Hacker News Reader

Comment by jeffdn | Hacker News Reader

This is not an act of war with Germany. This happened in international waters. The pipeline is already shut down. This does not affect Germany's gas supply, as they were already receiving no gas from Nordstream 2.

Additionally, the assumption that Germany would declare war on Russia unilaterally over something like this is flawed. Sure, if this were a verifiable and identifiable attack on German territory, maybe. To suggest that any attack on international infrastructure in international waters with no mechanism for identifying the actor is intended to do anything other than instill fear is mistaken.

View on HN

I think it depends on how they want to take it. NS ownership is apparently is Russian state property and German private firms. So if an attack then an act of war on Russia and depending on how a German government looked at it either a loss of private property or an indirect blow to German state itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania (not state property)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/19150508...

> This is not an act of war with Germany.

It can be construed as such, but certainly not by Germany. They are not strong enough to make a stink about it. Powerful states can take offense at the smallest thing. Weaker nations put up with lots of shit. (Is not, for example, what is done to Russia economic warfare? Do you see them declaring war? No. Because they are weaker.)

So boundary of what constitute an act of war is somewhat fuzzy not completely crisp.

> This happened in international waters.

Yes, and NATO waters.

> The pipeline is already shut down. This does not affect Germany's gas supply, as they were already receiving no gas from Nordstream

Addressed multiple times in this thread. Options closed. Decision trees altered. Game theory.

p.s.

A nice map to go with this thread. The remaining functional gas pipelines from Russia to Germany both go through Poland and Ukraine. Both Poland and Ukraine have 'difficult' relations with Germany and 'hostile' relations with Russia.

https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media%2FFdranneXoAIxgAL.jpg

The Lusitania had nearly 1,200 of its passengers killed when it sank. It was clearly sunk by a German submarine. That was a much more overt act of war.

There is no such thing as NATO waters, only the territorial waters of NATO members, who must choose to invoke Article 5.

In the sense that it is chuck full of NATO military naval bases and must be monitored extensively.

I had the same thought regarding passengers as you when posting that item, so your point is well taken. It was in the sense of it doesn't have to be state property: anything that ultimately is deemed a malicious act directed at a nation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com