The question of intentionality does not change the need to deal with the hazards posed by the Russian shadow fleet. It does not fundamentally change European countries' response options either.
" it would be counterintuitive for Russia to risk any disturbance to its oil export"
It would also be counterintuitive to invade Ukraine, which led many to doubt they would, despite the evidence in front of them. I no longer assume rationality when it comes to Putin.
On your first one I think the deniability aspect can work both ways: for the risk-averse among European leaders it can be easier to take action to make sure that no further accidents happen than to go against Russia in a more explicit way.
I may be too optimistic but I believe that at least in Finland there is a strong political willingness to do something about the shadow fleet and the Baltic Sea NATO meeting joint statement indicated similar sentiments
I agree with the thrust of your argument but not everyone will take such a bold view especially those looking not to "escalate". A couple of points occur to me. On "Norwegian official saying that it would be counterintuitive for Russia to risk any disturbance to its oil export". Russia is equally likely to have calculated the worst that could happen is one ship arrested. Not a valid reason supporting a view one way or the other. Secondly, there is a concept in law of "recklessness" i.e. a wilful disregard for the consequences of actions. It is if you like it would roughly mean Eagle S crew (or anyone instructing them) knew the anchor would likely drag and shut their eyes deliberately to the consequences even though not forming an intention to sever this particular cable. It is enough to base a judgment of criminal responsibility in some jurisdictions.
" it would be counterintuitive for Russia to risk any disturbance to its oil export"
It would also be counterintuitive to invade Ukraine, which led many to doubt they would, despite the evidence in front of them. I no longer assume rationality when it comes to Putin.
Good points.
On your first one I think the deniability aspect can work both ways: for the risk-averse among European leaders it can be easier to take action to make sure that no further accidents happen than to go against Russia in a more explicit way.
I may be too optimistic but I believe that at least in Finland there is a strong political willingness to do something about the shadow fleet and the Baltic Sea NATO meeting joint statement indicated similar sentiments
I agree with the thrust of your argument but not everyone will take such a bold view especially those looking not to "escalate". A couple of points occur to me. On "Norwegian official saying that it would be counterintuitive for Russia to risk any disturbance to its oil export". Russia is equally likely to have calculated the worst that could happen is one ship arrested. Not a valid reason supporting a view one way or the other. Secondly, there is a concept in law of "recklessness" i.e. a wilful disregard for the consequences of actions. It is if you like it would roughly mean Eagle S crew (or anyone instructing them) knew the anchor would likely drag and shut their eyes deliberately to the consequences even though not forming an intention to sever this particular cable. It is enough to base a judgment of criminal responsibility in some jurisdictions.