Who controls these ships and what is their perspective? I don't understand how we know what they 'understand' or not?
Also, how do you identify the ships? Do you blockade all maritime traffic in the Baltic Sea? All too and from Russia? The first would destroy our own economy, the second is a certain act of war.
> What I mean is that they will only understand counter measures that you'd take in a war, like blockade or sink them for instance.
Likely that is what they want. Do you think Russian planners are ignorant, and can't foresee that? This sort of game is long played in international relations.
It's chess: You try to cause your opponent to put themselves in a bad position. Provocations are manipulation - it's obvious what Russia is trying to provoke.
I doubt they want that. Blockade will undermine their war efforts which strongly depend on their oil and other exports.
More likely they think countries around Baltic Sea are too scared to offer strong resistance, so they can engage in such activity with impunity. And they won't limit it to Baltic Sea either, they'll do it anywhere they feel they can.
It's a mobster mentality. As I said, the only language they understand is response with force, nothing else.
Russia wants to show global south that the West is evil and aggressive and wants to encroach on and break up Russia. Provoking a European nation into military action first is the way to do that.
Global south cares for Russia as much as Russia is paying (giving discounts) anyone to care for it, not a barrel of oil more.
The most obvious reason here is simply mobster style intimidation. I.e. "You are helping Ukraine? We'll get back at you by damaging cables and what not".
I'd say the proper response to such incidents is to increase military help for Ukraine and blockade / confiscate / sink Russian ships wherever they do this stuff. Ships which engage in that should be treated as hostile military vessels.
That is not an option. They might as well bomb St. Petersburg - it's a seige, an act of war.
> the only language they understand is response with force, nothing else
I see no evidence of that.
Putin is in fact a political operator at a high level, and understands politics exceptionally well. Warfare is merely politics by other means, one tool in the toolchest (for people like him).
That's the only option, because otherwise you are saying that Russia can engage in acts of war against Europe and Europe can't respond. That's not how it should work. And what they do with cables is totally acts of war.
> I see no evidence of that.
Their Black Sea fleet hides in their ports, because they know the moment they'll try to roam, Ukraine will sink them. What other evidence do you need? It works.
> That's the only option, because otherwise you are saying that Russia can engage in acts of war against Europe and Europe can't respond.
Warfare is not the only option; there are many tools in the toolchest.
What is the source of all this warmongering language today, from so many commenters, using the same transparently erroneous ideas? Obviously it's false to suggest that the only way to influence events in international relations is warfare. What do you think countries are doing during the 99% of the time they are at peace? It can't be coincidence that everyone is coming up with same thing - what is the source of it?
Is someone runnig a warmongering campaign on social media? I suppose, given history, it's very predictable. It's been done to publics via older forms of media. We know some powerful people who actively advocate for it.
Also, how do you identify the ships? Do you blockade all maritime traffic in the Baltic Sea? All too and from Russia? The first would destroy our own economy, the second is a certain act of war.