| ▲ | neuroelectron 6 hours ago |
| It sounds like the court will just throw it out again as not having jurisdiction over the case. |
|
| ▲ | huhhuh 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The court threw out the previous case since there was no proof of sabotage. I understood the court ruled that they have no jurisdiction over accident cases under international law. As far as I understand, it is totally different case if they find any proof of intent. |
| |
| ▲ | stefan_ 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't understand how we arrived at letting "random nation crew drags their anchor making the boat extremely slow and loud and breaks $100M+ critical infrastructure" get off scot free including their boat but it clearly can't continue to go on. If not a court then government must step in, nothing less is acceptable to any voting person. |
|
|
| ▲ | wtcactus 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Then countries should be able to bomb these ships and go unpunished as well. That would pass the right message if courts keep refusing to make things right. |
| |
| ▲ | rwyinuse 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sinking the ships and then denying knowing anything about it would probably be the best course of action. That's what Russians would do, if the roles were reversed. Unfortunately too many Western leaders still think that it's possible to negotiate in good faith with Russians. In reality they respect only force, and see European rules based order and "fair play" as weakness. If Baltic states didn't belong to NATO and Finland didn't have such a big army, Russians would be already doing a lot worse things than cutting cables. Over here in Finland, even during the "good" years between collapse of the Soviet Union and invasion of Crimea, Russian businessmen kept buying property that made absolutely no economic sense, but was located next to critical infrastructure. Better relations between West and Russia were largely an illusion, especially since Putin took over. | | |
| ▲ | jopsen 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | We should just silently turn up support for Ukraine, that's where it hurts. Everything else is a distraction. | |
| ▲ | shtzvhdx 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Sinking the ships and then denying knowing anything about it would probably be the best course of action. That's what Russians would do, if the roles were reversed." You mean like NATO did off the coast of Spain a year ago? | | |
| ▲ | rwyinuse 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I didn't remember that case, very interesting. But yes, silently torpedoing a Russian ship transporting military technology to another hostile rogue state is exactly what NATO should be doing. | | |
| ▲ | shtzvhdx 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Did I miss NATO declaring war on Russia and N. Korea? Or are we OK with the Chinese silently torpedoing the next batch of military equipment to Taiwan (a rouge province under intl law)? Your argument, taken to its limit, is might makes right. Which, fine; but we're just not that strong anymore. Certainly not the EUpeeans. | | |
| ▲ | purerandomness 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | What's the point of declaring war in a war? Russia invaded Ukraine just fine without ever declaring war. | | |
| ▲ | shtzvhdx 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | As long as the EUpeans don't drag me, my loved ones, or my taxes into a war with Russia I couldn't care less if any this is declared or not nor do I care if they torpedo Russian ships. However, I also couldn't care less if the Russians Oreshniks Liverpool or Marseille. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nubg 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Link? | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | immibis 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They can. They don't want to yet. Europe always assumes too much good faith on the part of other countries. | | |
| ▲ | rjsw 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The countries that the ships are registered in are not going to do anything if they are seized and scrapped. | | |
|
|
