It's pretty obvious what's happening here.
The response needs to be forceful: seize and auction off the ships. There needs to be sufficient deterrent to actually stop this from happening.
The response needs to be forceful: seize and auction off the ships. There needs to be sufficient deterrent to actually stop this from happening.
One ship might be considered a reasonable pawn to sacrifice. I'd go further: require that any ships passing through the strait to be bonded at some eye-watering amount like 10x the price of the ship plus the repair costs of the cable. Make it so if the cable is cut, you make a profit.
But we probably have promised not to blockade ships in some conventions. And little Denmark (or Sweden) do not benefit from setting a precedence that conventions can be broken.
Getting payback is easy though: support Ukraine.
Russia isn’t even pretending to follow international maritime law. China hasn’t for a decade. And now America is being creative with its interpretations.
The US follows the rules carefully when Russia encourages it to.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/31/us/politics/russia-oil-ta...
You haven't really thought this plan through.
You haven't really thought this plan through.
Based on recent events, even people struggle to tell what is Russian and what isn’t.
These smart mines might solve that?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/31/us/politics/russia-oil-ta...
https://www.rheinmetall.com/Rheinmetall%20Group/brochure-dow...
There was a Planet Money episode touching on Maritime law:
https://www.npr.org/2025/10/17/nx-s1-5577076/shadow-fleet-ru...
It was about Russian tankers breaking the sanctions, but with a well put explanation of why we can't just stop these ships even with extreme confidence in their fraudulency.
To be clear, why we don’t want to. Freedom of navigation makes all of us tremendously richer, even if it permits such fuckery.
Every great power has, at this point, rejected the notion in limited contexts. And if you’re not concerned about trashing trade, there is no incoherence to ignoring these rules.
Russia can bluster and threaten but their navy is weak and shrinking. Most of their commissioned warships never venture far from port. Outside of their territorial waters they have minimal capability to protect their own merchant vessels or interdict anyone else's sea lines of communication.
The US can't afford to field the navy necessary to back this ams hasn't been able to for many decades
This is nonsense. The U.S. Navy de facto guarantees freedom of navigation today. Globally.
If we switched to a national system, our Navy wouldn’t literally escort U.S.-flagged ships. Its military would just need to enforce the threat that you get bombed if you fuck with America.
We’d save money switching to a big-stick model. (I think we’d be poorer for it in the long run. But if you’re playing chess and your opponent machete, you’re not going to find any winning moves on the board.)
Panting a Russian flag on the side of a crappy tanker is enough to get the US to back off.
Russia can do what it likes with current US leadership.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/31/us/politics/russia-oil-ta...
Has the White House rolled over?
So yes… I think.
I wouldn't be suprised if Trump chickens out. But this logic is terrible.
The same pursuit that has been happening for days continues to happen. That the pattern has not changed in reaction to new stimulus isn't proof that the stimulus worked.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/01/us/politics/russia-oil-ta...
Yes. I am aware. Flags are being painted, registries updated and sternely-worded letters sent. The ship sails on. So do its pursuers.
> It’s going to be hard to duck this one
It really shouldn't be.
Just board the ship. Putin makes noises about international law. A D.C. lawyer insists that no, the vessel was stateless when found. And assuming there isn't like fissile material or a senior IRGC liaison on board, everyone grumbles and moves on.
Trump and Putin have a complicated relationship. But about the single thing that this will not depend on will be what maritime law says the U.S. should do. (And I think the legal arguments for seizure are on America's side on this one.)
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/583459/us-seizes-venezuela-...
So you really need to tread lightly around enemy oil tankers.
Which is why you sink them empty. Ukraine has been doing this for months now.
How is this working for the gulf of aden? Go to sleep grandpa, we can take it from here
You’re really claiming the U.S. military cannot stop the Houthi attacks?
The administration’s position is this is Europe’s problem [1]. It’s literally part of America retreating from that historic guarantee.
(That said, the simplest response would be to give the Saudis a weapons deal to secure the coasts. You have to blow up the ports, which will trigger a humanitarian disaster.)
[1] https://www.axios.com/2025/03/26/vance-anti-europe-obsession
Yes, absolutely we cannot. Everytime we drive by we roll the dice with hundreds of lives.
And stop reading western propaganda! It's bad for you.
> That said, the simplest response would be to give the Saudis a weapons deal to secure the coasts. You have to blow up the ports, which will trigger a humanitarian disaster.
The saudis have BEEN a humanitarian disaster for longer than either of us have been alive.
Nations, like China, are catching up but largely because of two outsized factors:
- The US for some time has not been able to produce ships at home, at scale, and at cost. This is more of a slow burn because the fleet has been kept up to date for the most part. Eventually, new ships need to be built at home.
- Donald Trump has done damn near everything he can to install lackey's within the military, which reduces the military's top decision making acumen down to yes-men to a 79 year old geriatric patient.
Russia's fleet, on the other hand, is an aging joke. It is where we will be if we continue electing fascists that install Martians like Hegseth.
Good start. Then turn off Russia’s cable that runs via Finland [1] and make vague threats about (a) seizing shadow-fleet vessels in the Baltics and (b) how vulnerable Russia’s cable to Kaliningrad [2] would be to careless anchors.
All the while: start setting up non-cable based back-up bandwidth for if Russia severs these cables in advance of invasion.
[1] https://www.submarinecablemap.com/submarine-cable/bcs-north-...
[2] https://www.submarinecablemap.com/submarine-cable/kingisepp-...
They won't be able to seize those without opening fire.
https://ioplus.nl/en/posts/how-seven-students-unmasked-russi...
The point is it doesn’t. Ukraine is on its way to wiping out Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. It’s pure posturing to pretend Moscow is stupid enough to end its existence over a naval battle, much less simply credible threats of one.
That statement doesn't really amount to much given the risk. I think we need something far more convincing; and many experts clearly think nuclear war is a risk.
Is this correct?
Look up what they said would trigger a nuclear war at the start of the invasion. Many of those things have already happened.
Also, Biden vary carefully managed that risk by slowing boiling the frog. Too carefully, I thought, but it's reasonable that his overwhelming priority was preventing nuclear war.
Yes, Russia is the problem, but that's not really relevant (or, frankly, mature). The situation is what it is, and we must decide how to get the best outcomes.
Edit: by that I mean, with that attitude we would just have never developed nukes, or given the nukes to the Russians preemptively, because who wants nuclear war, right? Anything is better than that.
If the nuke threat isn't reasonable and proportional then you must ignore it.
Nukes are for existential risks. Which is 1) enemy nukes, and 2) invasion of the capital. Anything else is bluster and coercion.
Fuck around, you’ll find out. These guys are wimps. If they want to end the world, so be it. China would be destroyed too.
This is not a way rational adults make decisions. I truly hope you are not a voter in any democratic nuclear-armed country.
If Russia doesn’t like it they can stop with the dumb threats.
So if that’s their strategy, I’ll call their bluff every time. No point in the human race existing if the result is “do what we say, else we nuke you”. Bet
If the USA threatens to nuke Russia if they don't leave Ukraine tomorrow, would you be giving these same sage warnings to Russia?
Russia isn't gonna fling nukes if the West doesn't first. Putin and co have no interest in Moscow being glassed.
Red line still pretty intact.
Standard North Koreans?
Your point stands but Russia is happy to drag in anyone it can. The US and EU letting Ukraine bleed out is shameful.
The Associated Press has documented 59 Russian hybrid operations across Europe. A systematic campaign of intimidation, sabotage, and violence: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-europe-hybrid-...
Russia supplied the Buk missile system that shot down MH17, killing 298 civilians, most of them Europeans. Putin eliminates political opponents, like Alexei Navalny, who died in custody days before a possible release.
European leaders may be passive and slow, but what is making the situation truly dangerous, is the dictator-jealousy fueled encouragement and indulgence of the current U.S. administration, and all its sycophants, which got to the point of publicly applauding a dictator on U.S. soil.
That behavior legitimizes aggression, emboldens Moscow, and directly undermines European security, and is making thinks really, really, sketchy right now.
Germany accuses Russia of air traffic control cyber-attack: [1] - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgrrnylzzyo
Isn't the logical action for EU to launch massive pre-emptive strikes on this big bad country that hates the western way of life ?
A pre-emptive strike would be expensive and immediately retcon into making Putin be the good guy - he’s long said NATO is the aggressor. Best to make invading EU to be too expensive to be worth it.
I think the bigger risk currently that Europe faces is the low and mid level corruption where Russian agents extend their tendrils into government structures in EU.
Come on. Who cares what he pretend?
> Best to make invading EU to be too expensive to be worth it.
How do you propose to estimate how much it is worth doing it?
IMO, it is best is to make the kremlin government collapse by all mean necessary. Including sabotage, assassination, propaganda, confiscation, corruption/trahison. And preemptive strike if needs to be.
The two biggest targets are the UK and France, because both have an independent nuclear deterrent. If those are captured by puppets, expect nuclear explosions over European capitals.
This is not hyperbole. Russian government insiders have made it absolutely, unambiguously clear that Europe must be "crushed."
As a direct quote.
The real tragedy is oligarch complicity. Oligarchs and aristocrats in the US, UK, and EU have decided they have more in common with their Russian counterparts than with the native populations of their respective countries.
And you, singlehandedly have the supreme insight into all these people, to ascribe motive on them? Impressive
or perhaps its possible that some people just have their own opinions that is not yours, and MAYBE has some overlap with russian? (assuming that to be true)
I bet you share many opinions with Putin, for example, I believe he considers exercise to be healthy, why, by your previous logic, that would make your health advice a russian front?
War is best prevented by robust deterrents. When it comes to belligerent fascist regimes who want to see how far you can be pushed, not responding to provocations and aggression forcefully makes larger-scale war more likely in the future.
Depending on the days, the priority changes, between Russia or attacking the US first, maybe with the help from Canada :-))
You have to deal with one threat at a time, and it seems the fight against chlorinated chicken will take priority for now... :-)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/12/17/trump-demands...
Good luck with that, though.
There should be a tit for tat response but the tit needs to be much larger than the tat to create the incentive for no longer attacking
If it's known that Russia is using ships to attack Western infrastructure, blockading those ships is entirely proportional. A blockade, in this case, isn't so much an act of war, as it is a response to an act of war.
A proportional response would be to take out of one their fleets. We explicitly went disproportional when we conquered their entire nation and dismantled their empire.
Please stop pushing ahistorical claims
"I didn't think to shoot, and I don't want to put my hand in blood. I don't think I'm the one who can take life of people."
Terrorist ran away, grabbed another gun and not only killed more people but also shot Ahmed 5 times.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/dec/29/wound...
"Ahmed, 44, was shot five times shortly after wrestling with Akram."
- The Philippines, a US territory, where tens of thousands of American soldiers were killed or captured and
subjected to the infamous Bataan Death March. Hundreds of thousands of Filipinos are killed during invasion and occupation.
- Guam, also a US territory
- Hong Kong, Malaya and Singapore: British territories
- Thailand, an independent kingdom
Not only did the Japs attack Pearl Harbor, formally declare war on the United States, enjoy an alliance with Germany and Italy who themselves declared war on the Unites States, and conquer or attempt to conquer all those places to build their empire; they also fought fanatically and with exceptional brutality, they committed countless atrocities (wanton murders, amputations and mutilations, gang rapes, sex slavery, vivisections, human experiments--you name it, they did it), they administered conquered territories cruelly, and they treated prisoners of war even more cruelly.
Considering all of the above, conquering the Japanese nation and ensuring their total defeat was not only justified (as I believe you'd agree), it was also entirely proportionate to their warmongering and brutality.
Please stop pushing ahistorical claims.
We did not respond proportionately, we responded disproportionately. I don’t know how this is even being argued by people that our response on WW2 to any of our belligerents was in measured proportion.
Like, it was the last time we went to total warfare and indiscriminately bombed civilian population centers
And certainly neither Germany nor Japan had any compunction about indiscriminately bombing civilians, let alone intentionally murdering many millions of them.
Walk softly and carry a big stick, is still applicable game theory and the big stick was not meant to be held back just because someone hit you with a smaller stick.
If you only respond in proportion to an adversary, they basically get to dictate the engagement. A strategy that leads to less violence overall is to apply disproportionate retaliation to any attacks, which signals to other players that you will make actions against you not a viable long term strategy
The Japanese tried to firebomb the US, too; they simply weren't as successful[0]. They also had a nuclear program, and God knows they would have nuked the US first if they could have. There was no Mutually Assured Destruction back then, either--just unidrectional Assured Destruction. I'm glad the US got there first.
Consider the handy Wikipedia chart of WWII deaths[1]. The main instigators of the deadliest war in history, Germany and Japan, have fairly low total death rates and, in fact, comparatively low civilian death rates compared to the Allies.
Further I want to point out that 'proportionate' is not the same as 'equivalent'. A proportionate response doesn't mean you try to kill exactly the same number of troops or sink the same number of warships.
Finally I want to reiterate that I do generally agree with you about the value and deterrent effect of some perceived probability of a disproportionate response, or at least the value of unpredictability in general. That is not to say that I believe the Madman Theory is an optimal strategy over the long term, but I do think it can be played effectively as a short-term tactic.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu-Go_balloon_bomb
[1]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Wo...
To be clear, strikes wouldn't be "pre-emptive", Russia is already in a war, and it's entirely allowed for any nation to join the side of Ukraine. None of the rules of war prevent helping a friendly country by joining the fight.
I personally think there's a more direct link between the US administration and Russia, in line with the rest of your points. I think it's more than "dictator-jealousy fueled encouragement", although what that "more" is I'm not entirely sure, and I'm not sure the differences between the possibilities matters in the end.
I really think it's hard not to read [about] Foundations of Geopolitics and the history of Viktor Yanukovych, the ties between the latter and Trump, and not conclude Russia's tendrils in the US, England, and elsewhere are far deeper than is generally acknowledged in the press.
I lost a lot of trust in most media to cover this issue appropriately when people in the UK started mysteriously dying and zipping themselves in body bags, and the coverage was a collective shrug. Why they would report something like that and then with a straight face conclude an article with "police say there's no evidence of foul play" is beyond me. But then again how the Mueller investigation got spun as an exoneration is also beyond me as well.
I know it's often seen as dismissive or shallow to blame the media for things, but I really do place a huge proportion of the blame for our current mess, at least in the US, on news outlets and media soft-pedaling what's been happening for the last 10 years. A lot of what people trust became propaganda, and a lot of the rest of it chased that audience around for clicks.
But does it matter? 77 million Americans knowingly voted a convicted felon and court adjudicated sexual assaulter back into the presidency instead of a jail cell. From those, about 40 million were women, fully aware that a jury found him liable for sexual assault, and that multiple judges affirmed the verdict.
The majority of Americans saw criminality, sexual violence, and contempt for the law and decided that was acceptable leadership. :-))
"Kushner Companies and Russian individuals exchanged suspicious money transfers at the height of the 2016 race, ex-Deutsche Bank employee says" - https://www.businessinsider.com/jared-kushner-russia-2016-mo...
Run with the ad Homs if that’s the narrative needed to win, then use the power to implement policy. Anything less is bringing a book to a gun fight
My hunch is that a lot of Americans ticked 'Trump' because of brand recognition.
It's like buying laundry detergent. Most people know nothing about the chemistry or efficacy. They pick whatever package looks familiar, 'Tide' probably
Let that be the prism through which all future political action is seen. Let's be real. Let's be good. Let's strive to eliminate and replace this farcical hyperbole, self-agrandizement, this pyramid scheme of a pretense at government. Let's have some confidence and ambition: work to restore a real balance of power between our three branches. There is so much we could do in the near and long term if we just set out sights on a simple, positive goal.
We may never be great again. Maybe we never were. But we can be good.
Scotland Yard's inquiry also found no evidence of Williams's fingerprints on the padlock of the bag or the rim of the bath, which the coroner said supported her assertion of "third-party involvement" in the death. Metropolitan Police deputy assistant commissioner Martin Hewitt said it was theoretically possible for Williams to lower himself into the bag without touching the rim of the bath. A key to the padlock was inside the bag, underneath his body" (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Gareth_Williams)
It's absolutely mad, but remember this happened in 2010 -- before Russia did many of those bad things you mention. It wouldn't surprise me if a combination of political pressure and police incompetence made this go away.
The exhibits are short and worth looking at
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-d...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Russian_drone_incursion_i...
Any reasonable planning requires looking at the scenario your action creates - the range of outcomes. The range certainly includes Putin using nuclear weapons (which is part of Russia's military doctrine - see 'escalate to deescalate'). That needs to be part of your plan.
If we had acted decisively at the beginning of the Ukraine war, the risk of nuclear war would be lower today.
Appeasement can work. But it can also increase risks. In this case, giving into a bully invites escalation itself, which increases the chances of a fuckup (e.g. a misfired drone taking out an early-warning radar) which legitimately calls for nuclear escalation.
The true IR expertise - and you'll see this from the actual experts (and caveat: I am no more than a well-read amatuer) - is to neither escalate nor appease. The focus is on outcomes, not 'getting justice' (I can't think of a better term: reaction, emotional satisfaction, blame, fighting back, etc.). It endlessly frustrates many in the public, because of course they want emotional satisfaction; it also endlessly frustrates me because the leaders don't explain this.
It's like an engineering problem: You don't want to make decisions in anger; blame is terrible leadership; trying to hurt whoever caused your problem is absurd. It all would make your situation worse, even if you solve the original problem. Obviously, you think about the overall outcome for your organization and plan the best way to get there.
In sports, 'trash talk' is used to get that emotional reaction from people, because it takes them away from trying to win the game. The moment you get that response, you know you've won. Russia is working for that moment and is getting it from some.
> If we had acted decisively at the beginning of the Ukraine war, the risk of nuclear war would be lower today.
I agree completely - depending on what you mean (I certainly oppose direct combat between NATO and Russia). And we can still do it now: If NATO guarantees Ukraine unlimited material support until they win the war, no matter how long, not only would Ukraine win but when Russia was convinced of that (however that might happen), they would give up. The Europeans could do it themselves - they have ~~ 20x the economy of Russia. It would be much cheaper than the alternative of Russia gaining ground and fighting them later, and it would drain Russia's military and economy substantially.
Certainly that's not appeasing and it's barely escalatory: It's not a threat to Russian security - Ukraine obviously isn't invading - though it's eventually a threat to Putin's political standing, he may navigate it. And escalatory risk could be further decreased by offering Russia a permanent security treaty based on the old borders, with disarmament on both sides. That's the outcome NATO wants anyway.
Do you see a deal for such a peace?
Agree.
> Europeans could do it themselves - they have ~~ 20x the economy of Russia
Europe isn’t politically capable of decisive action. By design. Some European countries could, but I’m not seeing a proximate future where Europe is-and is treated as—a great power.
> escalatory risk could be further decreased by offering Russia a permanent security treaty based on the old borders, with disarmament on both sides
What do you mean by disarmament? Ukraine and Russia will obviously maintain arms after any peace. They just won’t be blowing each other up.
Kissinger famously said, ~ 'if I want to call Europe, who do I speak to?' Generally I think your position is more true than not.
But the Europeans have an opportunity to act more cohesively: Since Kissinger, things have changed considerably: Europe has the political and military structures: the EU government is much stronger, with greatly expanded power, and more cohesive, helped by the exit of the dissenter UK and the Russian threat; the EU and NATO now encompass pretty much everyone west of Russia. There has long been a growing movement to strengthen EU foreign policy in that way - even having a military force.
And they have powerful incentives: Russia's threat and the US's abandonment; and the rise of China (and India and others) makes Europe's individual 'great powers' into middling and regional ones. Just imagine the UK still ruling Hong Kong today. Together, the EU would be the second leading power in the world - potentially growing into the first if they don't alienate everyone like another power.
Also, they don't need to act cohesively. Germany by itself has a far bigger economy than Russia and could fund Ukraine alone - and they wouldn't be totally alone, either.
> What do you mean by disarmament? Ukraine and Russia will obviously maintain arms after any peace. They just won’t be blowing each other up.
Again, likely true. My very hypothetical point was, a broader NATO-Russian peace could disarm both sides, including the sensitive regions. Maybe Ukraine joins NATO to give them security. Open up trade with Russia too.
Russia has no political position to reject that offer - peace, security, trade - except Putin's imperialist ambitions. It would demonstrate the lie in Putin's claim that NATO seeks to control Russia. It might be hard for him to resist that offer domestically.
But yeah, if Russia keeps it up, just blockade the Baltic Sea for ships heading to Russian ports.
The only reason why this seizure of russian money in Belgium might be a bad idea is reciprocity. Russia would of course then try to seize European assets in Russia.
And regarding ships, prize law is still internationally accepted and in effect. Ukraine can offer prize letters to privateers or foreign navies, allowing the seizure of Russian ships. Or they can seize ships themselves. When those ships are then in a Ukrainian or allied harbor, a Ukrainian admirality court then assigns ownership of the vessel and all goods to the ones who brought it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_(law)
They already did.
all the planes https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/16/business/russia-aircraft-...
carlsberg https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/31/business/carlsberg-russia-bus...
danone https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66218999
fortum https://www.fortum.com/en/media/2025/08/fortums-statement-re...
the list goes on and on
Honestly, give any Russian or shadow-vessel crew a bounty if they surrender. Turn Moscow’s fleet into a cheap source of intelligence and scrap.
Jailing crews in comfy Scandinavian prisons can hardly be a strong deterrent either.
Russia is all-in on this confrontation, Europe is much wealthier but won't commit anywhere near the effort or expense.
"We don't want to start a war doncha know, so whenever Russia attacks us we'll just take it on the chin and not fight back too hard".
It appears the world has forgotten the lessons of the Sudetenland.
Look if russia wants to conquer the world, let them. They can't make things worse than the indolent ivy-league rot that has destroyed western culture. If people braying about the threat of the east want to be taken seriously, they need to make a much more concerted effort to convince us that the western model makes sense and we're not just working our asses off to suck off rich retards
Do you have any experience living under Russian rule? Have you tried any political participation while doing so?
But since Russia IS locked in a land war with Ukraine, in a hypothetical world, you could retaliate by upping aid through Ukraine, OR (if you were being sneaky), laundering your actions through Ukraine.
Speaking of the joy of living in Russia, check out the hilarious story of racist right wing Finnish Flat Earther anti-immigrant anti-refugee pro-Russian criminal asshole Ano Turtiainen, now living as a refugee in Russia and threatening to fight against fellow Finns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ano_Turtiainen
Ano Turtiainen is a former Finnish powerlifter turned far-right politician who managed to embarrass himself and others at every step:
He was banned for two years in 1998 for androgenic drug use -- perfect start to a "morally upright" career.
As an MP with the batshit crazy racist right-wing Finns Party, he posted a mocking tweet about George Floyd's murder ("Pink Floyd"), which was widely condemned as even too racist for the Finns Party, which got him expelled.
He set up his own splinter faction and then a tiny party, Power Belongs to the People (VKK), which became known for praising Russia and opposing sanctions and Finnish NATO membership, utterly at odds with mainstream Finnish views.
Turtiainen even refused to fire an assistant who posted racist content and had a parliamentary visitor do a Nazi salute (which he photographed himself!).
Instead of behaving like a responsible adult during the pandemic, he mocked public health measures, called them "neo-communism", refused masks, and threatened violence over mask mandates.
Meanwhile his own company manufactured masks: the ultimate hypocrisy.
Turtiainen failed to explain how he used over €30,000 in parliamentary group funds -- so the Finnish Parliament is trying to collect it back through debt enforcement.
Not only that: He's a Flat Earther, doesn't believe in space existing, and was convinced NASA interfered in the last election he was involved in so that he only got 7 votes.
Now the Ultimate Irony: the Anti-Immigrant Asshole Becomes a Hypocritical Refugee.
After losing his seat in the 2023 election (with only ~632 votes), Turtiainen moved to Russia, the country he celebrated, defended even during its invasion of Ukraine, and praised as a cultural "brother".
Russia granted him refugee status (yes, refugee status), despite his previous anti-immigrant posturing -- and he proudly accepts it.
In videos he’s now said he might fight for Russia -- even against Finns -- in the war in Ukraine. That’s right: the man who slammed refugees and immigrants is now a political asylum seeker in Russia, flirting with joining Russian troops and fighting his own countrymen.
Turtiainen's political life is a one-man case study in right-wing hypocrisy, racism, ignorance, self-harm, and irony: The guy who mocked others' suffering ends up dependent on another country’s goodwill -- the same country he championed in Finnish politics.
Former Finns Party MP granted refugee status in Russia: The pro-Russian ex-lawmaker has claimed that he would be "ready to go to the front against the Finns" if necessary:
Former Finnish MP and his wife granted refugee status in Russia: Turtiainen founded and leads the political party "Power belongs to the people":
https://fakti.bg/en/world/1024214-former-finnish-mp-and-his-...
Ano Turtiainen: the PS doesn’t love me, I love the PS – watch me now eat my words:
https://migranttales.net/ano-turtiainen-the-ps-doesnt-love-m...
Ano Turtiainen Flat Earth Anti-NASA Views:
https://murha.info/rikosfoorumi/viewtopic.php?p=1866262#:~:t...
The other side wants escalation of tension, otherwise they wouldn't do this. And they get to choose when and where and, to a degree, the means by which it happens - you can be sure it's a time and place and means that benefits them.
The fundamental of international relations in conflict is to deter without escalation, and to act in the time, place, and manner of your choosing. You'll see leaders cite that specifically: 'We have this problem; we will respond in the time, place, and in the way we think best.'
That's fair. I lack the expertise and information to know the options and details. But what I said in the GP is international relations 101 - or maybe the first day of grad school.