I don't think it's just benevolence. Territorial waters also doesn't mean what many think it means - unlike planes, ships have the almost-universally recognized right to cross territorial waters (innocent passage).

But what's more relevant here are rules about straits - territorial waters that fully enclose a section of someone else's territorial waters. My understanding is that that is a big part of the reason why the two countries restrict their claim of territorial waters to leave a corridor of international waters: They want to avoid the area falling under the straits rules (transit passage), which would give Russia more rights than it has now inside the territorial waters.

Yes, the right of passage through the strait would still clearly remain. This is already the case with Denmark and Sweden as these ships need to cross Öresund or Great Belt strait to reach the Atlantic.

However, this act would, in my understanding, give much more power to Finland and Estonia to detain these ships, and charge the crew for the crimes they have committed. Right now there seems to be a loophole in the legislation that Russia is actively exploiting for hybrid warfare purposes. If the strait rules would give Russia more ways to cause harm, some other way of dissuading Russia from making these acts should be done.

In general though, it feels stupid that we have to play by these rules, when the enemy makes a mockery of them and actively tries to exploit them to cause as much harm as possible. But that's the reality when bordering Russia.

> In general though, it feels stupid that we have to play by these rules, when the enemy makes a mockery of them

That is what separates civilized from uncivilized people, and it is a curse we have to bear unless we want to join the uncivilized.

> That is what separates civilized from uncivilized people, and it is a curse we have to bear unless we want to join the uncivilized.

If the Allies had committed to this thinking, they would have lost the war. And make no mistake, Europe is at war with Russia, just not a kinetic one.

There is a 1000+ km long front of active combat in Europe right now. A front where European shells and Russian ones are getting exchanged. Where F-16s fight Su-35s. And then we have things like the Russian cargo ship with nuclear materials that got sunk by a high-end torpedo. Just because shells aren't yet raining down on Berlin, it doesn't mean this war isn't kinetic.

Ukraine isn’t part of the EU, or historically part of the ‘European’ sphere (really meaning Western European). It’s historically been part of Russia. Or if you go back far enough, Russia was part of Ukraine.

It doesn’t completely negate your point, and anyone who isn’t seeing the writing on the wall is being willfully ignorant aka Chamberlain.

But culturally this is also a very different situation from France, Germany, England, Spain, or even Greece being shelled.

Which is also why people are so ‘meh’ on it, practically, and it’s taking so long to respond.

Ukraine literally used to rule the land now known as Russia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27]. Kyiv used to be the capital. I think you have your history confused, and your 'what is propaganda or not' reversed.

They are basically two brothers with a long history, with Russia having recently been on top - after previously being on the bottom - but then going bankrupt - and now trying to bully it's way back to being on top again.

Either way, they aren't France, Germany, England, Spain, etc. and have wildly different history. Ukraine isn't part of the EU or NATO (and in fact, the possibility they might eventually be is a big driver of what Russia is now doing).

Got to get that bullying in before it's too late, after all.

I already told you why that is not just wrong, it misses the point. It also doesn't help if you want to switch this whole historical legitimation propaganda to the other side, because it is meaningless anyway. We are not living in 19th or 15th or 10th century Europe anymore. Ukraine lies in Europe by any remotely recent definition and it has an actual kinetic front line. End of story. Everything else is malevolent political propaganda.

Except it is neither in Europe by most any pre-war political compass, nor ‘malevolent political propaganda’.

It was getting ready to join Europe, however, which is why it now has a kinetic front line.

And why Europe is treating this as a proxy war threat, and not an attack on an actual member.

You should really go and read up on some geography, this is become embarrassing for you. Or spew your russian propaganda elsewhere, because if you are serious you have outed yourself now.

Bwahahahaha, sure dude. Even the Bulgarians did not forget, and likely never will, the Russians. That’s why they joined the EU so quickly.

Ukraine was in a far less advantageous position, and wasn’t able to switch in time.

fortunately people making shrill comments from the armchair are in charge of nothing

The issue is, the people who are (supposedly) in charge are also sounding increasingly hysterical and seem to be actively pushing for a NATO-Russia confrontation.

That is obviously insane, so I do wonder if there isn't something else going on beneath the surface

Is it insane when Russian media and political class threatens nuclear strikes on European capitals for years now?

While we clearly told russia that if they invade the baltics we wouldn't nuke them?

Um. Theres a peace deal in the making right now. not sure you are too well informed.

I hope so, but we have the head of NATO and numerous senior British officials (including the head of MI6, who is never normally heard from) talking about an impending major war. Maybe (hopefully) this is just hedging and something can be worked out

Mi6 didnt say that there was an impending major war. They said theres a growing threat from Russia.

When agencies like that put those statements out, its not just to warn the public. Its to put pressure on the other side.

There will be a peace deal in Ukraine soon.

> Europe is at war with Russia, just not a kinetic one.

Then why aren't you at the front? Or in a factory making artillery shells?

> ships have the almost-universally recognized right to cross territorial waters (innocent passage).

I’m far from a maritime law expert, but destroying cables doesn’t sound like innocent passage.

That's why they detained the ship...

On re-reading the article I’m a bit confused.

Damage was done in the waters of one country, detaining was done in the other.

Why didn’t Russia attack in international waters?

The ship was asked to move to territorial waters by Finnish authorities before detaining.

And destroying gasducts?

Innocent passage ≠ acts of negligence or sabotage. This sets an important precedent, that ships engaging in acts of sabotage could be be boarded, put under custody and their crews detained.

IF such sabotage was actually performed by that ship, otherwise it's just harassing civilians.

For one it would stop sanctioned ships dead cold. As it is russian lawyers are playing EU like a fiddle with nonsense arguments https://www.dailyfinland.fi/europe/46719/Sanctioned-Russian-...

"The Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) said there was "reasonable doubt as to the legality of the confiscation measures," as it was unclear whether the ship had had authorization to enter and leave the EU despite the sanctions, due to an exemption applicable in emergencies."

No, he's saying that the area is international waters because Finland and Estonia agreed it was not either's territorial waters. It doesn't have to be international waters.

NATO probably doesn't want to play that game with China's stance on the seas around them.

They make a big deal about having international waters that foreign navies can transit.

The US just doesn’t recognize China’s claims to areas (eg, Taiwan or ASEAN sea islands), so doesn’t regard those as Chinese territorial waters in the first place.

The point of US freedom of navigation exercises is to assert free transit of allied and international waters, despite Chinese claims, rather than to transit Chinese territorial waters. US warships generally avoid areas which the US views as Chinese territorial waters.

The fight in and around China's sea claims is they encroach into what the rest of the world generally agrees are other countries waters not international waters. The US would still insist it could travel through the Taiwanese or Phillipine waters China wants to claim as their own. It doesn't seem to map at all on to the situation between Finland and Estonia.

Pretty sure they are saying "more vulnerable to" not "guilty".

Hyper power that can't overwhelm a country that was supposed to fold in 48h? Give me a break.

While your sentiment may be correct in 2010s it certainly was not when these things were being decided in early 90s. USSR and Russia which de facto ruled it was seen as a failed state that needs "western help" and on a path to democracy. While we (here in Poland) we're quite skeptical, having the Russian WW2 occupying force leave in 1991 (yes, we didn't get freedom after WW2 until 1991). There was still a lot of hope Russia will follow in the footsteps of other central/eastern European countries like Poland/Czech/The Baltics if only we help them. So yes, there was huge resentment, but also a huge benefit of hope and benevolence too.

Was some of this calculated? Sure. No doubt someone sat in Talin and Helsinki and thought: if we treat them like post WW1 Germany it will be easier for the extremists to take power. So let's not pour sand in their fuel tank as they are desperately trying to restart the engine of their economy.

I don't even think it was a mistake at the time. It was a decent way to behave. But the moment the tide has started turning in Russia towards autocracy the screw should've been tightened. No oil and gas should fund Russian army after at least their attack on Georgia. If not before when the atrocities of the Chechen war became known.

Unfortunately corrupt politicians (that are still in power in Europe and even in my country) have continued signing deals and making money by financing what was clearly a huge enemy in the making.

Russia wasn't an eny in 1993, but it certainly was one in 2008 when it invaded Goergia. If only we acted properly in early 2000s all of this could've been prevented.

You can't even write her name correctly

Hyper-power, seriously? Russia is not even a super power, it only has some nuclear weapons, that’s all. Just like India, Pakistan, France, Israel, etc. In all likelihood most Russia’s nuclear weapons aren’t even operable anymore.

I suggest you read, at least, the 2nd paragraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Armed_Forces