia would blow up a pipeline that they spent years and billions of dollars building? It requires completely rejecting all logic.
Wouldn't be the first time Russia to make a bold move that blows up in their face... 3-day special operation and all.
There was already no gas flowing through either pipeline at the time and with European gas reserves having been kept at an artificially low level, this could've put a lot of pressure on Germany to certify and permit gas flows through the remaining undamaged NS2 pipeline if it hadn't been a mild winter.
This could've been a massive strategic political win for Russia.
Why would there be a need for independent international investigation when both Sweden and Denmark had active investigations? It was within Swedish and Danish waters so who else has a legal claim to that investigation?
Countries directly impacted, like most of europe? They don't have a legal claim but when it's so strategic, counties get involved in other's business. Think the US international actions, but for an attach that happen on it's own continent.
The only country with a claim of being directly impacted is Germany and they also has their own investigation. Sweden and Denmark also share military intelligence with the rest of NATO, which include most of Europe.
But you are not answering the question. What need is there for an independent international investigation that has not already been served by the investigations done by Sweden and Denmark?
> I also very much doubt it was the Ukrainians in by themselves - as blowing up heavily reinforced pipes 80m under the water is a rather extreme task, but at least they would have had a reasonable motive.
I agree with the first part of your comment, but it baffles me that people keep claiming "Sending some divers from a small yacht plant a bomb underwater" would beyond the capabilities of the Ukrainian special forces.
Putin had already stopped supplying gas through the pipelines, blowing them up did not change anything for him. But it absolutely did change the moves that would be available to any post-Putin government in Moscow. Blowing up the pipelines instantly de-funded any upcoming revolution. Add a "plausible culpability" mock attack by Ukrainians who likely actually believed that their handlers were on the Ukrainian side and not Russia to foster division in the west and you have a clear "why wouldn't Russia do it?" situation.
Every single ship in/out of St Petersburg goes via the Gulf of Finland. All those ships will be "Russian" (have stopped in Russia). It doesn't mean they're "Russian". Owner, charterer, flag, crew can all have very different nationalities.
Which part or combination makes them "Russian", in the sense of "the Russian state asked asked the ship to harm Finnish infrastructure, and they actually did it"?
You can lazily speculate about the aggressive, warmaking nation (that illegally annexed Crimea, is currently at war with Ukraine, is regularly sending submarines, ships, drones, jets into the territories of its neighbours) all you like... but if you want to be able to prosecute them, you need to be able to show evidence of the Russian state ordering this action, and that the cable damage was actually caused by that ship. Where is your evidence?
The crew on these ships are usually all Russians, the ship is often registered in Cayman, Panama or somewhere else. These ships often sail under a third nationality, but when the ships are seized, only complaints are filed from Russian lawyers. Take from that what you will.
The crew of the ship? Do they even know what the captain is doing? Does the captain even know, or are they just following instructions (which still seems culpable if you are the officer in charge).
The court of public opinion is a really shitty court to apply to potentially criminal damage that occurred well outside the area of interest and knowledge for 99.99% of said public. The standards are shit, the outcomes are shit (bad idea when the ramifications are huge).
If you don't declare war, you don't get those emergency powers. You only get peacetime powers.
Russia loves to go right up to the line, and then cross it a little bit, just to antagonise you. But unless you're willing to be the instigator of WW3, you'll stick to peacetime powers and peacetime courts with peacetime standards of evidence
Because they're an authoritarian shithole with a strongman leader who openly murders dissenters, personally controls all branches of government, controls the military and has people arrested just for holding up blank sheets of paper. He can pretend the country is not at war when it clearly is, and suffer no consequence, because nobody can replace him or even censure him without the country completely collapsing. When he eventually dies, the ensuing power vacuum will make the entire country a basket case. It's a dead country walking.
Do you want to make your country such a nightmare country, so you can also cheat like they do?
No, I want my country to have democratic rule of law on the inside (including when dealing with normal criminals of any kind, including murderers).
But when dealing with an outside state-level aggressor, I want my country to be be a cunning, hypocritical, powerful strongman.
The distinction under what mode a certain event should be treated should be pretty straightforward and can be determined using democratic means, e.g. a normal judge ruling "I rule this cable cutting incident to be an act of state-sponsored aggression against our democracy" (which would allow the alphabet agencies, special ops etc to "do their thing" with no repercussions whatsoever.)
for example:
1) a murder happens between a husband and wife, two normies, after lengthy, normal court proceedings the proof who did it is not 100% conclusive, accused person goes free
2) a murder of an anti-russian political dissident happens, a russian ex speznas officer is caught in relation to the event -> he "disappears" one day and the case is closed
I believe this is the only way to "win" this cold war.
People in other places don't have rights, and lives, and deserve freedom? If they don't, you don't. If they can be ruled out, so can you. Freedom and rights only exist if they are fundamentally universal.
The list is very long - fair trials are universal in the democratic world.
You'd better start advocating for freedom and democracy rather than using cynicism. If you don't, who will? Democracy is you; nobody is going to fix what you destroy.
Cynicism is a tool for peacetime, a way of keeping things honest (maybe not the most effective way, but it has an effect). But when there is serious threat - when your platoon is facing the enemy - cynicism is a failure of duty to your team.
I agree with the sentiment, but what stops the government designating annoying people or companies as russian (also see "foreign agent" and "matter of national security")?
Also, am I on the hook because my wife's great-grandfather was russian?
Because my idea is that it wouldn't be the government designating them, but judges. Just like a judge already today has the power to lock you up for life, but only after a lenghty rule of law process.
But the trouble is judges are human, and if the boss of your boss who could shut down your court and turf you out is loudly proclaiming "will nobody rid me of this troublesome Russian"... what lawful ruling will the judge find to appease their master?
The other thing that sprang to mind was the US interning their own citizens in camps. Would you be in favour of internment camps across Europe for all citizens with any Russian heritage, preemptively locking them up in case they might provide succor to The Enemy?
You are making an argument against any kind of rule of law in general. If somebody powerful can say to a judge "will you please sentence this competitor of mine to life in prison" and he complies, that's the same problem. But judges in Western countries are very rarely that corrupt, and thus rule of law functions.
No declarations of War has been needed for decades, internationally you only get disadvantages from doing that. Russia hasn't declared war to Ukraine, neither has Ukraine to Russia, so what.
