• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Kalingrad-Lithuania | 2022

Status
Not open for further replies.
william said:
While the American public would indeed be likely to want vengeance after a destructive enemy assault, the law of armed conflict requires that some military options be taken off the table.
Click to expand...
I've always been wary of the entire concept of "laws of armed conflict". Laws - any laws - are only as good as enforcement thereof. Nation-states may take some military options off the table, but not because of some abstract "laws", but because the drawbacks are believed to outweigh the advantages. After all, it's not like anyone is going to argue this stuff in court.

When it comes to conflict between nuclear powers, it is natural and expected for the conventionally weaker side to fall back on their nuclear arsenal. During the Cold War NATO countries held the short end of the stick in Europe (in terms of conventional forces), so they were much more gung-ho about nuclear retaliation (google "Project Blue Peacock" for an unintentionally hilarious example). In contrast, nuclear weapons were something of a taboo topic in Soviet propaganda - believe it or not - and a Soviet diplomat would promptly be "sent to feed the bears" (i.e. shipped off to Siberia) if they started making nuclear threats. Now the tables have turned and we can see the predictable consequences of this fact, i.e. Russia, which is clearly at a conventional disadvantage, is brandishing the nuclear sabre. There are no "laws" involved in this, only strategic calculation.

One more thing: I understand that countries have nuclear doctrine. Even Lavrov said so back in March (as in "we are not insane, we have a doctrine"). But I'm wary of that too. John Schindler - whom I generally respect - once stated that "you cannot fake doctrine". I concur, with one important caveat: you can totally fake nuclear doctrine. It's easy to do. Unfortunately for all concerned. :(
 
Last edited:
Translated from Interfax (note: Russian source; all usual cautions apply).
---
The European Commission will provide clarifications on how to apply restrictions on the transit of goods subject to European Union sanctions between the main territory of Russia and the Kaliningrad region, Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda said.

"I will be at the President of the European Commission (. . .), I will see the draft and I think that the explanation will be published in the very near future. I will not comment on its content, because I do not want to comment on the content of documents that have not yet been published and discussed", Nauseda told reporters in Brussels on Thursday after attending a meeting of EU leaders.
 
Narwal808 said:
If that's true that's absolutely insane. Do you know if there are any government sources on this because I can't find any right now. Sounds like a policy they would want to sweep under the rug though.
Click to expand...
Have to remember cyber attacks are on a gradient.
The majority of “cyber attacks”. Are probes DOS and Lockout viruses.

When nuclear retaliation is considered regarding cyber there generally referring to grid down or major infrastructure damage that would damage or destroy infrastructure or military systems.
The kind of thing that would result in significant loss of life or military weakness.
It’s all grey there is no mathematical formula or checklist to complete.
 
Obreid said:
I think it’s an attempt to put non military pressure on Russia to try and bring it to a conclusion. Don’t think it will work and don’t see any major retaliation either.
Click to expand...

How can you think that retaliations can't be seen? It's not a kind of issue that could be remain unsolved: a blocked region of your Country.

The Baltic doesn't have international waters. For now, supplying Kaliningrad by the sea is allowed, but bending and renouncing at the land transport (which is preponderant), means to not solve the problem, to accept the blockade and the non-compliance to the agreements regarding the right of passage and to legitimate that a further block could be implemented also by the sea, that's is more then likely.

so, then, what should Russia do? Escorting the ships with military ships? This will surely entails a situation in which Russia would lose the confrontation, because the most of the voyage would have take place in the waters of hostile countries and Russia, going there with not authorized military ships, it would immediately put itself in the wrong. In fact, a naval blockade by NATO would be implemented and the Russian fleet would have to choose: WHETHER to open fire the first and take responsibility for starting a war, OR to back off and make a fool of herself.

On the other hand, if the freight ships were not escorted, they would simply be seized.

With an airlift it's different. Harmless civilian airplanes for the transport of goods could depart from Russia toward Kaliningrad. At this point, it would be up to NATO to choose WHETHER to let it go, while losing the face, or to take responsibility for shooting down civilian aircraft carrying goods to a region under siege, starting a war with absolute certainty.

I don't see how we can think that nothing is going to happen. Russia can't leave Kalingrad forsaken.

I have previously suggested the possibility to cut the power to Lithuania, but thinking much better about that, it seems to me not enough: it's doesn't solve the problem.

And thinking about that even much more better, the fact that Russia has said to "think" about the situation and on what to do for some days, it doesn't sound good. IMHO, for sure Russia , has already a plan on that. Maybe it's more likely that the time to "think" is actually used to keep the plan operative. To cut off the power, doesn't need so much reflexion. I suspect that Russia is going to prepare itself for the possibility of a major war.

I don't understand DEFCON 5. IMHO, it's DEFCON 4 with "negative outlook".
 
Last edited:
bartok said:
How can you think that retaliations can't be seen? It's not a kind of issue that could be remain unsolved: a blocked region of your Country.

The Baltic doesn't have international waters. For now, supplying Kaliningrad by the sea is allowed, but bending and renouncing at the land transport (which is preponderant), means to not solve the problem, to accept the blockade and the non-compliance to the agreements regarding the right of passage and to legitimate that a further block could be implemented also by the sea, that's is more then likely.

so, then, what should Russia do? Escorting the ships with military ships? This will surely entails a situation in which Russia would lose the confrontation, because the most of the voyage would have take place in the waters of hostile countries and Russia, going there with not authorized military ships, it would immediately put itself in the wrong. In fact, a naval blockade by NATO would be implemented and the Russian fleet would have to choose: WHETHER to open fire the first and take responsibility for starting a war, OR to back off and make a fool of herself.

On the other hand, if the freight ships were not escorted, they would simply be seized.

With an airlift it's different. Harmless civilian airplanes for the transport of goods could depart from Russia toward Kaliningrad. At this point, it would be up to NATO to choose WHETHER to let it go, while losing the face, or to take responsibility for shooting down civilian aircraft carrying goods to a region under siege, starting a war with absolute certainty.

I don't see how we can think that nothing is going to happen. Russia can't leave Kalingrad forsaken.

I have previously suggested the possibility to cut the power to Lithuania, but thinking much better about that, it seems to me not enough: it's doesn't solve the problem.

And thinking about that even much more better, the fact that Russia has said to "think" about the situation and on what to do for some days, it doesn't sound good. IMHO, for sure Russia , has already a plan on that. Maybe it's more likely that the time to "think" is actually used to keep the plan operative. To cut off the power, doesn't need so much reflexion. I suspect that Russia is going to prepare itself for the possibility of a major war.

I don't understand DEFCON 5. IMHO, it's DEFCON 4 with "negative outlook".
Click to expand...
There is no ocean blockaid of Russian freight in international waters.
So your statement is false or just fear porn.
If you are so concerned about a nations right to ocean fresher access maybe you should worry first about the Russian Blockaid of Ukrainian ports.
Seems if it’s good for Ukraine it’s good for Russia.
Although no one has suggested any Russian ports be blockaided.
Obfuscation and misrepresenting were he facts does not change the reality.
It just changes the story one can tell factual or not.
Do better
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torch
Obreid said:
There is no ocean blockaid of Russian freight in international waters.
So your statement is false or just fear porn.
If you are so concerned about a nations right to ocean fresher access maybe you should worry first about the Russian Blockaid of Ukrainian ports.
Seems if it’s good for Ukraine it’s good for Russia.
Although no one has suggested any Russian ports be blockaided.
Obfuscation and misrepresenting were he facts does not change the reality.
It just changes the story one can tell factual or not.
Do better
Click to expand...

do you are using my own retoric against me, without having read what I wrote? I know that there is no blockade of Russian freight in... Baltic Sea, NOT in "international waters, in fact I said "For now, supplying Kaliningrad by the sea is allowed."
But you are disregarding the following "little" thing, that I have already said: the Baltic Sea has not "international waters"! So, Houston, there is a problem. First: the blokade could be made on the sea as well at any moment. Second: the most of the freights are by land. In this way, Kalingrad can't be sufficiently supplied and, into the extent in which it could be supplied, it could be supplied until freight is forbidden as well. Furthermore, what is taking place, is a heavy limitation againt Russia to move goods into its own territory. This situation can't reamain unsolved: THIS is factual. I think you really don't realize the gravity of the situation.
 
bartok said:
already said: the Baltic Sea has not "international waters"!
Click to expand...
The Baltic Sea is treated as international waters and it’s the implication that the implied “future threat” is some how a threat today.

As far as the so called heavy limitation on Russia to supply there own territory.
Maybe when Russia shows some interest and movement on allowing Ukraine to supply and take possession again of their own territory which is even a more self evident fact”
As far as being Russia’s problem being resolved. When they take moves to resolve what they have done to limit and abuse Ukraine, then lll give a flip.
Till then I don’t care about Russian inconvenience
 
bartok said:
How can you think that retaliations can't be seen? It's not a kind of issue that could be remain unsolved: a blocked region of your Country.

The Baltic doesn't have international waters. For now, supplying Kaliningrad by the sea is allowed, but bending and renouncing at the land transport (which is preponderant), means to not solve the problem, to accept the blockade and the non-compliance to the agreements regarding the right of passage and to legitimate that a further block could be implemented also by the sea, that's is more then likely.

so, then, what should Russia do? Escorting the ships with military ships? This will surely entails a situation in which Russia would lose the confrontation, because the most of the voyage would have take place in the waters of hostile countries and Russia, going there with not authorized military ships, it would immediately put itself in the wrong. In fact, a naval blockade by NATO would be implemented and the Russian fleet would have to choose: WHETHER to open fire the first and take responsibility for starting a war, OR to back off and make a fool of herself.

On the other hand, if the freight ships were not escorted, they would simply be seized.

With an airlift it's different. Harmless civilian airplanes for the transport of goods could depart from Russia toward Kaliningrad. At this point, it would be up to NATO to choose WHETHER to let it go, while losing the face, or to take responsibility for shooting down civilian aircraft carrying goods to a region under siege, starting a war with absolute certainty.

I don't see how we can think that nothing is going to happen. Russia can't leave Kalingrad forsaken.

I have previously suggested the possibility to cut the power to Lithuania, but thinking much better about that, it seems to me not enough: it's doesn't solve the problem.

And thinking about that even much more better, the fact that Russia has said to "think" about the situation and on what to do for some days, it doesn't sound good. IMHO, for sure Russia , has already a plan on that. Maybe it's more likely that the time to "think" is actually used to keep the plan operative. To cut off the power, doesn't need so much reflexion. I suspect that Russia is going to prepare itself for the possibility of a major war.

I don't understand DEFCON 5. IMHO, it's DEFCON 4 with "negative outlook".
Click to expand...
This situation is not as minor as some make it out to be but this is not realistic very much at all, intelligence has shown no sign of prep for a 'major war' by the russians, and either way the EU is relenting.
 
dave II judgement day said:
This situation is not as minor as some make it out to be but this is not realistic very much at all, intelligence has shown no sign of prep for a 'major war' by the russians, and either way the EU is relenting.
Click to expand...

On what EU is relending? Borrel says that the EU doesn't want to block the transit toward Kalingrad, but only to avoid the elusion of sanctions, that imply the prohibition that some goods transit through the EU.
The logic wants that if 2 things have the same effects, they actually are the same thing, said in 2 different ways. In Italy we call that: "SUPER-CAZZOLA". I think that you can't undestand this italianism, but what UE is actually doing about Kaliningrad, is "super-cazzola". It is as in the Roman siege of Masada, the Romans had said: "we are not besieging Masada, we are only implying our sanctions on the goods that couldn't go through our controlled territory, toward Masada". What does Masada people was supposed to say about that: "ah... that's ok, thank you for the explanation, if it were a siege, we could get angry, but in this way... no problem at all!"If the UE backdown is this, I doubt that it can make fool Russia.
 
Last edited:
bartok said:
On what EU is relending? Borrel says that the EU doesn't want to block the transit toward Kalingrad, but only to avoid the elusion of sanctions, that imply the prohibition that some goods transit through the EU.
The logic wants that if 2 things have the same effects, they actually are the same thing, said in 2 different ways. In Italy we call that: "SUPER-CAZZOLA". I think that you can't undestand this italianism, but what UE is actually doing about Kaliningrad, is "super-cazzola". It is as in the Roman siege of Masada, the Romans had said: "we are not besieging Masada, we are only implying our sanctions on the goods that couldn't go through our controlled territory, toward Masada". What does Masada people was supposed to say about that: "ah... that's ok, thank you for the explanation, if it were a siege, we could get angry, but in this way... no problem at all!"If the UE backdown is this, I doubt that it can make fool Russia.
Click to expand...
no I mean the EU is looking to back down on this by somehow finding a clause that says that "oops actually says here that transit of sanctioned goods to kaliningrad through the eu is fine after all, sorry about all that"
 
Can't find the source anymore (I can sort of speak Russian, and I monitor a *lot* of Russian newssites so you don't have to ;)), but there was a report earlier today that Alikhanov (Kaliningrad governor) had said something to the effect that "the EU would not interfere with Kaliningrad transit" and that "our diplomatic efforts through the MFA are working".

He's jumping the gun, of course, and it might all still come to naught, but he strikes me as the odd man out in the Russian elite. He's just too reasonable and level-headed for the madhouse that is the Kremlin. They'll probably replace him sooner rather than later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torch
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom