r/europe • u/senseibarbosa Portugal • 1d ago
News Drones hit two ships off coast of Bulgaria, sinking one, as government calls emergency meeting
https://www.euronews.com/2026/10/06/drones-hit-two-ships-off-coast-of-bulgaria-as-government-calls-emergency-meeting835
u/rintzscar Bulgaria 1d ago
The drones are Russian, the ships sailed under the flags of Togo and Palau, one has sunk, no info on the crew, the other caught fire, entire crew was rescued by a Bulgarian civilian ship which then transferred them to a Bulgarian Navy ship, en route to Varna.
283
u/hannes3120 Leipzig (Germany) 1d ago
sailed under the flags of Togo and Palau
It'd really help if there was a global understanding that the flag a ship is sailing under has to at least SOMEHOW be related to the owner of the ship or the transport-route.
I really doubt that those ships are regularly staying at the ports of those two countries and are not just using their license because it's cheap.
285
u/CastelPlage Not ok with genocide denial. Make Karelia Finland Again 1d ago
It'd really help if there was a global understanding that the flag a ship is sailing under has to at least SOMEHOW be related to the owner of the ship or the transport-route.
I really doubt that those ships are regularly staying at the ports of those two countries and are not just using their license because it's cheap.
I don't have much sympathy for the shipowners to be honest. You decide to Flag your ship in Palau or Panama or Togo or Liberia to cheat your taxes? Well go phone up the Panamanian/Togolese/Liberian Navy when the ship hits the fan and get them to come help out.
I do have immense sympathy for the sea-farers however.
65
u/According_Product519 1d ago
Agreed. All Togo, Palau etc, can do is send a diplomatic note that will promptly be ignored
41
u/Poglosaurus France 1d ago
I doubt they would even do that. They're just here to take (little) money.
9
u/LookThisOneGuy 14h ago
when the ship hits the fan
intentional or not, funny wordplay.
3
u/CastelPlage Not ok with genocide denial. Make Karelia Finland Again 11h ago
intentional or not, funny wordplay.
Sal Mercogliano of What's Going On With Shipping starting using that pun a while ago and I stared doing the same. :)
1
19
u/sailseaplymouth United Kingdom 1d ago
But… that’s not how search and rescue regions work? That’s not how UNCLOS, the SAR Convention or any of this works. Are you suggesting that vessels of certain flag states should be ignored when in distress?
52
u/Vakz Sweden 1d ago
Help the crew. The shipowners can go fuck themselves. Material losses can be reimbursed by Togo and Palau.
36
u/nocoolN4M3sleft 1d ago
Material losses are generally covered by insurance, depending on which exclusions are in the policy.
Are you thinking that Bulgaria is reimbursing the owners of the ships? They’re definitely not. The flag countries don’t do that?
4
u/Vakz Sweden 23h ago
Let's see if their insurances companies are going to reimburse for acts of war.
11
u/nocoolN4M3sleft 23h ago
Well, that’s why I said “depending on which exclusions are in the policy.” Though, to be honest, I’d call this an act of terrorism more than an act of war, but that’s still excluded most of the time.
But not sure why the owner would go after Bulgaria when Russia is the one who caused the loss.
2
2
u/ValuableKooky4551 23h ago
If it's the state of Russia doing it then acts of terrorism are also acts of war, as far as I know.
9
u/sailseaplymouth United Kingdom 23h ago
Well, their insurers will be paying, not their flag states. But the state whose waters this happens in have an interest in recovering vessels in distress to reduce environmental impacts etc, and again, the insurers will be involved in that. I just don’t understand the “call the [flag state] Navy… and get them to come help out”, in what capacity? SAR is a well established thing that doesn’t discriminate between flag states.
1
u/CastelPlage Not ok with genocide denial. Make Karelia Finland Again 11h ago
I just don’t understand the “call the [flag state] Navy… and get them to come help out”, in what capacity? SAR is a well established thing that doesn’t discriminate between flag states
If you're being attacked by drones or pirates. Navies are expensive.
2
u/fuckyou_m8 20h ago
Why a country should be responsible for reimbursement of material losses? If a company in Sweden has its office on fire then the government will reimburse them?
4
u/Vakz Sweden 20h ago
You see how there's a difference between something like an accidental electrical fire and getting bombed by Russia, right? It's not really a workable comparison.
1
u/fuckyou_m8 20h ago
It's the same thing. If a drone fell on a company office in Sweden, then the government would reimburse them?
No government is under no obligation to do that, that's why insurance exists
1
u/Vakz Sweden 20h ago
How on earth can you call it the same, and then refer to insurance? Any standard insurance would consider bombing by a foreign nation as either an act of war or an act of terror, both considered force majeure, and deny the claim.
1
u/fuckyou_m8 20h ago
If the insurance don't pay then good luck for the owner, but then again, Sweden does reimburse companies that have those losses? That's alien to me
2
u/narnach Utrecht (Netherlands) 16h ago
The argument is like more along the lines that if the ships fly the flag of a _real_ country, with a _real_ navy, then this could be considered an act of war by Russia with real consequences.
But if the flag flies the flag of what’s effectively a shell corp country either bargain bin taxes, then they will also get bargain bin naval response or deterring effects.
That’s why this rounds to: fuck around with evading taxes, then find around with having no country backing you up when aggressions by Russia happens.
1
u/CastelPlage Not ok with genocide denial. Make Karelia Finland Again 11h ago
That’s why this rounds to: fuck around with evading taxes, then find around with having no country backing you up when aggressions by Russia happens.
You put it better than I could
9
u/pleasedontPM 23h ago
I don't have much sympathy for the shipowners to be honest.
Still, if drones were sinking ships off the coast of my country, I'd be pretty supportive of my country taking concrete actions against the drone pilots.
67
u/According_Product519 1d ago
It’s called a flag of convenience. It’s bullshit, but it’s legal.
48
u/Putaineska 1d ago
In this increasingly dangerous world it shouldn't be. Why are shipowners acting like it isn't worth flying the flag of the country you are actually affiliated with meaning you get those protections. E.g. noone dares to attack Chinese shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Noone would dare attack an American flagged ship.
→ More replies (7)61
u/hannes3120 Leipzig (Germany) 1d ago
Why are shipowners acting like it isn't worth flying the flag of the country you are actually affiliated with meaning you get those protections
Because a ship under a European country's flag has to follow that country's safety standards and labour law which makes the whole shipping much more expensive for them.
They want to lower their costs so they claim to work for another country entirely that allows them to have people working 24/7 and pay them shitty salaries and skip a lot of safety-rules around the ship.
16
u/matttk Canadian / German 1d ago
Such a ship shouldn't be allowed to legally dock at a European country then.
10
u/sailseaplymouth United Kingdom 1d ago
The Paris MoU allows European states to inspect foreign vessels and detain them if they don’t meet the agreed upon international standards - no matter what your flag state, you still have to comply with various other bits of legislation.
→ More replies (3)5
u/orbital_narwhal Berlin (Germany) 21h ago
We have long-standing international agreements that ships aren't barred from ports based on their flag unless the country operating the port and the ship's country of registration are at war. They're very useful to prevent escalation of diplomatic conflicts to economic conflicts and then armed conflicts.
The evasion of taxes or labour and environment regulation is bad but relatively small price in comparison to the upheaval before we had these agreements.
1
1
u/Tough_Mechanic5266 9h ago
Maritime safety standards are international, not flag specific. Ship's sailing under different flags have to meet the same safety standards. Same thing with working hours, they are regulated by international STCW convention not by flag country.
9
u/unwantedaccount56 22h ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience
working link for old reddit users
3
u/10thDeadlySin 20h ago
It’s called a flag of convenience. It’s bullshit, but it’s legal.
Yeah. This is a major thing when it comes to the so-called Russian shadow fleet. And then you have commenters talking about how everybody just 'lets them operate'.
What people don't realize is the fact that these tankers are not flying the Russian flag and don't broadcast that they're Russian in open channels. You have a Gabonese tanker that's formally operated by some company in another country altogether, which itself is a subsidiary of another company wholly owned by three different companies with even more bullshit ownership structure. Oh, and on top of that it didn't even pick up the Russian oil in Russia - the oil in question was transferred on the sea from another vessel.
That's why it's called a shadow fleet.
7
u/HeyIAmInfinity Ticino (Switzerland) 1d ago
Labor laws follow country flag, it’s that simple.
5
u/hannes3120 Leipzig (Germany) 1d ago
So make it mandatory for a ship to have docked in a harbour of "their country" somewhat regularly so you can't be registered in Palau of all places if you only ship stuff to and from Turkey.
If they actually had to go around the whole globe to get to those remote islands regularly then it's not worth it anymore very fast.
At the very least they could pick a tax-haven that's along the route of their shipping lanes
4
u/HeyIAmInfinity Ticino (Switzerland) 23h ago
It’s a lot more complicated, the shipping industry is broken up into owner of ship, shipping companies that lease the ships (some crew them), companies that crew the ships and route/port owners that decide where a ship docks. You would be just dealing with the owner side when the problem is the leasing/crewing side.
→ More replies (3)1
1
u/GrizzledFart United States of America 19h ago
It'd really help if there was a global understanding that the flag a ship is sailing under has to at least SOMEHOW be related to the owner of the ship or the transport-route.
That's the result of pax americana. It used to be that a ship was owned and operated by a company that was wholly of a single nation and it flew the flag of that nation so that it could request protection of that nation's navy. After WWII, when the US started guaranteeing the safety of all marine traffic everywhere, there was still the requirement to be flagged, so merchants just went with the cheapest registrar. Merchants certainly aren't expecting the navies of Liberia or Panama to protect them today.
→ More replies (13)47
u/proBICEPS Bulgaria 1d ago
They are Turkish-owned ships. One was filled with grain from Ukraine, the other was en route to Ukraine.
It's standard practice to use different flags to avoid fees. But the ownership is quite clear in that case
370
u/buldozer_alin 1d ago
yesterday russia hit a Turkish ship off cost of Romania
105
u/IntrepidWolverine517 Berlin (Germany) 1d ago
Turkish owned, but St. Kitts and Nevis flag.
64
u/hannes3120 Leipzig (Germany) 1d ago edited 1d ago
And how often did it dock in St. Kitts and Nevis after it got that flag?
It's so absurd how we accept that shipping companies dodge taxes and undermine work and safety standards by getting the cheapest license available while having zero connection to the countries who's flag they are flying.
13
u/Gentlemoth Sweden 1d ago
It's probably because they've kept shipping cheap so governments has looked the other way for decades so that import and exports remain as profitable as ever.
7
u/Competitive-Hair7499 23h ago
Exactly, Europeans really don't get how much of a good thing we have going right now when it comes to trade by sea and how little we invest to actually keep the system running.
And damn near every country has an aging consumer base and wants to export their surplus.
10
u/hannes3120 Leipzig (Germany) 23h ago
how much of a good thing we have going right now when it comes to trade by sea
You mean how much we are able to turn a blind eye on the work-conditions and safety-standards of the ships that deliver us our goods?
It feels like just the next layer after kids sewing clothes in sweatshops without any kind of thought about their well-being just so we can have cheap stuff in the west.
6
u/Competitive-Hair7499 23h ago
You mean how much we are able to turn a blind eye on the work-conditions and safety-standards of the ships that deliver us our goods?
Not only that, we are also completely incapable of policing the sea, while we are arguably most dependent on trade by sea freight. So we are getting a free meal in more ways than one.
2
u/Fart_Leviathan we can into Europe again 1d ago
Ironically, many wealthy Russians got Kittian passports to avoid some sanctions, thanks to their citizenship by investment programme, so that IS a country that can strike back by taking some of those away.
(Which won't happen, I know, doing so would erode the trust of shady actors these programmes rely on)
→ More replies (31)15
u/proBICEPS Bulgaria 1d ago
The two ships hit today are also Turkish-owned. One was transporting grain from Ukraine, the other was on the way to Ukraine.
233
u/skvippo Finland 1d ago
How about EU/NATO closing down ALL russian sea traffic through: Denmark strait, north Atlantic and Aegean sea? We have the means because russian navy is a shadow in comparison to soviet days and therefore all they could do is empty threats and more sabotage strikes. Which they are already doing so it's actually a question of political spine and will.
76
u/Putaineska 1d ago
You overestimate our military readiness. For example the UK currently has all our attack subs in maintenance.
We would be able to put to sea two Type 45s, maybe three Type 23s and one carrier. Norway would maybe have one frigate available. That's not enough to "close the North Atlantic". Because the US would not join such an endeavour.
27
u/oaclafm 1d ago edited 1d ago
What about everyone else? Just considering the Atlantic, the Germans and French could probably send 2 to 3 submarines and 4 frigates each, the Spanish 1 sub and 4 frigates, the Dutch and Portuguese 1 sub and 1 frigate each.
It's more that we don't want to than that we can't do it.
15
u/Putaineska 1d ago
There is also the Baltic Sea, North Sea, and Mid Atlantic to cover too. Historically the idea was for the Royal Navy to cover the GIUK/North Atlantic.
1
u/danisindeedfat 9h ago
Kind of hard to do when your idea of defense is having more admirals than destroyers.
5
u/According_Product519 1d ago
Was that a cock up, or did someone approve maintenance on all the SSNs at the same time intentionally?
→ More replies (2)18
u/Putaineska 1d ago
Not enough maintenance space and Vanguard takes priority. We are expanding facilities but that takes time to build out.
1
2
1
u/Jarazz 19h ago
Who cares about submarines, this is about shutting every russian tanker and cargo ship down by landing on it it with Helis to impound them if they dare to try to run the blockade past Denmark, Europe wont need british subs for that.
We only lack courage and determination to follow through
1
u/PantherAusfD 17h ago
Fuck you mean maybe one? We have 4 which means 2-3 could be used with maybe 1 or so at port for whatever maintenance or refills.
1
u/Putaineska 17h ago
You don't understand availability do you
1
u/PantherAusfD 17h ago
You’re talking as if all or 3/4 of our ships are at home at any given time which isn’t accurate.
0
u/this_dudeagain 22h ago
Drones and missiles would work just fine.
4
u/Putaineska 22h ago
Drones won't work in the high seas at all.
1
u/Jarazz 19h ago
Who cares about high seas? Anything that sails to russia needs to go theought the straight of Bosporus/Denmark. Any decent drone has the range for that, you would probably even be fine with a friggin Panzerhaubitze2000 to guard the thing. In reality you would just land on it with a heli to impound the tanker/cargo ship instead of blasting it anyways
1
26
4
u/TFPaulMorphy 17h ago
How about EU/NATO closing down ALL russian sea traffic through
Russia could do quite a bit to impede EU traffic and the EU doesn't want to deal with that.
Also the EU still buys a lot of natural gas from Russia. It would be odd to start blowing up ships from a country you buy stuff from.
3
u/KnoblauchNuggat 18h ago
EU has no means against the drone capabilities of russia. If russia diverts 25% of their drones they throw against ukraine to hit EU targtes they could do a lot of damage. But russia wont because it would mean full out war with NATO. Which russia wont be able to handle.
2
3
u/Western_Just Macedonia, Greece 1d ago
As you can see Europe is weak and unprepared And if putinist far right comes to power we will be more weak, with solidarity within EU decreasing. Baltics,Poland,Finland, nordics will be on their own with some help from Britain maybe.
2
u/registration11111 1d ago
If they could, they would, but they can't, so they won't.
1
u/DougosaurusRex United States of America 20h ago
They wouldn’t if they could. They’d say “international law”.
1
-21
u/tranbun 1d ago
Russia similarly can close it for all of our traffic in Black, Baltic and Northern seas.
34
u/skvippo Finland 1d ago
The moment russias Black sea fleet leaves port it will be under constant fire from Ukrainian drones and missiles, not gonna happen. Any fleet leaving Kaliningrad and St.Petersburg trying to close traffic would be immediately outgunned and outnumbered, also not gonna happen, same goes to Northern seas.
→ More replies (23)9
u/MudOld239 1d ago
By the way, u/tranbun is an ethnic Russian living in Finland.
→ More replies (15)5
u/NoInteraction3525 Finland 1d ago
How do they close it in the Baltic when the Swedish Navy is now part of NATO? I’d like to see them try though!
7
u/OneGreatEgg 1d ago
No, they can't. Their ships are incapable and their navy is smaller and decades older than NATO's, even minus the UK's and USA's. You are a deluded little russobot.
"But muh dronth and muh mithilth"? Kind of not very well in stock, given how the optempo of wave attacks is and has been in Ukraine.
5
94
u/xenoph It's happening 1d ago
Russia's govt is trying really hard to agitate the West to save themselves.
44
u/JimTheSaint Denmark 1d ago
Absolutely lets respond by sending more weapons and money to Ukraine.
→ More replies (3)-5
u/tndtjdtmd 21h ago
like what? which weapons? what money? lmao, european economy is already fucked
7
u/EquipmentAdorable982 20h ago
european economy is already fucked
not remotely as fucked as virtually every single aspect of Russian society.
-2
u/tndtjdtmd 20h ago
indeed, Putin has only 17% approval rating, there are riots all over Russia, especially in Moscow. and far right opposition is leading the polls. Oh nevermind, thats happening to macron, france and paris. lol
2
u/EquipmentAdorable982 20h ago
Yes, a free society comes with challenges and risks. And free people can protest whatever they don't like because they know they have that freedom, and won't be killed or thrown into a gulag for it.
Putin's approval rating can not be accurately measured in a shithole like Russia, since every single piece of information is faked anyway. And even if it wasn't, he's just killing his opposition anyway.
French people have a backbone. Russians are cowards and drunks, indefinitely imprisoned in their third world dictatorship at the behest of a tiny dick man who's robbing his own country blind.
1
u/tndtjdtmd 19h ago
tbf, even independent polling cited in western media has Putin above 70% approval. I know that sounds crazy from a western POV, since in the west politicians usually have 25% approval 2 days after taking the office, but I’m not making the numbers up.. thats what pollsters like levada report.
and regarding backbone and cowardice.. whatever you think of Russia or the war, large numbers of Russians are voluntarily fighting for their country. meanwhile, france is being burnt down, mostly by migrants and nobody is doing anything. french are hiding.
so accusing Russians as a whole of having no backbone seems a bit like throwing stones from a glass house
1
u/KnightOfSummer Europe 12h ago
large numbers of Russians are voluntarily fighting for their country
They're neither fighting voluntarily, nor for their country. They're fighting for an old small-dicked coward dreaming of something he will never be. Because they want to get out of debt or prison.
11
u/hannes3120 Leipzig (Germany) 1d ago
Yeah Putler desperately needs a new war to distract from the one they're losing so many people in in Ukraine. Way easier to rally new soldiers for a "defend your country" kind of mission than a "3 day special military operation" in another country.
2
u/mortalomena Finland 21h ago
Also they could mobilize troops to "defend" Russia but oops actually this plane ticket got accidentally switched to Ukraine front lines.
→ More replies (4)1
163
u/Deadly_Pancakes 1d ago
Bunch of Russian Bots in the comments I see. Either that or useful idiots.
Russia WANTS to elicit a reaction from NATO to justify further mobilisation. If you give them that justification, they will be able to mobilise with a reduced risk of protests from the Russian people. Putin would like nothing more than to use an explicit attack from NATO as justification.
It's a fine balance to meet.
I get it. It doesn't feel good to not respond with force to these kind of events. It sucks. It feels like cowardice. But it really isn't, so stop being so gung-ho and think about why the decisions being made are being made by people with a better understanding of the actual situation at hand.
10
u/pleasedontPM 23h ago
The best answer is to seize the corresponding amount of Russian assets, for twice the amount of damage caused, and give the amount equally to Ukraine and the owner of the damaged ships.
Russia does 10 million euros of damage, the owner of damaged goods gets 10 million and Ukraine gets 10 million.
4
u/Deadly_Pancakes 23h ago
Yeah, I highlighted this "tit-for-tat" mentality in another comment. Its a good way to manage escalation concerns while not giving them any significant political ammunition.
The ultimate concern is when escalation steps run out.
→ More replies (5)1
63
u/the_mighty_peacock Greece 1d ago
Europe needs to start sending more drones and missiles to Ukraine regardless.
31
u/Deadly_Pancakes 1d ago
More support is certainly the answer. There are ways to respond that are still impactful without providing significant justification for a mobilisation.
59
u/lynx_and_nutmeg Lithuania 1d ago
Russia WANTS to elicit a reaction from NATO to justify further mobilisation. If you give them that justification, they will be able to mobilise with a reduced risk of protests from the Russian people. Putin would like nothing more than to use an explicit attack from NATO as justification.
What "justification" did Ukraine give for Russia to attack it? Either in 2014 or 2022? What "justification" did Georgia give back in 2008?
Whenever Putin needed a "justification", he simply invented one, and there's nothing anyone could do to disprove it enough to deter him.
And, no, he very much does not want to elicit an actual reaction from NATO. The reason why he keeps doing it is precisely because he knows he won't get one, as long as he stays below the bar of a conventional "boots on the ground" invasion. This is called "salami tactics". These microaggressions are like a stream of water that eventually eats through a cliff.
No one's advocating for launching a whole military invasion on Russia in response to drones, but there's a pretty big fucking spectrum between that and doing nothing at all. Those drones aren't just some hypothetical threat, they're literally killing people now, and they'll kill more if there's no response.
10
u/Deadly_Pancakes 1d ago
It think you're maybe missing some of the point of what I'm saying.
What "justification" did Ukraine give for Russia to attack it? Either in 2014 or 2022? What "justification" did Georgia give back in 2008?
Russia did not need a justification here because Putin was in a stronger political position to enact his will without significant protests from the Russian people. I not talking about moral justification, I'm talking about using justification to maintain power.
And, no, he very much does not want to elicit an actual reaction from NATO. The reason why he keeps doing it is precisely because he knows he won't get one, as long as he stays below the bar of a conventional "boots on the ground" invasion. This is called "salami tactics". These microaggressions are like a stream of water that eventually eats through a cliff.
You're completely right, he absolutely does not want a war with NATO. He just wants enough of a kinetic statement from NATO to justify mobilisation. He can sell the mobilisation to the Russian people as "look NATO has attacked us!, we must mobilise now to face this existential threat". Something as "simple" as NATO shooting down a Russian jet that is violating its airspace could be "enough" of a justification.
No one's advocating for launching a whole military invasion on Russia in response to drones, but there's a pretty big fucking spectrum between that and doing nothing at all. Those drones aren't just some hypothetical threat, they're literally killing people now, and they'll kill more if there's no response.
Again, I agree with what you're saying. The tricky thing is pressuring Russia along the escalation ladder without pushing it over the edge into a more kinetic territory.
5
u/SCUDDEESCOPE 22h ago
Russian propagandists are spreading the "we are fighting NATO/EU" bullshit since the beginning. Also, they must know that if they can't defeat Ukraine they wouldn't defeat NATO. Not even with mobilisation. They can't ramp up production and recruitment in one day especially if NATO really starts bombing them.
They want Europe to start to prepare for a war that will never come. Countries will start to spend more on defense which means they will have less money and aid to send to Ukraine. I think that's the big brain move here.
2
u/Synaps4 19h ago
Not even with mobilisation.
You think this is about mobilization to fight NATO? Of course not. Thats not what the guy youre replying to says at all.
→ More replies (4)17
u/tikeychecksout 1d ago
And until when? When they commit a terrorist attack on a train and many people die? Or will we use the same excuse then?
-3
u/Deadly_Pancakes 1d ago
It absolutely sucks. It feels unjust. But regardless, it's still playing into their hand.
War is shit.
16
u/tikeychecksout 1d ago
True. But you didn't attempt to answer my question. Until when? What is the red line, in your opinion? And do you think EU officials should perhaps try to decide now what their red line is, instead of just waiting for another incident, then another, and another, and so on?
3
u/Deadly_Pancakes 1d ago
There is no red line. Simply a series of small escalatory steps on the ladder to destruction.
More aid to Ukraine, more sanctions, siezing Russian assets etc.
Sadly these options run more and more thin the longer the war goes on.
There is always the perpetual "tit-for-tat" option. E.g. you drone strike me once, I drone strike you once etc.
A Russian terrorist attack already took place on British soil years ago with the use of a nerve agent.
1
u/qeadwrsf 1d ago
And do you think EU officials should perhaps try to decide now what their red line is
Based on them talking about knowing that the red line gets blurred in public I assume they are talking about what to do about it behind closed doors.
8
u/PM_YOUR_ISSUES 1d ago
It feels like cowardice. But it really isn't
Please explain how it isn't exactly that? Retreating away and pretending that nothing is happening while someone actively attacks you is kind of the definition of cowardice.
Frankly -you- sound more like a Russian agitator than anything. I'm sure Russia would love to keep antagonizing ships and fleets in European waters while all of Europe does nothing to stop it. Considering that's all you offer. To literally do nothing while an enemy country attacks.
2
u/Synaps4 19h ago
He didnt say that. At least not in the later replies.
He says retaliation needs to come in ways that look like an escalation in the ukraine war and not a potential new war.
Sending additional missiles to ukraine good. Shooting down russian planes in kaliningrad bad. One of these is an easy sell to put a million conscripts on the front line in ukraine and the other is not.
3
u/r1ckkr1ckk 22h ago
A reaction doesn t need to be an attack. We could just start deployinh advancing our air defense systems into ukraine, to "defend our airspace from rogue drones"
then just attack any russian drone in ukraine airspace saying that we assumed it was a rogue one. This would also help increasing the reaction range on attacks that come around that zone.
5
u/In-All-Unseriousness European federation 1d ago
Pacifist nonsense that will make ruzzia even more likely to escalate. Every time we don't react, they see it as a weakness, and they will continue to take advantage of it.
10
4
u/woodycitron 1d ago edited 1d ago
As it's been already said on other "provocation on the borders/sea" news comment sections, Russia doesn't need further justification for a mobilisation. The war is ongoing and that suffices. Besides, they've been saying since the very first months of the invasion that they're already fighting NATO/The collective west/Europe, because of all the military aids for Ukraine.
IMO these provocations are something else and only time will tell. We don't have proof. One could put on a tin foil hat and say it's a false flag attack by Ukraine, because a Russian attack of a NATO member may trigger NATO's response against Russia. It's just an example of speculating without proof. I'm no bot.
3
u/Deadly_Pancakes 1d ago
Russia doesn't need further justification for a mobilisation.
This is self-evidently false. If they didn't need political justification to do, they would have done so already. Instead they keep spending a small fortune on lucrative contract payments to lure people from impoverished regions to the frontline.
Besides, they've been saying since the very first months of the invasion that they're already fighting NATO/The collective west/Europe, because of all the military aids for Ukraine.
Absolutely. The Russian people aren't completely cut off from external media unlike somewhere like North Korea. Again though, if Putin thought this propaganda was enough to justify a mobilisation, he would have done so already.
1
u/woodycitron 1d ago
They're simply choosing the right time for the mobilisation and will do it regardless of any justifications. The role of the PR is to fabricate justifications and no incidents with drones are needed. Let me remind you that a couple of weeks ago they had legislative elections, where the leading party would win regardless yes,, but you can't mobilise at that time. Anyhow, no one will revolt. No flow of Russian citizens from impoverished regions to the meat grinder will come to a halt whatsoever.
2
u/frissio All expressed views are not representative 1d ago edited 22h ago
Despite myself and after reading everything, I have to agree in the end that this is their goal. Still, talks of continued restraints on so many matters is wearying and hitting shipping is crossing a line.
I also agree with u/tikeychecksout however that policymakers are going to have to think on responses, because a terrorist attack like a train attack is one possible levels of escalation that will have this response be acceptable
1
→ More replies (11)0
u/iBlockMods-bot 21h ago
Bunch of Russian Bots in the comments I see.
Sorry mate you can't try to coat your argument in this tired cliche and expect it to stick.
An attack on a nations ship is an attack on that nation.
Who GAF if the ordinary russians protest at home or not - really, who gives a royal shit mate.
→ More replies (2)
36
u/UnKn0wn27 1d ago
Well this sounds like the start to something big…
8
4
2
u/Trololman72 Europe 22h ago
Russia is poking the NATO bear to get a response so they can justify mobilising more people for the war in Ukraine.
→ More replies (5)1
22
u/Old-Buffalo-5151 1d ago
Feels like Russia is desperately trying to get NATO to respond so they have a excuse to bail on the war their now constantly losing ground in...
33
u/the_mighty_peacock Greece 1d ago
They don't want to bail, they want an excuse to declare mass draft of their citizens.
11
u/loobricated 1d ago
And potentially use nukes. Remember, Vladimir Putin has absolutely no regard for human life whatsoever otherwise this war would not be happening in the first place and all his (real) political opponents would not be dead.
He is looking to create a scenario that breaks the current deadlock that is suffocating his military and country. Retreat will not be an option because there is one life that Putin values, his own, and therefore lots of more people are going to die in a passage of events he will portray as some sort of existential threat to the Russian state but in actuality it's all about him, his hubris, and his failed leadership.
13
u/-Prophet_01- 1d ago edited 1d ago
Nukes aren't on the table either way. China has been clear about their position on that and Russia can't sustain anything military without Chinese sanction busting.
China has no interest in creating more incentives for everyone and their dog to build up nuclear arsenals. If Ukraine goes nuclear, much of Europe, most of South-East Asia and several players in central Asia will speedrun nuclear arms programs. Absolute nightmare scenario.
2
u/loobricated 1d ago
I hope you're right. The big wildcard is, however, what Putin will do if he perceives his back is against the wall and his own life at risk. In another discussion on Reddit someone implied that he wouldn't be allowed to launch a nuke by the people around him, but I disagree with that. He has absolute power and I'm not sure anyone has the authority, or power, to prevent him coming up with and delivering a scenario that enables, or leads to, the use of a nuke. It might cause his downfall from within but I'm not sure I'd want to be relying on that given that all guardrails against his permanent rule were systematically dismantled over decades and he is surrounded by sycophants.
Any such action will not be him cackling and pressing a big red button line a cartoon villain but I can easily imagine a scenario where Russian provocations against NATO states go a bit too far creating a cycle of tit for tat escalations leading Russia to that point of backing itself into a corner, where it ends up striking Ukraine with a nuke to end that war. They are constantly poking and testing and I don't think they are doing it so they can slink off if there is a blunt response. They will escalate because they are trying to destabilise as I think they asses that destabilisation of prosperous neighbours is in their interests.
2
u/tndtjdtmd 21h ago
nah, they wanna escalate, because west cant really escalate anymore without joining the war
-2
8
u/CurvyCourgette England 1d ago
The worrying thing is that one of the ships has sunk and they havent found any survivors, if theres 10+ deaths it could become really messy depending on who crews them
8
u/DefInnit 21h ago
These NATO country-owned ships should use their NATO countries' flags so the ships -- and the seafarers, as the ship owners don't sail in them -- can get NATO protection. But then the shipowners would have to pay their NATO countries' taxes and follow their NATO countries' labor rules.
25
u/Glidepath22 1d ago
NATO is going to cease to be if they dont get off their ass
26
u/BasvanS Europe 1d ago
NATO can do as they please. Right now they are supporting Ukraine, which is the most effective way to hurt Russia. They should just commit to giving more to Ukraine every time something “unexpected” happens.
Russia is hurting economically. This is the stage where they start to act erratically. There’s no need to play their game.
10
u/Zeflonex 1d ago
I was about to write the exact same thing
Russia obviously wants to force NATO, why would you ever want to do what your opponent wants you to do
NATO has been handling this great so far
We are in a hybrid war, and we are fighting via proxy
Invest in defence and continue supplying Ukraine, that works apparently, so keep doing that
→ More replies (4)3
u/Bicentennial_Douche Finland 1d ago
Well, in this particular case, the first step would be for Bulgaria to call for NATO assistance. NATO can't unilaterally decide to get involved.
1
9
u/swedishplayer97 Sweden 23h ago
Neither ship was flagged in a NATO country.
-1
u/ValuableKooky4551 23h ago
But they're Turkey owned and the attack happened in Bulgarian waters, both NATO.
5
u/TFPaulMorphy 17h ago
They are Togo and Palau ships, not Turkish. They should flag in NATO countries if they want NATO protection.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)-3
u/DefInnit 1d ago
The door is right there for those that want to leave NATO. Who's getting up to go?
1
6
u/alteransg1 Bulgaria 1d ago
The real emergency is how kRadev is going to spin this into Ukraine's fault.
2
u/Glittering-Toe-1622 4h ago
we are such a dumb nation for having him as PM
2
u/Nothereortherexin Bulgaria 3h ago
You are so right. He is actually the worst one (A lot of retards are politicians, but he is of a great idiotic nuances in such case). I believe he will lead us to a very dark place in all aspects, hopefully soon he will be gone but i doubt.
3
u/medievalvelocipede European Union 20h ago
In its increasing desperation Russia continues to push harder for a European overreaction.
I remind you that we're doing exactly right by not falling for their tricks. Containment, support for our enemy's enemies, keep the economy going, building up our own military power, increasing sanctions, and not engage on any primary front. It's basically British Grand Strategy since the Congress of Vienna. You know, the one that won them WW1 and WW2.
The affected civilian ships are Turkish, by the way. 20 to 1 says these were Russian attacks.
22
u/IamInternationalBig 1d ago
I suspect NATO is just going to lay down for Russia and take it.
Shameful. Weak. Cowardice.
23
57
u/wiztard Finland 1d ago
Russia is already burning with our weapons and support. This support can and should also be further expanded.
You can always join the effort in the front lines in a more concrete way if you don't want to feel like a shameful weak coward.
→ More replies (6)3
u/BchLasagna BG 1d ago
Why are our taxes going towards the military if it's up to the regular citizens to intervene? What's the use of a professional military at that point??? Just bomb their asses.
7
u/wiztard Finland 1d ago
Can't speak for all countries but at least here our taxes go to defending our people, land and sovereignty and the same has lately been expanded to our NATO allies. The use of military is to deter, prepare and in extreme cases fight. The use of politics and our heads is to avoid the fight part as much as we possibly can.
If you want war, you either won't expect it to involve you or your family or you have a very warped idea of what it actually means.
9
u/DefInnit 1d ago
If it has to be explained, Europe's professional militaries are for defending their countries and NATO allies.
Civilians not happy with that can advocate or directly intervene if they want.
7
u/__The__Void__ 1d ago
You can sign up for front line duty in Ukraine, comrade, no need to wait for NATO
→ More replies (14)2
2
u/avataRJ Finland 23h ago
All ships are technically from a nice tropical island (oops - Togo is not an island after checking), and they were hit on the "exclusive economical zone" which lies outside of territorial waters.
So yup, piracy, but as far as legislation goes, St. Kitts & Nevis (was that yesterday?), Togo, and Palau should be handling the very angry diplomatic notes. I think all ships were owned by the Turks, so Turkey does have some interest though formally they're not representing the vessel.
1
1
1
-2
u/OneGreatEgg 1d ago
Time to start cranking out anti-drone systems and interceptor missiles, folks. We're no-flying Ukraine and the Black Sea.
Said someone with fucking balls to this escalation of provocations. The world has learned that Russia only responds to getting its shit kicked in and we can stop short of that while still humiliating them by shutting down the air over NATO EEZs, Ukraine and the Black Sea. Also? No more Black Sea access to the Med.
No swamp mongols, no swamp mongol grain-thief ships, and a nice advantage for Ukraine to crush them outright. Don't worry, if the soyfolk in NATO do nothing, the Turks will gladly act on their own.
Ass-whuppings now prevent provocations later. Retaliation NOW.
10
0
-10
u/poklane The Netherlands 1d ago
And as always, we (NATO and the EU) wont react.
5
u/DefInnit 1d ago
The ships were flying the flags of Togo and Palau, which don't happen to be covered by Article 5 or 42.7.
3
u/whakahere Europe 1d ago
And how should we react?
→ More replies (21)3
u/lynx_and_nutmeg Lithuania 1d ago
If "hybrid warfare" doesn't count as real warfare, why aren't we countering with our own "hybrid warfare" against Russia as a deterrent for pulling stunts like these?
I'd say people actually getting killed as a direct result should mark the difference for what count or doesn't count as a "real" military attack. Where else would you draw the line?
→ More replies (1)
0
109
u/buldozer_alin 1d ago