[flagged]

Russia commits acts of aggression against NATO states that straddle the line of ambiguity where a bad faith actor could call it accidental or at least unauthorized.

This makes invoking article 5 likewise somewhat difficult because it allowed other NATO members pressure the border states into "not overreacting". The point is to slowly escalate into outright hostility without ever having "the event" that makes it obvious article 5 must be invoked.

	▲	walterlw 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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.
	▲	lo_zamoyski 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		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.

▲

rwyinuse 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm not sure what Russia had to gain from violating our (Finland) airspace with military aircraft countless of times before we joined NATO. Yet they kept doing it.

Russia is an imperialistic state that really doesn't like having neighbours that are not under its political and military control. Violating airspace, GPS jamming, cutting undersea cables is just their way of showing force, and damaging us, who they perceive as their enemies for not submitting to their rule.

	▲	jaennaet 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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
	▲	walterlw 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It's also a form of reconnaissance. In doing these acts they observe how different actors respond and look for potential weak points.

▲

KumaBear 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s literally well documented why this is being done. It’s intentional to cause disruptions and damage.

▲

baq 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

FSB is paying extra on New Year's?

▲

idiotsecant 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Wow nobody even blamed Russia yet and you're jumping to their defense already. That is some top notch customer service.

▲

roenxi 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

▲

coffinbirth 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

chollida1 7 hours ago | parent [-]

What good would a naval blockade of Russia do when they get the vast majority of their goods by land?

EDIT looking at your post history its very clear you have no intention of discussing this in good faith.

▲

roenxi 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Probably to make sure it stays that way. Logistics by ship generally has a big advantage over logistics by land. There is a rough pattern over the last century or so of the big navel empires (UK, US, Japan) having a big military advantage. In the case of the UK and US their strategic policy has a big component that involves restricting their opponents access to resources water (eg, Germany around the world wars, China in the modern era or the way the US controls the sea-based routes out of Saudi Arabia and the land routes tend to be militarily unstable).

▲

coffinbirth 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Preventing oil exports and increase insurance premiums for Russia's export economy, because Western sanctions clearly are unsuccessful in destroying the Russian economy.

My post history shows that I do support Russia's self defense against U.S./NATO threats. In my opinion Ukraine entering NATO is indeed an existential threat to Russia, because since (at least) the collapse of the UDSSR the U.S. and it's vassals openly communicated and pursued the goal of regime changing Russia (+ Belarus, Georgia).

	▲	Sabinus 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		How does Ukraine entering NATO constitute an existential threat to Russia? Do you think Ukraine + NATO is going to invade Russia? What should NATO and the EU do to Russia, since Russia would like to break up NATO and the EU?

▲

raverbashing 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They only know how to follow the manual