Yeah, time to start applying sanctions. Can we get some strong Admiralty Lawyers around here to help us figure out who has the authority and what the remedies may be.
Perhaps mandatory pilotage through certain waters, or enhanced observation of traffic. An issue, though, ends up in the Russian and Chinese PR machine, that would state harassment or undue burden placed on their traffic.
I didn't think of that, but that is valid. Why Biden withheld the higher lever arms for years - squandering Ukrainian fighters lifes has me asking. Why the hell do Americans continue to elect lawyers into political office. Lawyers are risk adverse and tend to look for the easy a win-win scenario. That is what we Americans sent to negotiate with the Soviets during the Cold War for the SALT and START treaty agreements. The problem was that while the US favored sending attorneys to negotiate, the Soviets sent most all hardcore strategists. We Americans got our *ss handed to us each and every time.
The best example is we limited launchers, while the Soviets accepted this. Unfortunately, the Soviet launch vehicles for their ICBM's could carry many times the payloads. Right after one of the major arms controls agreements was signed, the Soviets became producing MIRV technologies, and their missiles could carry many times more nuclear weapon payloads into orbit. Washington DC always been behind Moscow's advantageous curve, specific to strategic nuclear weapons.
There are about 200 nations, and the jaw-jaw is in large part reserved for the United Nations. I don't disagree that it is important to talk. Talking allows one to determine and gauge if the other parties are rational or more importantly irrational. Yet, when a few of those nations governed by irrational men, they tend to do their own war-war even going it alone. When this happens, it impacts major alliances operating rationally. So the question becomes does the irrational actor better understand those like themselves, irrational or those rational?
A cargo ship is NOT a ship controlled by the military. Few rational people would ever go to war, over the loss of civilian assets. In this case, a lost ship that was intentionally sunk or run a ground (as I advocate) is a commercial loss, thus nothing more than an insurance claim for its owner.
I’ve done a little reading since this discussion began. The topic is the Denmark Straits. As I suspected, they are not international waters. They are Danish territorial waters. Have been for a long time.
As the result of a few unfortunate naval battles with the Royal Navy and finally the war with Prussia over its German speaking breakaway duchys of Schleswig Holstein, Denmark was forced to allow foreign merchant vessels to pass through the Straits without paying the tolls which theretofore it had charged for many years. These concessions were made the subject of a treaty called the Copenhagen Convention of 1857. A convention is something parties agree to observe. And very much like the later Montreaux Convention dealing with the Bosporus, the Copenhaven Convention established between the parties that for purposes of navigation by commercial vessels, would be treated AS IF the Denmark Straits were international waters. I have not read the treaty but I will wager that Denmark, a kingdom, did not surrender sovereignty over the Straits, which practically pass through Copenhaven, to any other nation or power, as this would have been tantamount to a surrender, and the Prussian Danish War ended with a settlement. What this means is that foreign vessels have a “Right of Innocent Passage” through the Straits. That has never meant, I am willing to bet, that the country in question surrenders all rights to police such territorial waters, for if so, what would be the relevance and importance of the adjective “innocent” ?
I submit to you that Denmark can police the Denmark Straits if it so chooses, and in accordance with the terms of this treaty bar from passage through them any vessel, commercial or otherwise, found to be engaging in or on a mission to engage in malicious mischief or any other unlawful activity towards it or any of its treaty partners, or any other party making use of the Straits, or to be engaged in any form of hostilities or for that purpose. Such a reading would align Denmarks rights with those of Türkiye with respect to the Bosporus.
And what applies to merchant vessels in this context can be read to apply to shipping lines, and ship owners, charters, and national flag vessels.
I therefore submit to you that this should not happen again. And if it does, it is because Denmark will have once again bowed to the will of a foreign adversary. The Danes can require ships to post bonds. They can seize them. They can force them to take on pilots. They can revoke their privileges. And if it comes to it, they can bar the ships of any nation from using the Straits.
The only question is whether they are up to it. As of yet, it would seem they are not. They let the Yi Ping 3 go. But events seem to be moving in this direction. Ever so slowly.
Yes and that is a wrinkle. Perhaps that is why the Yi Ping 3 was released. But as I mention, I believe Danish police powers can reasonably be exercised against any ship suspected of intent to use the Straits for criminal or hostile purposes. Given reasonable cause, Danish maritime authorities should be able to require shipowners and charterers to post bonds before entering (or leaving the Baltic).
Of course Russia would not allow any of its vessels or owners to do this. China would too most likely. And then there would be war if Denmark pressed the point and Putin wished to challenge it. Then again, he does not need an excuse if he wants one, and at present the Russian Navy does not stand in a very good position vis a vis the Straits. Never has.
My understanding from Twitter news is that this time, the Finns were ready, and SOF forces dropped on the ship while it still had the anchor lowered, more or less catching them with the pants down. If this is true, then hat off to the Finns.
To summarize that in english the Finnish officials had an idea of possible suspect very early and the ship was intercepted by Coast Guard OPV Turva. It was then escorted to Finnish territorial waters where the Police and the Coast Guard boarded the suspect vessel. The tanker in case, Eagle S, is now achored off Porkkala. You can find It from MarineTrafick
I don't think there is any doubt but that the Yi Ping 3 deliberately dragged its anchor breaking the two communications lines in question. An embarrassing amount of evidence has been disclosed to the public. So the question is, why did the Danes allow the ship to go on its way ?
.Read NATO for Danes. This was not a law enforcement decision. .This was not a Danish Navy decision, nor even Defense Ministry. Ditto Sweden and Lithuania. This was a decision made by politicians at the highest levels of government in several NATO countries in consultation with one another.
The act was like most recent, flagrant. It was meant to be discovered, indeed watched, and to thus convey a message. A "what are you going to do about it" provocation.
So why did they let the ship go ? Because of Danish shopping interests and those of NATO countries generally. Because it was the understood that Chinese leadership was challenging Sweden and or Denmark -the NATO alliance to seize s Chinese flagged vessel in supposedly "international waters".
Why ? Obviously so that the PLAN will have an excuse to stop any ship in the SCS. NATO is not prepared for that. So the Danes got the message and bowed to intimidation.
This brings us one step closer to war in the North Atlantic and South Pacific simultaneously
I think the overthrow, was to ensure that during the coming war with China, the Russians would have been neutered. This best high command and its troops are dead, their best equipment is either destroyed or rarely used, NATO is on high alert and ramping up to replace their old stores given to Ukraine, their Navy is in hiding, their top aircraft have been shown to fail with engaged by western weapon systems, their satellite network's, the Nordic undersea pipelines are no more, they have lost their bases in Syria, and the Russian economy is in shambles. Moscow will be little to know use once Washington DC and its alliance engages Beijing. Means the assets designed to fight two concurrent wars, can be redirected into the West Philippine Sea.
Yes, for good reason. Truman was the worst leader ever. He was a dolt.
He missed a colossal opportunity to take out both the Soviets with Patton, and Chinese with MacArthur. Had Truman not dropped the ball, both of those nations today would be speaking English today and the latch on nuclear weapons would have stayed with the British, French, and USA.
The Chinese are suspected in this article, but I read the Russian shadow fleet tanker Turbo Voyage was to blame as damage was reported to 3 additional cables too. Also, the Shadow "S", one of about 600 off books tankers moving oil for Russia was seized, and ti was found it was missing its anchor.
No, this could be totally done by a pair of rich guys and their girlfriends (in the boat). It's at the kind of depth that recreational rebreather divers go to all the time. You need to find it, then you need to place a cutting charge on it. Like a diamond or a heavy duty FSLC. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0479244.pdf
So you need to be able to source explosives (easy for a government, certainly not impossible for someone wealthy) and you need a side-scanning sonar to find the pipeline and you need some basic skills in working at depth.
And then you need to STFU.
The fact that they cut the same pipeline twice and left one uncut suggests to me they were not US/UK military.
And a few oil companies and multiple commercial diving companies. Plenty of experienced divers out there, of various nationalities. The deepest SCUBA dive with compressed air was 512 ft., deeper than that pipeline. As the saying goes, "It ain't rocket science", although these days even rocket science isn't "Rocket Science".
Other than the majority half being the Soviets I doubt many Finns would have considered it a problem free relationship by any remote stretch of the imagination..
Why do I get the feeling we the American people are about to get another Gulf of Tonkin and Iraq has WMD excuses for staring a war? And of course Hunter’s laptop is Russian disinformation or so said 51 intel officers.
If we didn't have a fall of Saigon '75, carving up Yugoslavia, the Arab Spring, Libya, Syria and 2 decades of the GWOT and Afghanistan where the pull out produced a fragrance of a Saigon 2.0 ... then perhaps some "wag the dog" stunt might fly. But I suspect those days are gone and the credibility of the national security industrial complex has taken a few hits lately.
Finland and the rest wanted in NATO? NATO is at war as is Europe, Canada and above all the USA with Russia. Not just as Proxies but participants and puppet master of Ukraine.
This is nothing, except a hint that there’s more to war than virtue signaling.
The next few months will be interesting. If Trump does try and put an end to the war where does this leave the EU and NATO? And who wants to bet this sabotage doesn't stop?
Is Trump concerned with the preservation of the original territorial integrity of Uk? Rather doubtful I suspect. Is he engaging in a chin-tugging exercise as to the root cause(s) for the conflict? I serious doubt that as well. Does he see risks of escalation and the equivalent of $ billions flowing to a region where the battle lines are largely staked to the same ground after 3 years of conflict? Yeah I'm going with a most definitely on that one.
Then there is multi-decadal lopsided U.S. role in NATO and NATO members content to pay lip service to their defense obligations. So yeah I'm going to go with Trump settling things and not being terribly concerned about pearl-clutching by EU elites & Neo-Con dipsticks here in the U.S. plus his likely his last nerve as regards NATO's lip service to their own national security outlays. And as for sabotage continuing? Should there be any expectation of it stopping since it doesn't appear to come with a "price tag" the participants are unwilling to play?
On first glance I was wondering what year we would pick for the "original territorial integrity of [the United Kingdom]" and why President Trump would be overly concerned with restoring it.
We can have extended and lively "discussions" about the "original territorial integrity" of just about every square foot of the Earth's surface. Take California, for example (please). Heard of Aztlan?
Unless you're an adherent to the Chicano/La Raza idea of myth making, Aztlan is simply the areas around present day Mexico City; attempting to include California & SW US into the Aztec empire is simply historical revisionism. Besides the large Navajo/Hopi/Zuni regions around the four-corners, and pockets around Puget Sound/Inland Passage , there were very few concentrations of natives around present Western US borders.
In security studies, we used to study the main security pillars of economics (includes energy security), politics, military, social, and cultural. Now its got additional pillars for cyber. Yet, over the years I have grown tired of cultural side of security. There are some benefits to others cultures, but as a whole the Western, or Occidental cultures are usually far superior. Specific to Chicano, or Mexican and Latin cultures, they are for those born and citizens of Mexico or Latin America. It's a known fact, well documented the Aztec had been a cannibalistic empire up until being conquered by the European conquistadores. Absent the enchilada, burrito or taco, Americans have nearly zero need for their lazy ways. Lazy in that they want to come, too flock into the USA for their own needs, they bring little to nothing to the US citizen. Instead they should be taught about the Continental Army, General George Washington, his wife, and those who took up arms to throw the King and his Queens Redcoat Army into the sea.
Am from California (Southern) and was station in Northern California for a few years. Being of Caucasian hereditary, I had never heard of Aztlan until you made mention of it.
Quote: "original territorial integrity of [the United Kingdom]"
Well, that's a tough one, albeit a bit foreign to me. For those ancients, back to the antiquities up until my grandfathers, father, and brother they in large part no longer matter - as they are long ago deceased. For them, nothing much matters anyone, as I am here and make all decisions. If the United Kingdom wants to return to its "Colonial Holdings" I submit they re-tool their armed forces and start retaking them, one-by-one. The ripest yield the best returns.
I was thinking more of the birth of "England" as an entity, somewhat imagined through Bernard Cornwell's excellent and entertaining Saxon Chronical novels, and expanded to include Wales, Scotland, and Ireland over the centuries.
I think the war will continue. NATO cannot abandoned Ukraine to be taken my Moscow. Possibly Trump makes his same old demands that NATO members pick up more of the tab, but he will be told that he must keep his eyes on China, and tow the line in Europe.
The regions north of Crimea, the Sea of Azov and the western Donetsk region remain under Ru control and that hasn't changed much in the last 2 years. If there is any cleaving of Uk, it will be isolated to these regions. And as for Trump being "told" what to do and where? Now that would be a pay-per-view event worth watching.
Happy Boxing Day
Yeah, time to start applying sanctions. Can we get some strong Admiralty Lawyers around here to help us figure out who has the authority and what the remedies may be.
Perhaps mandatory pilotage through certain waters, or enhanced observation of traffic. An issue, though, ends up in the Russian and Chinese PR machine, that would state harassment or undue burden placed on their traffic.
Why not seize the tankers, take all the petroleum and cargo, then sink the ship or run it aground inside Russian territories?
Because there needs to be options that won't immediately start a war.
Jaw-jaw is preferable to war-war.
If your adversary sees all you have is jaw-jaw, war-war is more likely.
I didn't think of that, but that is valid. Why Biden withheld the higher lever arms for years - squandering Ukrainian fighters lifes has me asking. Why the hell do Americans continue to elect lawyers into political office. Lawyers are risk adverse and tend to look for the easy a win-win scenario. That is what we Americans sent to negotiate with the Soviets during the Cold War for the SALT and START treaty agreements. The problem was that while the US favored sending attorneys to negotiate, the Soviets sent most all hardcore strategists. We Americans got our *ss handed to us each and every time.
The best example is we limited launchers, while the Soviets accepted this. Unfortunately, the Soviet launch vehicles for their ICBM's could carry many times the payloads. Right after one of the major arms controls agreements was signed, the Soviets became producing MIRV technologies, and their missiles could carry many times more nuclear weapon payloads into orbit. Washington DC always been behind Moscow's advantageous curve, specific to strategic nuclear weapons.
There are about 200 nations, and the jaw-jaw is in large part reserved for the United Nations. I don't disagree that it is important to talk. Talking allows one to determine and gauge if the other parties are rational or more importantly irrational. Yet, when a few of those nations governed by irrational men, they tend to do their own war-war even going it alone. When this happens, it impacts major alliances operating rationally. So the question becomes does the irrational actor better understand those like themselves, irrational or those rational?
A cargo ship is NOT a ship controlled by the military. Few rational people would ever go to war, over the loss of civilian assets. In this case, a lost ship that was intentionally sunk or run a ground (as I advocate) is a commercial loss, thus nothing more than an insurance claim for its owner.
" Germany sank ten US merchant ships from February 3, 1917, through April 4, 1917,"
The US declared war on Germany April 7, 1917.
British interference with US merchant shipping was also a cause for the US declaring war on GB in 1812.
Then there is my favorite, the "War of Jenkins' Ear", 139-1748, GB vs. Spain.
The world is markedly devoid of rational people.
I’ve done a little reading since this discussion began. The topic is the Denmark Straits. As I suspected, they are not international waters. They are Danish territorial waters. Have been for a long time.
As the result of a few unfortunate naval battles with the Royal Navy and finally the war with Prussia over its German speaking breakaway duchys of Schleswig Holstein, Denmark was forced to allow foreign merchant vessels to pass through the Straits without paying the tolls which theretofore it had charged for many years. These concessions were made the subject of a treaty called the Copenhagen Convention of 1857. A convention is something parties agree to observe. And very much like the later Montreaux Convention dealing with the Bosporus, the Copenhaven Convention established between the parties that for purposes of navigation by commercial vessels, would be treated AS IF the Denmark Straits were international waters. I have not read the treaty but I will wager that Denmark, a kingdom, did not surrender sovereignty over the Straits, which practically pass through Copenhaven, to any other nation or power, as this would have been tantamount to a surrender, and the Prussian Danish War ended with a settlement. What this means is that foreign vessels have a “Right of Innocent Passage” through the Straits. That has never meant, I am willing to bet, that the country in question surrenders all rights to police such territorial waters, for if so, what would be the relevance and importance of the adjective “innocent” ?
I submit to you that Denmark can police the Denmark Straits if it so chooses, and in accordance with the terms of this treaty bar from passage through them any vessel, commercial or otherwise, found to be engaging in or on a mission to engage in malicious mischief or any other unlawful activity towards it or any of its treaty partners, or any other party making use of the Straits, or to be engaged in any form of hostilities or for that purpose. Such a reading would align Denmarks rights with those of Türkiye with respect to the Bosporus.
And what applies to merchant vessels in this context can be read to apply to shipping lines, and ship owners, charters, and national flag vessels.
I therefore submit to you that this should not happen again. And if it does, it is because Denmark will have once again bowed to the will of a foreign adversary. The Danes can require ships to post bonds. They can seize them. They can force them to take on pilots. They can revoke their privileges. And if it comes to it, they can bar the ships of any nation from using the Straits.
The only question is whether they are up to it. As of yet, it would seem they are not. They let the Yi Ping 3 go. But events seem to be moving in this direction. Ever so slowly.
Good points. This is farther in Baltic though.
Yes and that is a wrinkle. Perhaps that is why the Yi Ping 3 was released. But as I mention, I believe Danish police powers can reasonably be exercised against any ship suspected of intent to use the Straits for criminal or hostile purposes. Given reasonable cause, Danish maritime authorities should be able to require shipowners and charterers to post bonds before entering (or leaving the Baltic).
Of course Russia would not allow any of its vessels or owners to do this. China would too most likely. And then there would be war if Denmark pressed the point and Putin wished to challenge it. Then again, he does not need an excuse if he wants one, and at present the Russian Navy does not stand in a very good position vis a vis the Straits. Never has.
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp86t00608r000600140006-6
A CIA memo about the Denmark Straits from 1999 that makes for interesting reading and is relevant.
Mandatory pilotage was my suggestion to the group on 12/4, so in my opinion you are nothing short of brilliant. ;-)
Perhaps the ship registrars can strip registrations too. Eagle S is a Cook Islands flagged ship! Doesn't New Zealand have some control over that?
Well..... we know how easy it is for Russian tankers to sink on their own.
If a certain Eastern European nation engaged in combat with Russian forces would be given assistance in helping a few more sink....
What happens when Russian ships start defending themselves?
Which kinds of ships Pete? Are you talking about these civilian owned freighters? If they are armed, are they still considered non-combatants?
Don't sail river vessels on to seas in conditions they were not designed for.
My understanding from Twitter news is that this time, the Finns were ready, and SOF forces dropped on the ship while it still had the anchor lowered, more or less catching them with the pants down. If this is true, then hat off to the Finns.
If you find that source, please post it.
https://instapundit.com/692630/#disqus_thread
Can the Finnish use the last plot of the ship prior to the cable being cut, and retrieve the ships missing anchor?
Wow.
Finnish SOF defeated unarmed seamen.
What’s their next target? The Girl Scouts?
How did they know it was just unarmed seamen?
The lack of 50 calibre machine guns might have been a clue.
Is that all you got? Arms do not have to be visible to be there. Did you get that response from a TV show?
So? What were they supposed to do, go unarmed and challenge them to arm wrestle for the ship? Send the local Rotary Club instead?
Here is a short summary of events in Finnish: https://www.is.fi/kotimaa/art-2000010926910.html
To summarize that in english the Finnish officials had an idea of possible suspect very early and the ship was intercepted by Coast Guard OPV Turva. It was then escorted to Finnish territorial waters where the Police and the Coast Guard boarded the suspect vessel. The tanker in case, Eagle S, is now achored off Porkkala. You can find It from MarineTrafick
As Brandon said, "Don't" .... (before his diaper change).
I don't think there is any doubt but that the Yi Ping 3 deliberately dragged its anchor breaking the two communications lines in question. An embarrassing amount of evidence has been disclosed to the public. So the question is, why did the Danes allow the ship to go on its way ?
.Read NATO for Danes. This was not a law enforcement decision. .This was not a Danish Navy decision, nor even Defense Ministry. Ditto Sweden and Lithuania. This was a decision made by politicians at the highest levels of government in several NATO countries in consultation with one another.
The act was like most recent, flagrant. It was meant to be discovered, indeed watched, and to thus convey a message. A "what are you going to do about it" provocation.
So why did they let the ship go ? Because of Danish shopping interests and those of NATO countries generally. Because it was the understood that Chinese leadership was challenging Sweden and or Denmark -the NATO alliance to seize s Chinese flagged vessel in supposedly "international waters".
Why ? Obviously so that the PLAN will have an excuse to stop any ship in the SCS. NATO is not prepared for that. So the Danes got the message and bowed to intimidation.
This brings us one step closer to war in the North Atlantic and South Pacific simultaneously
Maybe it was not a good idea for Obama to overthrow the pro Russian government in Ukraine back in 1914 - I mean 2014.
I think the overthrow, was to ensure that during the coming war with China, the Russians would have been neutered. This best high command and its troops are dead, their best equipment is either destroyed or rarely used, NATO is on high alert and ramping up to replace their old stores given to Ukraine, their Navy is in hiding, their top aircraft have been shown to fail with engaged by western weapon systems, their satellite network's, the Nordic undersea pipelines are no more, they have lost their bases in Syria, and the Russian economy is in shambles. Moscow will be little to know use once Washington DC and its alliance engages Beijing. Means the assets designed to fight two concurrent wars, can be redirected into the West Philippine Sea.
The Ukraine Office of Propaganda couldn't have said it better.
Let's not forget the Ghost of Kiev or the pregnant Ukranian solider who could defeat 10 Russians with her hands tied behind her back.
If NATO can't defend undersea cables and pipes, what makes them think they can fight a war?
Oh wait, they aren't. They are letting Ukrainians die.
Not fair to the NATO Baltic States, Joseph. New members Sweden and Finland are proactively protecting the undersea cables!
Vessels have to be impounded and seized. The owners forfeit their ship.
We share the same sentiments, especially taking their cargoes.
You really lust for WWIII.
Yes, for good reason. Truman was the worst leader ever. He was a dolt.
He missed a colossal opportunity to take out both the Soviets with Patton, and Chinese with MacArthur. Had Truman not dropped the ball, both of those nations today would be speaking English today and the latch on nuclear weapons would have stayed with the British, French, and USA.
MacArthur had his chance and he blew it.
Are you completely insane?
The Chinese are suspected in this article, but I read the Russian shadow fleet tanker Turbo Voyage was to blame as damage was reported to 3 additional cables too. Also, the Shadow "S", one of about 600 off books tankers moving oil for Russia was seized, and ti was found it was missing its anchor.
.
Source:
https://gizmodo.com/finland-seizes-russian-oil-tanker-suspected-of-cutting-underwater-cables-2000543312
Maybe it was not a good idea to blow up the Nord Stream pipeline.
It depends on who did it. It's in the interest of the Ukrainians to widen the war...
Only the US and the UK have the ability to pull that off.
No, this could be totally done by a pair of rich guys and their girlfriends (in the boat). It's at the kind of depth that recreational rebreather divers go to all the time. You need to find it, then you need to place a cutting charge on it. Like a diamond or a heavy duty FSLC. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0479244.pdf
So you need to be able to source explosives (easy for a government, certainly not impossible for someone wealthy) and you need a side-scanning sonar to find the pipeline and you need some basic skills in working at depth.
And then you need to STFU.
The fact that they cut the same pipeline twice and left one uncut suggests to me they were not US/UK military.
Sure.
And Jeffrey Epstein hung himself.
A powerful argument in a below high school education. You may now skip to the triple dog dare.
Have to say, the sail theory is outlandish... but, as one who has some experience with bottom cables (seismic) and also sail...it's not unbelievable.
And one helluva bar story!
You could freely do so because no one will take you seriously!
And a few oil companies and multiple commercial diving companies. Plenty of experienced divers out there, of various nationalities. The deepest SCUBA dive with compressed air was 512 ft., deeper than that pipeline. As the saying goes, "It ain't rocket science", although these days even rocket science isn't "Rocket Science".
Who do you think was responsible, I have arguments that it was either the USA or the Ukrainian? I am unsure.
US and UK
Maybe it wasn’t very smart of Finland to join NATO after not having had any problems with Russia for 70 years.
Other than the majority half being the Soviets I doubt many Finns would have considered it a problem free relationship by any remote stretch of the imagination..
They're still waiting to get East Karelia back from the Soviets, er Russians.
That claim went down the drain after their alliance with Germany during WWII.
And NATO membership is going to help them do so?
Why do I get the feeling we the American people are about to get another Gulf of Tonkin and Iraq has WMD excuses for staring a war? And of course Hunter’s laptop is Russian disinformation or so said 51 intel officers.
I was momentarily worried when my mother in law arrived today and I found a big red box in my office that just said "Hunter" on it. https://hunterboots.com/collections/boxing-day?utm_source=google&campaign_id=20534003007&ad_id=726769528052&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=HB%20Brand%20Term&utm_content=156945001081&utm_term=hunter%20boots&filter.v.availability=1&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiAmrS7BhBJEiwAei59i1yY-M8HOJV1sOZSEFlafyZM8yldMUmEwoqlx3OowNhTXKIptepGKxoCyjAQAvD_BwE
If we didn't have a fall of Saigon '75, carving up Yugoslavia, the Arab Spring, Libya, Syria and 2 decades of the GWOT and Afghanistan where the pull out produced a fragrance of a Saigon 2.0 ... then perhaps some "wag the dog" stunt might fly. But I suspect those days are gone and the credibility of the national security industrial complex has taken a few hits lately.
If we rewind the tape back to 1945, Korea and all that you referenced could have with a high probability been avoided BT.
Take the war you find.
The Enemy has a vote.
Finland and the rest wanted in NATO? NATO is at war as is Europe, Canada and above all the USA with Russia. Not just as Proxies but participants and puppet master of Ukraine.
This is nothing, except a hint that there’s more to war than virtue signaling.
It’s easy to start a war.
But the war doesn’t always go the way you think it will.
How often has the party that started a war come out on top, or at least broke even with the antebellum status?
I can't think of any offhand, but I'm not an historian and I'm pre-caffeine.
First of all, you are going to have to decide who started a war, which may be a bit controversial. Might even provoke a rematch in some places.
The next few months will be interesting. If Trump does try and put an end to the war where does this leave the EU and NATO? And who wants to bet this sabotage doesn't stop?
Is Trump concerned with the preservation of the original territorial integrity of Uk? Rather doubtful I suspect. Is he engaging in a chin-tugging exercise as to the root cause(s) for the conflict? I serious doubt that as well. Does he see risks of escalation and the equivalent of $ billions flowing to a region where the battle lines are largely staked to the same ground after 3 years of conflict? Yeah I'm going with a most definitely on that one.
Then there is multi-decadal lopsided U.S. role in NATO and NATO members content to pay lip service to their defense obligations. So yeah I'm going to go with Trump settling things and not being terribly concerned about pearl-clutching by EU elites & Neo-Con dipsticks here in the U.S. plus his likely his last nerve as regards NATO's lip service to their own national security outlays. And as for sabotage continuing? Should there be any expectation of it stopping since it doesn't appear to come with a "price tag" the participants are unwilling to play?
On first glance I was wondering what year we would pick for the "original territorial integrity of [the United Kingdom]" and why President Trump would be overly concerned with restoring it.
Unfamiliar with what you are referring to?
Just a tongue in cheek misreading of "Uk" as the UK instead of Ukraine:)
We can have extended and lively "discussions" about the "original territorial integrity" of just about every square foot of the Earth's surface. Take California, for example (please). Heard of Aztlan?
Unless you're an adherent to the Chicano/La Raza idea of myth making, Aztlan is simply the areas around present day Mexico City; attempting to include California & SW US into the Aztec empire is simply historical revisionism. Besides the large Navajo/Hopi/Zuni regions around the four-corners, and pockets around Puget Sound/Inland Passage , there were very few concentrations of natives around present Western US borders.
In security studies, we used to study the main security pillars of economics (includes energy security), politics, military, social, and cultural. Now its got additional pillars for cyber. Yet, over the years I have grown tired of cultural side of security. There are some benefits to others cultures, but as a whole the Western, or Occidental cultures are usually far superior. Specific to Chicano, or Mexican and Latin cultures, they are for those born and citizens of Mexico or Latin America. It's a known fact, well documented the Aztec had been a cannibalistic empire up until being conquered by the European conquistadores. Absent the enchilada, burrito or taco, Americans have nearly zero need for their lazy ways. Lazy in that they want to come, too flock into the USA for their own needs, they bring little to nothing to the US citizen. Instead they should be taught about the Continental Army, General George Washington, his wife, and those who took up arms to throw the King and his Queens Redcoat Army into the sea.
Am from California (Southern) and was station in Northern California for a few years. Being of Caucasian hereditary, I had never heard of Aztlan until you made mention of it.
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztl%C3%A1n
Quote: "original territorial integrity of [the United Kingdom]"
Well, that's a tough one, albeit a bit foreign to me. For those ancients, back to the antiquities up until my grandfathers, father, and brother they in large part no longer matter - as they are long ago deceased. For them, nothing much matters anyone, as I am here and make all decisions. If the United Kingdom wants to return to its "Colonial Holdings" I submit they re-tool their armed forces and start retaking them, one-by-one. The ripest yield the best returns.
I was thinking more of the birth of "England" as an entity, somewhat imagined through Bernard Cornwell's excellent and entertaining Saxon Chronical novels, and expanded to include Wales, Scotland, and Ireland over the centuries.
I think the war will continue. NATO cannot abandoned Ukraine to be taken my Moscow. Possibly Trump makes his same old demands that NATO members pick up more of the tab, but he will be told that he must keep his eyes on China, and tow the line in Europe.
The regions north of Crimea, the Sea of Azov and the western Donetsk region remain under Ru control and that hasn't changed much in the last 2 years. If there is any cleaving of Uk, it will be isolated to these regions. And as for Trump being "told" what to do and where? Now that would be a pay-per-view event worth watching.
Not abandon? US and UK have lots of experience abandoning friends.
"Money, Money changes everything" >The Brains< 1978
EU will pay money to allow China to attack them and get away with it.