In the current German government coalition, the Liberals have already been sacked, Taurus promised. Since even the Greens are going into the elections with a “Taurus ok” attitude, the “peace chancellor” is then the only one of the current trio supporting Russia’s monopoly on “peace missiles” in the war.
From the opposition, the polling leader CDU/CSU has long been in favor of giving the Tauruses.
Scholz’s Social Democrats and the Left Party are against it, together with the ‘far-right’, i.e., the AfD.
Those three in the polls: 16+19+4=39%
Taurus has a feature that could probably best smash the Crimean bridge to pieces, meaning it wouldn’t just punch through as easily as the Scalp/Storm Shadow…
I suppose states can print new money as much as they want, it then shows up as inflation and in the exchange rate. Stopping it will be difficult, but also if it is continued - as long as the West’s backbone doesn’t break before the Russian economy.
If cables start breaking at an accelerating pace, there is also the possibility that connections running to Russia through Western countries will simply be shut down. Another matter is whether there is a common will for such an operation.
NATO countries are at both ends of both cables; there shouldn’t be much need to turn the wheels of bureaucracy if it is determined that these acts are attacks against NATO.
These are by no means attacks against NATO countries. These are acts of harassment against individual states. Hybrid warfare seems to be permitted. Airspace violations. Loitering around maritime infrastructure, etc. The news is full of these even without propaganda (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, etc., etc.). Even drones and missile debris are allowed to fly in airspaces.
-USA thanks to Trump, interest in the situation in Ukraine and Europe is decreasing
-Germany…Scholtz
-Austria and countries further west of it. Over the last 12 months, I’ve listened to how the war is not their problem (Russia isn’t coming there), etc.
and this situation in the Baltic countries. This too looks quite two-faced. The eastern parts of the countries are just like Eastern Ukraine before February 2022. There is still plenty of sympathy.
PS. An Estonian truck driver just came here near the Russian border to tell me how everything is just so political (apparently leaving with 8 tractor-trailers full of deliveries to St. Petersburg with his colleagues). He grandly mentioned how the problem is Russia’s manpower for the army, so they could roll over everything and end the whole game so we can return to normal… I must say, it’s been a while since I’ve felt like vomiting that quickly.
I agree with the Estonian truck driver, but for different reasons. The whole EU’s actions are quite a farce… we’ll see when NATO reacts in any way. North Korea and Iran are already participants in the violation of Ukraine’s independence in addition to Russia…
Edit. So, greetings from here in the “field”. The home-sofa perspectives in Finland regarding YLE, Iltalehti, or Instagram are often contradictory.
I am under the impression that, in terms of their features, ATACMS and Taurus missiles are more useful for Ukraine now than Storm Shadow. That is, if they were to get “unrestricted right of use” for them soon.
ATACMS because it is ballistic, fast, difficult to intercept, and accurate. Taurus because although it is a “slow” cruise missile, it is effective and difficult to intercept because, among other things, it can fly very low, and because it can first penetrate surface structures or walls with a small charge and explode a larger charge at the desired depth or, for example, on a lower floor of a building. It depends, of course, on what quantities and when Ukraine receives which missiles.
Now it just seems that the USA still wants to decide which strikes to authorize and which not. One could also argue that, ironically, the USA’s final decision-making power regarding strike targets only keeps the USA more tightly in the operational leadership of the combat taking place on Russian territory. I don’t understand why they want to act this way. Unless it’s that eternal fear of escalation again. But if that is the motive, then this certainly feels counterintuitive, for the very reason I explained above.
And one more point: Storm Shadow missiles have already been used to strike Crimea many times, and according to Russia (even under current law), Crimea is part of Russia.
Perun analyzes the changed situation in Ukraine for an hour after the US elections:
In the same spirit, I want to promote a lesser-known podcast about the war in Ukraine. Ukraine Russia War Talk often brings very good perspectives directly from Ukraine by Bielieskov, thus avoiding the typical narrative bubbles of American war podcasts and analysts:
Three years ago, I wouldn’t have believed that I’d be answering “yes” to this question. It seems that I, and apparently a few others as well, are starting to have had enough of Russia’s actions.
It is important that different perspectives are brought forward. Isolated from a broader perspective, one might think that this is a matter of harassment directed at individual states. However, that is not the case. If Russia is behind it, then it is about posturing and exactly the opposite of what you imagine.
With such actions, the goal is to blur NATO’s purpose and significance by bringing the discussions to a level where detailed understanding leaves room for speculation and [undermines] the possibility for coordinated countermeasures.
If Russia is behind this, the countermeasures must be similar but so impactful and wide-ranging in scope that they significantly raise the threshold for continuing such actions. At the same time, a clear path of escalating countermeasures must be outlined if this does not remain the last act of sabotage.
The interpretation that these are not actions against NATO is exactly what such actions aim for. Misconceptions must be corrected.
EDIT: Clarified and corrected typos caused by agitation.
Patrushev seemed to claim just over a week ago that the US and Great Britain are preparing to cut undersea cables and then intend to blame Russia for those acts of sabotage. Quite a good predictor.
In October 2023, the Hong Kong-flagged Newnew Polar Bear broke the Balticconnector gas pipeline. What was ultimately done? The vessel was allowed to sail back to China (arrived in China in December), after which an investigation was launched.
”The vessel has been contacted several times, but the vessel has not been willing to cooperate.” ”The jurisdiction of Finnish authorities does not extend to the exclusive economic zone; instead, the ship would have had to enter our country’s territorial waters.”
What should have been done:
Stop the ship immediately, as soon as it was clear which vessel broke the pipeline. There are indeed ways to do this. A professor of maritime law explained them in November 2023:
”…here, one could have also appealed to the environmental perspective. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea precisely defines the rights of a coastal state to investigate vessels in the exclusive economic zone if it is a matter of investigating an environmental offense. The rupture of the gas pipeline and the subsequent gas leak are also environmental problems.”
In this case, one must simply apply the law and show that these things are not overlooked. Additionally, it should always be stated publicly that similar actions in the future will be met with severe US and EU-level countermeasures; the shipping company should have been, for example, forced to pay maximum compensation.
Germany’s withholding of Taurus and the anemic increase in arms production relative to potential, France’s mere talk, Hungary’s near-alliance with Russia, the antics of Slovakia and Austria.
These came to mind in a second
Edit: the question was directed to @aspee, apologies
You are right when you break the matter down small enough. We can then conclude that nothing is within the EU’s power. When things get annoying enough, one can always just leave – Brexit. This is probably where the problem ultimately lies, and this crisis has shown it well. The EU is far too fragmented to be able to act consistently in a crisis situation.
None of those (unpleasant and dangerous) things are within the EU’s power. Or should the EU have started to reprimand and quarrel with its member states over national decisions at a moment when unity is being challenged perhaps more strongly than at any time since its founding?
This is certainly what would have been hoped for, at least in the Kremlin.
