←back to thread

499 points perihelions | 4 comments | | HN request time: 1.119s | source
Show context
mitjam ◴[] No.42193017[source]
It was crossing right on time for the interruptions, a Russian officer was on board, it slowed down while crossing, no other ships were slowing down in that area during that time (rulingnout headwinds) - it cannot get much clearer. China is now participating in hybrid warfare against Europe (unless they present stronger evidence against this assumption)
replies(6): >>42193083 #>>42193168 #>>42193187 #>>42193273 #>>42194394 #>>42194583 #
netsharc ◴[] No.42193273[source]
> China is now participating in hybrid warfare against Europe

Geez, I'm glad you're not war minister. It's a Chinese registered ship with a Russian captain.

If a terrorist crashes a truck with Portuguese plates into the US embassy in Berlin, would that mean Portugal's declared war against the USA?

replies(6): >>42193344 #>>42193457 #>>42194195 #>>42195022 #>>42195865 #>>42196931 #
drewcoo ◴[] No.42193344[source]
> war minister

Due to an earlier generation's newspeak, that's "defense," not "war."

replies(1): >>42194445 #
1. Arnt ◴[] No.42194445[source]
Are you sure about that?

I happened to notice that at least in some cases, the change of terminology happened roughly when it became clear that offensive war was a losing proposition in terms of money and resources. I suspect that as invading the neighbours became financially irrational, the cool heads that tend to survive in management shifted their stand from mixed offense/defense to just defense.

replies(2): >>42197001 #>>42199415 #
2. mitjam ◴[] No.42197001[source]
Yes Mr Pistorius is „Verteidigungsminister“ as in defence, and it‘s called that way since 1955. Not that hard to find out.
replies(1): >>42197758 #
3. Arnt ◴[] No.42197758[source]
Germany's a good example. In 1914 the ministry was called Kriegsministerium, and an invasion wasn't seen as a necessarily bad idea. I think it already was, but at the time, you could argue in Berlin that a country that started a war could benefit from that war, if executed well. That kind of argument wouldn't make people doubt your judgment yet.

A few years later it was clear that offense was necessarily a resource loss. Someone who wanted to build a career as a civil servant might then see a defense ministry as a viable option, but not any sort of offensive war. Offense was clearly not viable, and therefore not a good basis for budget allocations, and therefore the good career move for the civil servants was to focus the ministries entirely on defense.

4. ◴[] No.42199415[source]