The EU could also supply Ukraine with weapons, which could destroy Russias entire electricity grid, oil refining capacity, gas network and key pieces of its transport infrastructure. However there is no need to be loud about it, since everybody knows that is true.
Russian warfare is 90% cyber these days. They troll, hack, spy and attempt to influence elections using the internet. Are they really going to cut off their ability to engage in those activities?
It's like saying they will blow up their own weapons factories if people don't start catching their bullets.
They did waste vast amounts of own men and material when deciding to enter Ukraine to take a quick "short stroll" that somehow now already takes over 900 days.
Wouldn't be the first time they shoot themselves in the foot proper.
Ah jeez that'd be terrible. I'd probably have to stay home because nothing in society would be working. Then to pass the time I'd have to do things like reading the books I've been dying for time to read or finally getting to my collection of handheld consoles and emulators.
Might even have to have a glass of wine to calm my nerves from the stress.
What degree of aggression against the EU would spur the EU into action?
Russia already can't take over Ukraine. It would not be able to fight on more fronts, and certainly not against a strong EU with many more resources to spare.
Cyberwarfare and individual assassinations, sabotage, and disinformation campaigns were not enough yet. The EU is patient, because there's nothing to win. But the invasion of Ukraine showed that the EU can suddenly and significantly oppose Russia when certain lines are crossed.
Surely, it's in the interest of Russia both as preparation, but in large part to try to unsettle the EU, mainly its citizens. Much like it tried with Nuke warnings. GPS disruptions across borders. Gas and oil cutoffs. Blocking Ukraine food exports. Etc etc.
I really wonder about this too. If Russia destroys those undersea cables, would that get a direct response? I would like to think so, because that's a planet-scale disruption (I think?), but it really depends on the people in charge of the countries involved and their stomach for violence and escalation.
I'm passionate about minimizing war and I seriously hope we never fire nukes at each other again. But a country willing to inflict global damage as a kind of tantrum over their failures in a conflict they single-handedly started...I mean, we can't tolerate that as a species. There's gotta be a line somewhere.
I don't think an attack on undersea cables would spur aggressive/invasive action. I would expect more direct, obvious, and public military presence, observation, and possibly isolation of Russia on it's borders though.
Human, especially civilian lives are probably a line. Sabotage that would be inconvenience rather than disabling and cause direct suffering - I don't think it'd spur direct military action. Political - sure. The EU is already driving a hard sanctioning course, and would likely increase such political responses.
There are alternative internet routes, and we're not that dependent on them - in a fundamental, life or death or direct human suffering kind of way.
Realistically the writing is on the wall here. Either Russia comes to its senses, or it will be dealt with eventually. Yes that will be painful, but it will be less painful than letting a nuclear terrorist dictate global norms.
The reality is that if Russia was willing to walk down the latter path, they would have probably done it already.
Well, let them try. It's unlikely to result in anything more than a temporary disruption and as a result a lot of current shitty practises would need to be improved so I see that as a net positive.
I don't think this true. Russia can certainly be beat but unlike most of their potential adversaries, their arms industry is already producing at high levels and they have a large drafting effort going on.