If you don't cancel your account now, I don't see what your problem is. Isn't it standard practice for allies to spy on each other? No reason to wait for Mistral to catch up when EU foreign policy already sealed the deal.
Too many warmongering, aggressive people in the comments. This is not how we get the good ending. Cooler heads prevail. You don't understand this. That's okay. It's not your fault.
Yes, we must submit and capitulate to Russia at every turn, or face war. Good plan.
Russia would deny any involvement, right? So throwing the crew in prison for a few decades and scrapping the ship aren't actions against Russia. They're not a party to this at all.
That's the classic warmonger argument: Call people who disagree 'chicken' and 'coward', like high school taunts.
There are many other solutions, and if you read the experts, that's what rational governments pursue. It's not as emotionally satisfying as starting a war, but it's far more satisfying than what comes after that start.
Warfare, as anyone who has experienced it, is a catastrophe win or lose or stalemate. The victors of WWII put extraordinary effort into preventing future wars, including outlawing it, creating the UN and EU, rebuilding their former enemy's economies, etc.
What do you know about warfare that they don't? Were they cowards? Naive or innocent about evil?
I'm not sure where you got the 'chicken' business from, but regardless, folks who want everyone to bend the knee to Putin are usually acting out of malice, not fear.
Is it really warmongering to suggest a country should police it's own territory, or defend it's own interests from aggression aimed at them? And, how is that aggression towards them not warmongering? If Russia isn't responsible for these attacks on infrastructure, then no one should have a problem with the crew being tossed in prison and the boat being chopped up and turned into patio furniture or repurposed as a reef. If they are responsible, then they're the warmongers; only a fundamentally dishonest person would suggest a measured response to or self defense against an attack is warmongering.
btw
i'm not even suggesting anyone go to war with russia. But more than likely capitulation is going to fail and russia will cross a line with their acts of sabotage and terrorism in Europe (or they'll just move on to whoever is next after Ukraine.) Since you brought up WWII, remind me, how did capitulating to Hitler in 1938 work out in the long run?
> I'm not sure where you got the 'chicken' business from
Implying that people are cowardly for not pursuing aggression is like high schoolers calling each other 'chicken' for not doing something.
> folks who want everyone to bend the knee to Putin are usually acting out of malice, not fear.
I don't necessarily agree - people do feel fear. Regardless, who wants capitulation? Could you point out some leader? Or even a comment on this long page?
Not agreeing with aggression != supporting capitulation. There are infinitely more solutions. The question is, what outcome do you want and what acts are most likely to get you there? Aggression is emotionally satisfying, in the short term, but usually results in bad outcomes.
> Is it really warmongering to suggest a country should police it's own territory, or defend it's own interests from aggression aimed at them?
If the proposed solution is warfare, then it's warmongering. The point is that are many other solutions. And self-righteousness is irrelevant - it doesn't make the outcome better or worse; it's therefore a dangerous distraction, likely to cause sub-optimal outcomes (usually bad ones). Using it as a reason to pursue warfare is a hallmark of warmongering.
> they're the warmongers
They are, in a sense, but that doesn't change what you do. Again, it's an argument from self-righteousness - 'they started it'. That doesn't matter; what matters is the outcome and warfare is one option that provides one range of outcomes (almost all horrible, almost universally different than what was expected when the decision was made - think of Ukraine, Iraq, etc. etc.).
Russia is not a warmonger, in an important sense: They deliberately use 'grey zone' tactics, actions short of being sufficient to provoke war. It's fundamental to their strategy and therefore essential to understand:
They intend to cause political change, not warfare. You can see their effectiveness in the emotional responses on this page. They disregard outcomes - you can bet that while some have temporary emotional satisfaction, the outcomes will be Russia's.
This is...not true. Attacking key infrastructure is an act of war. Just because they try to do it secretly doesn't change that fact. 'Grey zone' tactics doesn't make any difference here. Green men, intel services, etc. are still government entities acting at the behest of the leadership to commit acts of war.
The argument here is about appeasement or not. If you allow continued acts of war to pass without response, you get more of them. This is the lesson of bullies from the playground to WW2. I'm more than willing to have a conversation about what sort of response is the best, but saying that Russia is not a warmonger is incorrect - they are committing acts of war. Just because no one has called them on it yet doesn't make it not warmongering.
You can say what you like, but nobody with expertise or authority agrees either that it's strategic infrastructure (if that's what you mean) or that it's anything like an act of war or casus belli.
I'm willing to bet that nobody has ever started a war over a cut cable.
Man, you have a love of arguments to authority. Just saying that everyone else thinks something isn't an argument and condescending to everyone isn't compelling, especially when you are incorrect.
Two seconds. That's how long that took. It _is_ strategic infrastructure and is declared so by everyone with expertise and authority. Since there are plenty of examples of wars caused by damaging / interrupting infrastructure - see any sort of blockade, you would lose that bet.
You have a reasonable argument on the basis of proportional response. I don't buy it, but it is a think that people can have a reasonable discussion about. If you engage in that discussion in good faith and stop condescending to everyone, you might have a better time and actually learn something.
Your attacks on me are just a poor substitution for having much to say, and violate HN guidelines. It's hard to imagine why you think it's appropriate, or why you can't discuss things without ad hominim attacks.
I'm not sure how they define 'critical'. My cell phone is 'digital communications' and yet the Russians could take it out without causing a war. Hacker News could be taken down without risking a war. Look at all the hacking attacks by nation states, for example, which have been far more damaging and threatening than the submarine cable damage.
I do understand the word 'strategic', that is, 'it significantly affects the security of the country'. Seizing Crimea is strategic; some nuclear weapons are strategic; cutting one cable is not strategic - the people and land of Finland are just as safe.
> Since there are plenty of examples of wars caused by damaging / interrupting infrastructure - see any sort of blockade, you would lose that bet.
My bet was, not from cutting a cable. It's just not that important.
> arguments to authority
I rely on people who know what they are talking about.
What do you think about the actual point, about how grey zone tactics work? If you don't understand them, Russia's tactics will own you (which they seem to).
> Russia is not a warmonger, in an important sense: They deliberately use 'grey zone' tactics, actions short of being sufficient to provoke war. It's fundamental to their strategy and therefore essential to understand
Using emotion to ignore and dismiss ideas is a tactic, but if we prioritize emotions over outcomes we get (temporarily) satisfied emotions and bad outcomes.
Russia is already in a state of armed aggression against Ukraine, and committing sabotage against other countries throughout Europe.
Cooler heads in this case are idiotic heads. It doesn’t take two partners to start a war, it only takes one and Russia already decided.
Someone in the other comments linked an article stating that Europe was doing the “unthinkable” of planning to retaliate and I was agog reading it if true. Not because Europe was going to retaliate but that they hadn’t even come up with plans over the past decade of increasing aggression from Russia.
You don’t have war plans for every crazy situation your analysts and strategists can conceive of because you’re excited to use them. You have them so your state apparatus is prepared and ready to go in an unlikely emergency instead of needing to take the months to years that any large bureaucracy needs to be ready to take action.
That seems to contradict itself? Cooler heads plan carefully; hotheads act out - seek immediate emotional satisfaction without thinking of the consequences.
> It doesn’t take two partners to start a war, it only takes one and Russia already decided.
Wars are not acts, but the conseuqences of long chains - large graphs - of decisions often lasting decades or more. Wars come from situations where there is no other choice.
The main goal of international relations policy is to create optimal scenarios, to not get caught in a situation where you have bad options or no options. Russia's 'grey zone' actions, including of course online propaganda campaigns (seriously, why wouldn't they?), are trying to create the scenarios that suit Russia best. They are preparing the political ground, and warfare is fundamentally politics (the most widely accepted maxim of warfare - see Clausewitz).
For an example, people emotionally and aggressively advocating for warfare, like on this page, if widespread can set the political ground.
It takes two (or more) to get into that position. It's a game of chess - checkmate isn't the result of one move.
> That seems to contradict itself? Cooler heads plan carefully; hotheads act out - seek immediate emotional satisfaction without thinking of the consequences.
No, because “cooler heads” are advocating for not retaliating. I’d accept the opinion of “cooler heads” if it was things like “we’re not ready yet and need to build up our military before being able to risk active conflict” vs “we should never fight back, war is bad :(“
> Wars are not acts, but the conseuqences of long chains - large graphs - of decisions often lasting decades or more. Wars come from situations where there is no other choice.
I have no idea how that is a response to what I said instead of just waxing poetic. If another nation decides they are at war with your nation, then guess what buddy, you’re at war. Even with your head in the sand.
> I’d accept the opinion of “cooler heads” if it was things like “we’re not ready yet and need to build up our military before being able to risk active conflict” vs “we should never fight back, war is bad :(“
I agree, essentially, and would say that your example is not one of a cooler head; it's just a different emotional response.
But who is saying “we should never fight back, war is bad :(“ ? Could you name someone? I haven't heard it at all. Do you see it even on this HN page, even once? I haven't heard any leader say anything of the sort.
> If another nation decides they are at war with your nation, then guess what buddy, you’re at war. Even with your head in the sand.
I'm just repeating a fundamental consensus of experts.
That's not how wars happen - the leader of a country doesn't just decide to do it one day, other than perhaps 'wars' against helpless targets like the US invading Grenada.
Warfare is very complicated. A 'nation' can't decide something, though the leadership can. But that doesn't mean they can execute it - that the nation and its internal powers will follow them sufficiently to carry it out. If Trump actually decided to invade Canada, obviously that would be the end of Trump's term in office.
Then, even if they get support, that doesn't at all mean they will be successful. Look at the US wars since WWII: Mostly failed, only one clear victory of any significance (the Gulf War), even those most were against substantially weaker foes.
So what is necessary to 'succeed' in warfare?
The most respected maxim of warfare is Clausewitz's, 'war is the continuation of politics, by other means' (not exact, and Clausewitz wrote in German of course). That is, it's politics, but by means of organized violence rather than by economic or diplomatic means (though those are involved too).
Wars start with politics; and leaders are very limited politically by the situation. They can't just do anything at all. They need political options, to create suppport and sustain it, etc.
Wars only end with effective political solutions. For example, in Afghanistan, the US lacked an effective political solution; then the US ran out of political will and withdrew. The war ended when the Taliban provided a stable political solution, for good or ill.
It's politics, and Russia's leadership knows that well. If they just start a war without considering politics, they'll fail badly. Instead, they are creating the political ground where they have the best options and their targets have bad ones.
You are the one saying we shouldn’t fight back war is bad :(
> Too many warmongering, aggressive people in the comments. This is not how we get the good ending. Cooler heads prevail. You don't understand this. That's okay. It's not your fault.
And ah, four month old account making incomprehensible statements that seem almost human but don’t quite make it, pushing a political view and trying to gaslight everyone into thinking that this account isn’t doing so.
How much fucking time in our life are we going to have to waste responding to bots.
Edit: wait, I confused `mosst with `mmooss who is also from a post AI era account and pushing the same narrative. These aren’t just bots but sock puppet bots boosting each other
>Cooler heads prevail. You don't understand this. That's okay. It's not your fault.
You don't understand that your comment is incredibly aggressive and insulting? That's ok. You just don't understand that. Might not even be your fault you don't.
It should be alarming how pervasive these efforts have become, especially given Germany's history. There's a near-total lack of public awareness and media opposition on... a number of issues in Germany. Then again, there's probably a lot of Germans who love this.
It is not pervasive. The chart the report shows essentially is a random map of organizations in Germany who are involved in any way with public speech.
Like claiming the FBI is involved with censoring Americans because it is their job to seize certain illegal websites.
Exactly, there's a difference between spreading information that is factually incorrect and reporting (or not reporting) information in a way that is misleading.
It makes sense. In the Netherlands, young people (<18) have been recruited for all kinds of stuff by organized crime; bank account money muling as part of laundering operations, laying bombs, getting drugs / other smuggled stuff out of shipping containers in ports, that kind of thing. They target these because for them, a few hundred € is a huge sum, and the legal system is very forgiving to underage people, assuming they even get caught.
Although, considering that the EPA is and has always been something that I never really had a significant amount of contact with, I still end up with mixed thoughts about other topics unrelated to the EPA.
This reads like a propaganda piece, there's lots of bullet points and hardly any real information to support your bold claim. From the few examples you do show, they all look pretty standard. Not something that would have an impact... unless DeepSeek really was a great success and really did change the AI landscape... which it did.
