I reconstructed the debate on intentionality of the cable damage incidents in the Baltic Sea, following the Washington Post article, in this Substack post.
My main argument is that intentionality does not matter. The shadow fleet needs to be dealt with either way.
My main argument is that intentionality does not matter. The shadow fleet needs to be dealt with either way.
Comments
Thank you.
https://www.newsweek.com/china-conflict-undersea-cables-cutting-internet-data-subsea-marine-baltic-taiwan-2012396
Anonymous Finnish high-ranking official says that even if intentionality cannot be proven, the ship is nevertheless part of the Russian shadow fleet that causes damage. Several officials think a hybrid operation is more likely than a coincidence
Also hopefully more *publicising* peer theraphy groups on the horizon.
(less therapy/trauma/Deza, more publication)
(let them dots connect)
Overlay-app, anyone?
(software developers, unite!)
https://yle.fi/a/74-20138557
https://www.hs.fi/tutkiva/art-2000010979641.html
Imho, intentionality matters if it can be proven but finding enough evidence tom overrule "plausible deniability" is near impossible.
A) how much heavy lifting the term "plausible deniability" does
and
B) that it shouldn't shield someone from consequences
Ready for a NATO / Russia shooting war?
That's what you'd get.
That's because (thankfully), no Western nations have (at least so far), engaged in the extremely dangerous and provocative blockades that you are recommending.
If and when this changes -- look out.