This is...not true. Attacking key infrastructure is an act of war. Just because they try to do it secretly doesn't change that fact. 'Grey zone' tactics doesn't make any difference here. Green men, intel services, etc. are still government entities acting at the behest of the leadership to commit acts of war.
The argument here is about appeasement or not. If you allow continued acts of war to pass without response, you get more of them. This is the lesson of bullies from the playground to WW2. I'm more than willing to have a conversation about what sort of response is the best, but saying that Russia is not a warmonger is incorrect - they are committing acts of war. Just because no one has called them on it yet doesn't make it not warmongering.
You can say what you like, but nobody with expertise or authority agrees either that it's strategic infrastructure (if that's what you mean) or that it's anything like an act of war or casus belli.
I'm willing to bet that nobody has ever started a war over a cut cable.
Man, you have a love of arguments to authority. Just saying that everyone else thinks something isn't an argument and condescending to everyone isn't compelling, especially when you are incorrect.
Two seconds. That's how long that took. It _is_ strategic infrastructure and is declared so by everyone with expertise and authority. Since there are plenty of examples of wars caused by damaging / interrupting infrastructure - see any sort of blockade, you would lose that bet.
You have a reasonable argument on the basis of proportional response. I don't buy it, but it is a think that people can have a reasonable discussion about. If you engage in that discussion in good faith and stop condescending to everyone, you might have a better time and actually learn something.
Your attacks on me are just a poor substitution for having much to say, and violate HN guidelines. It's hard to imagine why you think it's appropriate, or why you can't discuss things without ad hominim attacks.
I'm not sure how they define 'critical'. My cell phone is 'digital communications' and yet the Russians could take it out without causing a war. Hacker News could be taken down without risking a war. Look at all the hacking attacks by nation states, for example, which have been far more damaging and threatening than the submarine cable damage.
I do understand the word 'strategic', that is, 'it significantly affects the security of the country'. Seizing Crimea is strategic; some nuclear weapons are strategic; cutting one cable is not strategic - the people and land of Finland are just as safe.
> Since there are plenty of examples of wars caused by damaging / interrupting infrastructure - see any sort of blockade, you would lose that bet.
My bet was, not from cutting a cable. It's just not that important.
> arguments to authority
I rely on people who know what they are talking about.
The argument here is about appeasement or not. If you allow continued acts of war to pass without response, you get more of them. This is the lesson of bullies from the playground to WW2. I'm more than willing to have a conversation about what sort of response is the best, but saying that Russia is not a warmonger is incorrect - they are committing acts of war. Just because no one has called them on it yet doesn't make it not warmongering.