This is the 2nd time China did this in that Baltic isn't it? Both times look intentional.. maybe don't allow Chinese ships in the Baltic?
replies(2):
Denmark controls the waters of the seaway to Sct. Petersburg and Kaliningrad that are some of the strategically most important ports of Russia.
Blocking of traffic to these would be a severe escalation.
Regularly Russian subs pass through Danish waters - controlled and allowed.
As severe as... say starting the largest war in Europe since WW2 right at our doorstep? Or as damaging our critical infrastructure? Or manipulating our democratic processes?
It's time the West pulls its head out of its ass. We're already at war, whether we want it or not.
(I do realize that in particular US citizens have very high confidence in their own military capacity and might be overly bullish on situations like these)
My take is that Russia's plan is to continue sabotaging and a weak (or lack of) response to that only emboldens them.
Also nuclear war with what? Their recent Satan II ICBM test demonstrated that they don't necessarily have the technical chops to launch anything sufficiently capable and it must have come as a surprise to them as well.
Both of the two Chinese registries are open, pretty much anyone can register ships there. It's a bit like the .tv domain — if you see something.tv you can't assume that it's a company in the country Tuvalu.
Look at the nationality of the captain and the beneficial owner instead.
If we reach the "to [sic] late YOLO" stage it won't matter what options we picked. That's why appeasement is a fundamentally pointless idea that the US has refused for decades. If you even once play the "give a mouse a cookie" game you will end up surrendering everything to a power that can threaten you with nuclear terrorism. Only a moron would appease Russia in this scenario.
The US have no qualms appeasing Netanyahu. Biden and his party was even fine arguably losing the election over it. I don't see any contradiction there.
Russia and the US from time to time more or less arbitrarily bombs or invades some other country. I guess Russia's Holywood need to make better movies depicting their own soldiers as victims of their own wars. Still glorying though. There is work to be done there for sure. The two I've seen depicted soldiers as pathetic losers.
I mean, trying to economically, socially and culturally isolate the US would probably make it wreck even more mayhem over the world than trying to have cultural exchange, be nice, and what not. And when this fails not throwing yourself on a spike might be preferable.
The US didn't give Israel Mandatory Palestine - Britain did. America selling arms to Israel is a moot point, and if we want to compare like-to-like then Russia is guilty of the exact same thing with India. But neither situation is an appeasement in the first place, so it's a plainly facetious argument.
> Russia and the US from time to time more or less arbitrarily bombs or invades some other country.
America hasn't arbitrarily invaded any country since the Philippines. Comparing bombings to occupation of a sovereign nation is a faux-pas that reveals you aren't arguing in good faith. They are drastically different things and anyone with a serious perspective of military escalation understands this. I pity you for not recognizing that these are incomparable situations and suggest that you reflect on whether or not this kind of judgement is worth sharing online. Every comment I've read from you repeats the same fearful tone without suggesting a serious response besides giving Russia what they want. You are either falling for propaganda or a blatant mouthpiece yourself.
> trying to economically, socially and culturally isolate the US would probably make it wreck even more mayhem over the world than trying to have cultural exchange, be nice, and what not
A perspective you could only possibly possess if you were economically, socially and culturally isolated from the rest of the world. Or is India and Iran enough to keep Putin company? Some world "superpower" Russia is.
how do you intend to "motivate" a sovereign country?
Well, Britain didn't quite "give" all of Mandatory Palestine, or any of it technically, to the Zionists.
What it did do was first, proactively set a firm date -- at midnight on April 14/15 1948 -- for the Mandate to expire (which it needed to expire soon anyway as the UN was poised to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of the League of Nations). And agree to a pull-out of its forces around the vicinity of the date. Which, while not amounting to a transfer of sovereignty as such to the Zionists, amounted to telling them "have at it", basically.
It had also provided the Zionists with a "moral" mandate that there be some kind of "Jewish home" in Palestine, though that came earlier through various steps (including of course the Balfour declaration). By that time though, the Zionists strill controlled only something like 13 percent of the territory as such.
Grotesquely and profoundly false: