Yes, about Europe and it's hand-wringing, no about Ukraine and it's attacks on energy/economic infrastructure. The Russians have been attacking Ukrainian energy infrastructure for years before the Ukrainians were able or willing to respond in kind.
The Russians, in particular, have a long history of terrorising civilian populations, including their own, under the guise of military operations.
The lines between what it is typically understood as “economic warfare” and normal measures of strategic activity with force are diffuse.
One can argue that indeed the normal means of economic war are not longer on their hegemony period.
Talking about blockades, attacks on dual use infrastructure and other conventional actions tells us that sanctions, embargoes and other acts of subterfuge in the scheme of international finance and trade lost their power to inflict unto the enemy the consequences to alter their calculus.
Economic warfare returned in the sense that once again the fight in between states compel us to the totalization of warfare on all the fronts of human development, far beyond those of “expeditionary conflicts”.
The world sees that not Anglo-European sanctions can destabilize Russia through oil/gas prices, that closing Iranian oil to western markets will not change the IRGC and Teheran government to change its politics. There’re parallel system to develop that allow the economic weapons of the US to be bypassed, and every time the executive follows on these steps to weaken or influence it’s rival, the more likely is the rest of the world will continue to develop systems to avoid being susceptible to those measures.
“By the same token, they know when the case is far less clearcut.” I’m not sure I agree with this as interpretation and precedent establishes the extent of laws. Less a matter of laying the boundaries of law over a situation and more a matter of trying to extend or repel the line. By which I think the characterisation of Ukrainian strikes as attacks on civilian targets isn’t there yet, I think extending that line to ‘civilian target’ would require a direct dependence of critical civilian infrastructure on those targets. I don’t think Russian hospitals will be running out of fuel just yet
Yes, about Europe and it's hand-wringing, no about Ukraine and it's attacks on energy/economic infrastructure. The Russians have been attacking Ukrainian energy infrastructure for years before the Ukrainians were able or willing to respond in kind.
The Russians, in particular, have a long history of terrorising civilian populations, including their own, under the guise of military operations.
The lines between what it is typically understood as “economic warfare” and normal measures of strategic activity with force are diffuse.
One can argue that indeed the normal means of economic war are not longer on their hegemony period.
Talking about blockades, attacks on dual use infrastructure and other conventional actions tells us that sanctions, embargoes and other acts of subterfuge in the scheme of international finance and trade lost their power to inflict unto the enemy the consequences to alter their calculus.
Economic warfare returned in the sense that once again the fight in between states compel us to the totalization of warfare on all the fronts of human development, far beyond those of “expeditionary conflicts”.
The world sees that not Anglo-European sanctions can destabilize Russia through oil/gas prices, that closing Iranian oil to western markets will not change the IRGC and Teheran government to change its politics. There’re parallel system to develop that allow the economic weapons of the US to be bypassed, and every time the executive follows on these steps to weaken or influence it’s rival, the more likely is the rest of the world will continue to develop systems to avoid being susceptible to those measures.
“By the same token, they know when the case is far less clearcut.” I’m not sure I agree with this as interpretation and precedent establishes the extent of laws. Less a matter of laying the boundaries of law over a situation and more a matter of trying to extend or repel the line. By which I think the characterisation of Ukrainian strikes as attacks on civilian targets isn’t there yet, I think extending that line to ‘civilian target’ would require a direct dependence of critical civilian infrastructure on those targets. I don’t think Russian hospitals will be running out of fuel just yet