[tgsovlerkhgsel]

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.

[deliciousturkey]

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.

[Hendrikto]

> 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.

[sekai]

> 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.

[sigmoid10]

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.

[lazide]

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.

[sigmoid10]

>It doesn’t completely negate your point

I don't see anything in your comment that would even argue with my point, much less negate it. That history lesson on Europe itself is pretty pointless, because if you go back a bit further you'd find much of Ukraine having been ruled by the Habsburgs - i.e. Austria. It doesn't get more European than that. And that short period of time where the Russians/Soviets ruled basically serves as Putin's propaganda reason for this war. That certainly doesn't belong here either.

[gnerd00]

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

[ifwinterco]

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

[Sabinus]

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

[Throaway198712]

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

[carlosjobim]

> 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?

[rasz]

We are standing at the precipice where the only choices quickly narrow down to becoming "uncivilized" or dead.

[lostlogin]

> 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.

[yetihehe]

That's why they detained the ship...

[lostlogin]

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?

[deliciousturkey]

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

[LtWorf]

And destroying gasducts?

[petre]

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.

[LtWorf]

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

[rasz]

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."