> German podcast

There was a Planet Money episode touching on Maritime law:

https://www.npr.org/2025/10/17/nx-s1-5577076/shadow-fleet-ru...

It was about Russian tankers breaking the sanctions, but with a well put explanation of why we can't just stop these ships even with extreme confidence in their fraudulency.

> (German) podcast about international maritime law

Russia isn’t even pretending to follow international maritime law. China hasn’t for a decade. And now America is being creative with its interpretations.

Still I don't see an issue - basically you either pay the armed coast gard cutter that stands in your way or you don't go through the straight. If you don't cause any trouble, the other cutter on the other end will pay you back. No money, no transit - unless you really like being boarded.

Most of the water isn't internal.. getting in and out of the baltic sea goes past Sweden/Denmark.

But we probably have promised not to blockade ships in some conventions. And little Denmark (or Sweden) do not benefit from setting a precedence that conventions can be broken.

Getting payback is easy though: support Ukraine.

The Outlaw Sea, https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780865477223/theoutlawsea/ , is a book about all of the ways international water is essentially lawless.

And then NATO will obliterate Russia's Baltic fleet before the sun rises.

There's literal war ongoing already, no extra excuse is needed, only political will.

yup. RU will literally wait decades and then send their lil KGB/GRU agents all around the world to assassinate you, chop you up, or poison you. they play the long game and never forget.

> I think Putin won't use nukes

Any reasonable planning requires looking at the scenario your action creates - the range of outcomes. The range certainly includes Putin using nuclear weapons (which is part of Russia's military doctrine - see 'escalate to deescalate'). That needs to be part of your plan.

Checks out. Trump would drool at the thought of cutting up not only Ukraine between him and Russia, but the rest of Europe too.

Regarding the spy in a bag -- the person involved was a GCHQ mathematician seconded to the SIS and studying Russia, whose "naked, decomposing remains were found in the bath of the main bedroom's en-suite bathroom, inside a red sports bag that was padlocked from the outside, with the keys inside the bag. [...] Inconclusive fragments of DNA components from at least two other individuals were found on the bag. A forensic examination of Williams's flat has concluded that there was no sign of forced entry or of DNA that pointed to a third party present at the time of his death.

Scotland Yard's inquiry also found no evidence of Williams's fingerprints on the padlock of the bag or the rim of the bath, which the coroner said supported her assertion of "third-party involvement" in the death. Metropolitan Police deputy assistant commissioner Martin Hewitt said it was theoretically possible for Williams to lower himself into the bag without touching the rim of the bath. A key to the padlock was inside the bag, underneath his body" (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Gareth_Williams)

It's absolutely mad, but remember this happened in 2010 -- before Russia did many of those bad things you mention. It wouldn't surprise me if a combination of political pressure and police incompetence made this go away.

I'm going to link this one again because I think it flew below the proverbial radar

The exhibits are short and worth looking at

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-d...

Those connections go back as far as 2016...

But does it matter? 77 million Americans knowingly voted a convicted felon and court adjudicated sexual assaulter back into the presidency instead of a jail cell. From those, about 40 million were women, fully aware that a jury found him liable for sexual assault, and that multiple judges affirmed the verdict.

The majority of Americans saw criminality, sexual violence, and contempt for the law and decided that was acceptable leadership. :-))

"Kushner Companies and Russian individuals exchanged suspicious money transfers at the height of the 2016 race, ex-Deutsche Bank employee says" - https://www.businessinsider.com/jared-kushner-russia-2016-mo...

I don’t believe the leadership sees Russia as an existential threat in Brussels. Baltics and Poland see it differently.

A pre-emptive strike would be expensive and immediately retcon into making Putin be the good guy - he’s long said NATO is the aggressor. Best to make invading EU to be too expensive to be worth it.

I think the bigger risk currently that Europe faces is the low and mid level corruption where Russian agents extend their tendrils into government structures in EU.

> Isn't the logical action for EU to launch massive pre-emptive strikes

To be clear, strikes wouldn't be "pre-emptive", Russia is already in a war, and it's entirely allowed for any nation to join the side of Ukraine. None of the rules of war prevent helping a friendly country by joining the fight.

It's not about "hating the western way of life" or any such silliness. They can hate whatever they want within their internationally recognized borders.

War is best prevented by robust deterrents. When it comes to belligerent fascist regimes who want to see how far you can be pushed, not responding to provocations and aggression forcefully makes larger-scale war more likely in the future.

The logical thing to do is respond proportionally: if the ships are deliberately damaging property, seize the ships, and imprison the offenders.

We have functional democracies here. You'd have to convince the population this is the right course of action and then the politicians will do it.

Good luck with that, though.

No, pre-emptively starting another war is not a good idea. But yes, the West should work hard to make sure their enemy loses the war it has already started.

> Isn't the logical action for EU to launch massive pre-emptive strikes on this big bad country that hates the western way of life ?

Depending on the days, the priority changes, between Russia or attacking the US first, maybe with the help from Canada :-))

You have to deal with one threat at a time, and it seems the fight against chlorinated chicken will take priority for now... :-)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/12/17/trump-demands...

You know exactly what they mean

and the goal for this toeing the line is to spark discussion and disagreement between member states. Article 5 credibility is already at it's lowest point after Vance's speech and the new US security strategy, now isn't just the matter of sowing further disagreement.

Also a provocation that forces a reaction that is difficult to modulate. Activating Article 5 demonstrates NATO solidarity and that it means business, but it would be disastrous. Doing nothing demonstrates fecklessness and impotence of NATO. The reaction needs to be measured and proportionate.

But outright hostility is not necessarily the goal. Hybrid warfare is more “subtle”. Its targets are more diverse and the aim is less overt defeat and more war of attrition in a broad sense. You want to wear your enemy down.

I'm sure some bright spark will soon show up to say that it was actually NATO who was violating our airspace for decades , just like they're claiming that NATO is the one cutting cables here

It's also a form of reconnaissance. In doing these acts they observe how different actors respond and look for potential weak points.

> Some officials from Scandinavia, the Baltic states and the European Union have pointed the finger at Russia. They say the incidents appear to be part of what experts say is the Kremlin’s hybrid war on the West.

The only blame placed in the article is targeted at Russia. And I'd quite like to see some speculation on Russia's possible motive for this, it sounds pointless and risky for their shipping on the face of it.

[flagged]

They only know how to follow the manual

> life in prison for all on board

Honestly, give any Russian or shadow-vessel crew a bounty if they surrender. Turn Moscow’s fleet into a cheap source of intelligence and scrap.

That's not extreme. They destroyed a piece of expensive critical infrastructure. Prison and seizure should be the bare minimum. I just mean it's not enough to prevent it in the future.