It's worth mentioning that cable breakages happen quite often; globally about 200 times per year [1] and the article itself mentions that just last year, two other cables and a gas pipeline were taken out by an anchor. The Gulf of Finland is evidently quite shallow. From what I understand, cable repair ships are likely to use ROVs for parts of repair jobs but only when the water is shallow so hopefully they can figure out whether the damage looks like sabotage before they sever the cable to repair it. Of course, if you're a bad actor and want plausible deniability, maybe you'd make it look like anchor damage or, deliberately drag an anchor right over the cables.
Cable repairs are certainly annoying and for the operator of the cable, expensive. However, they are usually repaired relatively quickly. I'd be more worried if many more cables were severed at the same time. If you're only going to break one or two a year, you might as well not bother.
1: https://www.theverge.com/c/24070570/internet-cables-undersea...
This is a misleading framing. The two cables last year were not taken out by an anchor as an accident, it was literally a ship putting down its anchor just before the cable and then dragging it over the cable. In other words, sabotage. There's no point in trying to color any of this with rose tinted glasses when it's clear who's done it and why.
Have you filed your observations of the ships anchor at sea to the authorities? Because it does sound strange, if you indeed have a witness to this, that they dropped and then hoisted their anchors to damage infrastructure four times that day:
> Swedish-Estonian telecoms cable at 1513 GMT, then over the Russian cable at around 2020 GMT, the [Balticconnector gas pipeline] at 2220 GMT and a Finland-Estonia telecoms line at 2349 GMT.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-telecoms-ca...
They just released a statement saying it is sad that they have to be suspicious that it is, perhaps, sabotage:
There is no evidence to suggest it was intentional. None.
There is strong circumstantial evidence (https://www.politico.eu/article/balticconnector-damage-likel...) and an open Estonian investigation. None of us know whether or not there is direct evidence that has not been made public.
Strong circumstantial evidence == minister said “I'm not the sea captain. But I would think that you would notice that you're dragging an anchor behind you for hundreds of kilometers”.
When “coincidences” like this percolate up to the general public, I think it is in fact noteworthy.
^ username sorta checks out, in that it's Russian
At certain odds, statistical likelihood is evidence
A 1 in 36 million chance for three breaks in one day.
That's assuming independence. I'm not ruling out sabotage but the world is often not fully independent. A storm or an anchor both may affect multiple cables if they're in generally the same area which would definitely make the probability far more likely than those stated. (edit typo)
Indeed !
https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/lithuania-sweden-...
>Lithuania-Sweden subsea cable cut, was 10m from severed Finnish-German cable
And what about adding in the chances of a Russian spy ship seen relatively near by only a few days earlier:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/16/russian-spy-sh...
I'm supporting gleenn who beat me by seconds to much the same observation.
Clusters are a thing.
And also the cable between Lithuania and Sweden:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/18/telecoms-cable...
And also Ireland escorted a Russian spy ship away from their cables:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/16/russian-spy-sh...
That‘s one of the cables mentioned in the CNN article.
> Joint statement by the Foreign Ministers of Finland and Germany on the severed undersea cable in the Baltic Sea
> We are deeply concerned about the severed undersea cable connecting Finland and Germany in the Baltic Sea. The fact that such an incident immediately raises suspicions of intentional damage speaks volumes about the volatility of our times. A thorough investigation is underway. Our European security is not only under threat from Russia‘s war of aggression against Ukraine, but also from hybrid warfare by malicious actors. Safeguarding our shared critical infrastructure is vital to our security and the resilience of our societies.
So what's the solution ? Assign a surveillance UAV to every Russian ship parked "without a good reason" over a cable ? It would be expensive, but doable, and create a reserve of vehicles for wartime use.
The solution is to project strength and hit them where they don't expect. You are dealing with a thug, not a cost/benefit accountant, as Obama seemed to mistakenly believe. As long as they do things and we respond, nothing good will happen. They have already calculated the response and found it acceptable. Instead of this, go to the mattresses. Oh, your bridge has suddenly exploded? Shame.
"We" won't respond because "we" just elected a Russian asset and he is going to install more in his cabinet.
It's already been settled that the trump dossier from 2016 was a work of fiction.
Why did Putin take crimea under Obama's watch, parts of Ukraine under Biden's watch, but then not make any huge moves like those while his "asset" was in the white house?
Trump is a Russian agent. If you believe otherwise you expose yourself as an uneducated, unwashed plebe. What about the Biden's ties to China and Ukraine? Hunter's Laptop is immaterial because twitter said so. Facts deemed contrary to The Narrative will be aggressively downvoted.
"We" already screwed their pipeline, what's left? Provide Ukraine with the means to blow up the Kerch bridge maybe? They're the ones that could legitimately do that sort of escalation.
> "We" already screwed their pipeline
unfortunately, "we" didnt have to pay a sacrifice to the economy for it, because germany paid it.
The US is too afraid of nukes, and won't escalate. The russians rightly predicted this.
> what's left?
The other pipelines. Their shadow oil fleet. There are lots of options. But to my knowledge, only the British, French and Americans are capable of the long-range clandestine operations.
Their shadow oil fleet is operated by third parties and shell companies. We are dealing with a mafia state here.
https://windward.ai/knowledge-base/illuminating-russias-shad...
> Their shadow oil fleet is operated by third parties and shell companies
Would be a shame if they started having engine troubles in the middle of the ocean.
The "problem" of Western countries is that the political sphere operates under different moral compasses: like taking down a shadow fleet tanker would be a natural disaster... taking down many would mean many disasters.
The real question is, should security and defense concerns be placed on hold? If our basic freedoms and rights are being attacked, how big of a deal would be a shadow fleet tanker catastrophe?
Those ships are going to be transiting somewhere unloaded. That is when you engage them.
That would be in the busiest shipping ports, channels, and anchorages in the entire world. Aka the most bananas place to interdict.
If something bad happened to a mostly empty Russian shadow tanker in the Gulf of Finland, that impact is going to be mostly confined to Russia. i.e. past the major Finnish and Estonian ports.
As long as we're all playing silly only-kinda-deniable games, that's an option on the table.
Western countries have intelligence services with sabotage departments and in general are not above blowing up things their leaders don't like.
If the CIA or US Navy don't have the technical means to blow up the Crimea bridge with plausible deniability they haven't been paying attention.
Scratch the liberal pretences of a Westerner and for sure you're going to find the imperialist.
That might carry more weight if Russia hadn't started an expansionist war to reclaim former imperial territory.
They are planning on this:
> Parliament calls for an EU crackdown on Russia’s ’shadow fleet’
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20241111IP...
yeah just count the cases of unprovoked attacks on gazprom-related people by open windows.
That sounds borderline feasible – in a world where submarines don't exist.
Why would they use a Russian flagged ship for that?
According to CNN reporting, the US is already keeping track of Russian ships near critical submarine infrastructure. Chances are that they already have a prime suspect as to what ship or ships have been engaged in this.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/06/politics/us-sees-increasi...
Hetzner seems unaffected?
ping hel1-speed.hetzner.com
It should be around 25 ms in normal conditions. That's what I got when pinging Hetzner in Germany, from Finland, when the cable was still in use and when using a connection that routes through the cable.
I am don't use Hetzner, but I use ssh between Finland and Germany every day. As a matter of fact even back and forth because of tunneling. After reading the news this morning (Hetzner incident is date 3:30 UTC) I was surpised that I had not noted any lag. It remained very reponsive all day.
Hetzner says they are affected: https://status.hetzner.com/incident/ec8a2f28-e964-46cb-94fa-...
That is a very terse statement all things considered.
I think it is slightly higher than normal. I remember getting 30-40ms pings to germany in recent years. 45-55ms is around the range it used to be in early 2010's before the direct cable from finland to germany was built.
I'm getting 25ms from my mailserver at hetzner helsinki to amsterdam. Looks more then OK to me.
This would be an excellent time for Germany to announce that it is tripling munitions production, and that they’re going to do whatever they have to do to protect the territorial integrity of Europe. But they won’t.
As risky as it may sound, they will triple the depth of concerns.
> "it’s obvious this wasn’t an accidental anchor drop.”
If it's "he who shall not be named", gotta admit, that's a clever strategy: ramp up sabotage and see how NATO/EU will feel about their "red lines", and how well does that article 5 really work in practice. Is it worth more than the paper it's printed on? Let's find out!
People have been laughing at the West crossing multiple Russian "red lines" and the Russians not doing anything. So the Russians can follow a similar route: a cable torn here, a warehouse blows up there, maybe a bank website is hacked, water supply or power station company blows up "randomly". Is anyone going to launch nuclear bombs because of that? That's absurd, of course not, yet NATO/EU just looks weak and pathetic in the process.
Ideally, these countries should ramp up similar acts of sabotage on the Russian territory if they confirmed that's exactly who it is. A dam fails in Siberia, maybe the payment system goes down for a week, a submarine catches on fire while in port for repairs. Honestly I don't think they have the guts to do that.
Some regimes only speak the language of power. They have to be believably threatened; calling them on phone to chat and beg for them to behave, is just showing more weakness. Scholz just called Putin. Anyone remember Macron talking with Putin for tens of hours at the start of the war? A lot of good that did. When they see a credible fist in front of their nose, that's the only way they'll stop.
Ask yourself, when was the last time a nation officially declared war?
It doesn't happen anymore for legal reasons.
NATO will 100% not be the first to declare war despite even very serious provocations. Maybe they'll take a leaf out of Russia or Israel's book and declare a 'special' or 'limited' operation though...
> Maybe they'll take a leaf out of Russia or Israel's book
As you yourself just pointed out a few lines line above this, there's no need to take a leaf out of anybody else's book: all the US' and NATO wars of the past decades have been presented as "special operations": e.g. the war against Serbia, the war against Iraq, the war against Afghanistan, etc.
> NATO will 100% not be the first to declare war despite even very serious provocations.
But if it doesn't declare war, it now looks weak. That article 5 isn't worth very much all of the sudden. At the same time it's stupid to start WW3 over a village in the Baltics, a town in Romania, a cut cable or a few blown up warehouses. The Russians took the same "red line" idea and are playing it against the NATO and the EU. I can't interpret as any other way. And on one level, it sort of works.
> Maybe they'll take a leaf out of Russia or Israel's book and declare a 'special' or 'limited' operation though...
I'd like to believe. But remembering how much hand wringing was needed to send a few tanks to Ukraine and some F-16. Somehow, I doubt they'll be able to do anything as bold as a "special" military operation against Russia. Heck, they can't even provide air defense for Ukraine's skies. (As in use NATO's own defense systems to stop the Russians destroying apartment buildings). That's the point the Russians are providing. They are destroying NATO's reputation without even trying to too much, and I posit, so far it works.
> yet NATO/EU just looks weak and pathetic in the process
Really? Russia, with the 6th largest army in the world, had to pull in Iran and Pyongyang to not get invaded by the 13th largest [1][2].
Moscow is being a nuisance. That doesn't make NATO or Europe look weak, it makes Russia look pathetic.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/13/world/europe/ukraine-russ...
13th largest backed by the whole NATO and other US-aligned countries. They send almost everything they can outside of nuclear weapons, the most cutting edge military tech, and people (well, outside of a limited contingent of "advisors"). Let's be honest, without this backing the war would've ended in the first month as was drafted in Istanbul.
> Let's be honest, without this backing the war would've ended in the first month as was drafted in Istanbul
The West didn't really help Ukraine in the first month [1]. We thought the Russian army was competent and would ride into Ukraine like we did in Iraq. It wasn't until after the weakness was made apparent that aid started dripping in.
Ukraine repelled a Russian invasion on its own. Our generations-old anti-air systems are downing their latest weapons. Meanwhile, our generations-old missiles are taking out their state-of-the-art systems.
To the degree Russia has been able to claim any victory, it's in not being demolished. That's the standard. Not winning. Simply surviving.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukrain...
The West was actively supplying Ukraine since 2014, especially after the Debaltsevo embarrassment. Yes, it pales in comparison to the post 2022 levels, but it still was far from insignificant. Even your Wikipedia link lists a lot of pre-2022 aid and I am pretty sure this page is far from being comprehensive.
And it's even without mentioning the direct role of Boris Johnson in tanking the Istanbul accords.
The direct role of Boris Johnson in tanking the Istanbul accords.
Which is a myth - oft repeated, but with precisely zero substance.
Zero substance? It was reported by Ukrainska Pravda (and Ukraine is far from being famous for its freedom of press) not by some Russian propaganda outlet. It's the same as saying that WSJ citing "sources" has zero substance.
Regardless, you can believe that the West did not provide any assurance to Ukraine during the Istanbul talks and that Russia has blown its own pipeline. It's your right.
It was reported by Ukrainska Pravda
It was speculated as a possibility by that article, but then it was looked into by others, quite thoroughly, and the narrative fell apart. That happens, you know.
The Foreign Affairs article in the aforementioned thread has a pretty good writeup about the whole thing, if you are interested.
You can believe that Russia has blown its own pipeline
You can change the subject as many times as you want, and speculate, falsely, about what you think other people believe about random topics, all day long if you want.
But this has absolutely no bearing on what we were just talking about.
> it still was far from insignificant
Stil far from closing the gap between the 6th and 13th largest armies. Russia invaded an inferior force and got stymied. This would be like America's Vietnam being Cuba, where we fully committed the U.S. military and economy to the task and still continued to fail. The fact that Russia has never even established air superiority knocks it out of the category of running a modern military.
The Russian military doctrine is quite different from the US one. It places far more importance on artillery and anti-air forces than on air superiority. The Russian army clearly sucks at maneuver warfare and together with the unrealistically optimistic views which were prevalent in the Russian government (read Putin), it explains perfectly well the extremely poor performance in the first months. The performance in the recent months shows results of a more "comfortable" for the Russian army mode of warfare.
Also note that the Russian army was not "fully committed", it was not using conscripts (there was a small scale deployment of conscripts, but after the public scandal they were quickly removed from Ukraine) and did not fully pull forces from all its military districts.
Meanwhile Ukraine was fighting in the total war mode from the first days (they do not pull "recruits" from streets in the broad daylight into military buses just for the fun of it) with huge external support. And having the well trained by the West ideologically charged army backbone with 8 years of practical warfare experience has helped immensely in the first months.
> Meanwhile Ukraine was fighting in the total war mode from the first days (they do not pull "recruits" from streets in the broad daylight into military buses just for the fun of it) with huge external support
Did they do that during the first few months of the war? I recall them having more volunteers than they could use in the early days.
> supplying Ukraine since 2014
You are moving the goalposts, though. Support between 2014 and 2022 wasn't even remotely close to:
> They send almost everything they can outside
Also even now they aren't exactly sending everything they can, rather everything they want to.
> They send almost everything they can outside of nuclear weapons
Equipment from the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s isn't "almost everything they can outside of nuclear weapons."
But you're 100% right, Ukraine should have received more, especially because we asked them to surrender their nuclear deterrence.
There is still a lot of equipment Ukraine could use, like long-range cruise missiles would help them a lot to stop from being attacked by Russia long-range cruise missiles.
It looks more like they are just winning their war by the most effective means they have at their disposal.
To say that Russia is just being a nuisance.... They have just won a war. That is clear as day now.
Trump's election is the nail in the coffin. Immediately we saw Schultz call Putin and Zelensky declare that the war will be over early next year - implying a negotiated settlement.
It's done. The Russians won. Exactly what they won is all that is to be decided.
> Really?
That's exactly how the Russians perceive the EU. They are perceived as weak. There is no way they would have started the invasion if they were afraid of them. They are engaging in asymmetrical warfare because they are convinced they can demonstrate that to the world as well "look what we are doing there and well we get is phone calls form Sholz" [1]
> Scholz condemned the war of aggression against Ukraine
> The German leader called on Putin to withdraw Russian troops from Ukraine ...
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-scholz-calls-putin-for-first-...
That might look like a "power move" by Germany but it looks absolutely weak in the eyes of Putin.
> That's exactly how the Russians perceive the EU. They are perceived as weak
Europe has been weak. The difference is Russia is weak while trying its hardest. Europe is weak because it can't bother to try.
> That might look like a "power move" by Germany but it looks absolutely weak in the eyes of Putin
Nobody considers condemnations power moves. Also, Putin's track record in reading who's too weak to do what doesn't look too hot right now.
> That might look like a "power move" by Germany but it looks absolutely weak in the eyes of Putin
Calling and talking with Putin as acting as some kind of "power broker" or "decider" (Bush junior's classic). I think that's the context there. That's after years of hand wringing, should we help, or shouldn't help, maybe help, but not too much and so on.
> Europe has been weak. The difference is Russia is weak while trying its hardest. Europe is weak because it can't bother to try
I agree, and I don't know if now it finally woke up or it hasn't yet. It's not over till it's over, as they say.
Weak?
Macron is rallying for major support.
Poland is building an extremely strong army, and is having none of Russia's BS.
Rutte is head of NATO now, and he has peace as his nr. 1 goal.
There are so many ads for cybersecurity and military on tv here in the Netherlands.
Ukraine received ATACMS (long range missiles) a while ago. This is why they are able to invade Russia back.
We are "weak" because Putin has been destabilising our peaceful politics over the past 20 years.
Russia isn't a fucking bear, it's a drunk wasteland with plenty natural resources, but with fucked up leadership. The Russian oligarchy is desperate, and it's showing.
And yes, I _am_ mad. I am 100% going to protect the EU. What we have and what we had is beautiful, and my Russian friends and my Ukrainian friends deserve better.
I am picking up math, Nix, ML, geopolitics, nature, sports and more because of these idiots in Russia. And I'm exactly what they fear most. A transgender person.
I'm so, so done with Putin and Lukachenko's BS.
EU as a whole has actually been weak in terms of military capability and perhaps also civil defence. The end of the Cold War and the long peace had allowed a lot of us to believe that there wouldn't be a foreseeable risk of military conflict or a need to seriously prepare against aggression. Many European countries cut back significantly on their military spending and capability. And that seemed like a reasonable and popular thing to do given the circumstances. (Countries in Eastern Europe were perhaps the exception and didn't cut back, at least not so much.)
The problem is that defensive capability cannot be just built all of a sudden if it turns out to be needed after all.
Of course the reason that has become a problem is Putin's aggression and authoritarian rule.
But Europe has indeed been weak in the sense of not having maintained defensive capability. Perhaps that is, both fortunately and unfortunately, changing. (Fortunately for obvious reasons, unfortunately because it means significant spending on something that should not be necessary even though it is.)
Hopefully EU societies will remain strong and resilient in the sense they've been strong all along: strong civil society and democracy.
> Russia isn't a fucking bear, it's a drunk wasteland with plenty natural resources, but with fucked up leadership. The Russian oligarchy is desperate, and it's showing.
It doesn't matter. It attacked one of the largest countries in Europe, captured territory and is still holding it and making progress. Right under EU's nose. It can brutally throw men in the meat grinder and doesn't worry too much about it. Calling Putin like Sholz did or like Macron didn't help. Showing him a fist that's ready to strike, only that works. Anything else is showing weakness.
> We are "weak" because Putin has been destabilising our peaceful politics over the past 20 years.
The weakness is not accidental, they've been weaving in their agents all over the place and shaping public opinion. Now they are engaged in asymmetrical warfare. Germany has been doing deals with the Russians buying gas and oil from them. Merkel laughed at the US for being worried about it:
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/aa2afe9f-0b5d-45b7-a647-cc61f6d01...
> If we’d known then what we know now, we would of course have acted differently
> The weakness is not accidental, they've been weaving their agents and shaping public opinion. Now they are engaged in asymmetrical warfare. Germany has been doing deals with the Russians buying gas and oil from them. Merkel laughed at the US for being worried about it:
Yep.. When Merkel was German chancellor, I thought she was amazing. Not a big fan anymore :(
> It doesn't matter. It attacked one of the largest countries in Europe, captured territory and is still holding it and making progress. Right under EU's nose. It can brutally throw men in the meat grinder and doesn't worry too much about it. Calling Putin like Sholz did or like Macron didn't help. Showing him a fist that's ready to strike, only that works. Anything else is showing weakness.
Yeah. I agree. Putin is not interested in anything but power. And he doesn't listen to anything but power. Europe is slow and timid, but the impacts of ww2 are still deeply embedded in our cultural memory.
Warmongering 101. Ready to protect the EU and drunken wasteland at the same time. The enemy is simultaneously pathetic and an existential threat.
Just a little unnerving
Nord Stream Part II
No. Nord Stream seem more and more having been an Ukrainian action. Maybe not official government, but obviously more in Ukrainian interest than in Russian.
I can't see any Ukrainian interest an cutting internet between two of their supporters. Whether the support has been sufficient can be debated, but both are supporters. Germany among the top in absolute terms, Finland among the top relative to their own size. Yes among, there are stronger supporters in both categories.
It is plausible theory still given there is evidence for actual Russian involvement. The reason is that this might be just an operation to make EU more distrustful of Russia. Especially given the alleged call between between German chancellor and putin. There is is also a chance this is a message from Russia after biden approved Ukraine to use long range missiles.
So the deciding factor will be evidence. I know what many people tends to believe one way or the other based on ideological reasons or any other reason but shouldn't be the case.
I keep wondering if that scale of operation that we are witnessing is their "testing the waters" phase and it is 1% of their true capability, of if what we're seeing is already their full-steam operational pace.
They do a good job of instilling fear, but we've learned from Ukraine that there are a lot of paper Tigers in that army that aren't as capable in a real fight as they are in a demonstration.
Closing in on at least 3 years of hybrid warfare and yet this is nothing but a "mystery".
So to keep score, in the last year we've seen cables sabotaged between Finland and Germany, Lithuania and Sweden, Estonia and Sweden, Estonia and Finland. Any others I missed? You might say it's too early to call it sabotage, but the earliest two cable incidents were exactly the same, so it's hardly a coincidence at this point.
Russia warned that they were going to do this last week. I think it's pretty reasonable to conclude that 1) this was sabotage and 2) it was Russia.
> Russia warned that they were going to do this last week
Source?
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-pipeline-gas-patrushev-putin...
I guess they warned in their own way, of "nice cables you've got there, it would be a shame if someone... sabotaged them".
They're constantly saying this about everything.
They also threatened UA with a full scale invasion by doing troop trainings on the border for several years before the real thing.
The point isn't that they don't do things, it's that there are people issuing a constant stream of threats and people doing things, and it's not entirely clear there is even a correlation between the two.
in other words, we need their false negative rate
> we need their false negative rate
We have it. It's almost 100%. They've been threatening WWIII and nuclear armageddon since 2022.
every once in a while they actually follow through with some. they need some prison mafia credibility to not look like total clowns.
Hey, hold your horses. Biden also threatened to blow up the Nord-Stream 2 pipeline, yet after the sabotage, everybody said "it was Russia". Now about this incident, to be consistent, I'm inclined to think it was the Americans.
I believe at this point we have a pretty good guess as to who sabotaged the pipeline, and it wasn't the US.
No we do not. Saying it with "confidence" and "authority" doesn't make true either.
Who is we and please enlighten me.
Biden also threatened to blow up the Nord-Stream 2 pipeline,
Nope. He said it would be "ended", meaning the one thing that it obviously means -- that it would be shut off.
everybody said "it was Russia"
Nope -- some people said that.
The reasonable, level-headed people said: "We just don't know yet".
Was probably the ones who didn't want to be on the hook for their end of the contract being violated by not sending resources down the pipeline.
> He said it would be "ended", meaning the one thing that it obviously means -- that it would be shut off.
When Biden said that he was talking next to the person with the power to legally shut it off, the German chancellor. If he and Biden were in agreement on that point, that Nord Stream would be shut off if Russia invaded Ukraine, why did Biden say that explicitly but not Scholz, even after being asked directly by the journalists present? If they were not in agreement on that point, how could Biden promise that they would put an end to it?
> The reasonable, level-headed people said: "We just don't know yet".
Agreed.
If they were not in agreement on that point, how could Biden promise that they would put an end to it?
Typical politician nonsense.
None of which means he was intending, or suggesting the idea of actually blowing it up.
Come on dude. He said "we will bring an end to it", and when the reporter challenged him how he's going to do this given that it's a deal between Germany and Russia, he said "I promise you we will be able to do it."
People have been convicted of murder on less evidence.
The peaceful Russian Baltic research fleet is doing research, nothing to see here.
Between mainland Norway and Svalbard.
Substantial Russian activity also near UK, raises concerns that Russia would cut off UK. [0]
Russian ships ‘plotting sabotage in the North Sea’ [1]
[0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-undersea-...
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-ships...
The Irish just chased away a Russian "research" vessel.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/16/russian-spy-sh...
Are there not cables run through the Channel Tunnel? Seems like a no-brainer.
Do these nations not have navies? Can’t they tell the Russian non-combat ships (or pressure them) to get lost?
> Can’t they tell the Russian non-combat ships (or pressure them) to get lost?
Not in international waters, which is where submarine cables are largely located.
And even if they could: The oceans are... kind of big. If it were that easy to "just patrol" shipping lanes/submarine cable tracks etc., why would piracy still be a concern?
Who says they don't do that constantly, but missed it this time?
We do but ocean and air is big :)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nato-jets-in...
Also with cables, they can be destroyed with "innocent" ships that have a right to be there actually :)
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65309687
Russia has a programme to sabotage wind farms and communication cables in the North Sea, according to new allegations.
The details come from a joint investigation by public broadcasters in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland.
It says Russia has a fleet of vessels disguised as fishing trawlers and research vessels in the North Sea.
Just because it is not publicized does not mean it is not happening. Most military operations do not take along journalists, and are not reported to the press. Some are even secret.
That said, there is a limited amount that can be done in international waters without creating an international incident. Law Of The Seas, Freedom Of Navigation, etc.. It is to our advantage for example, when we want to prevent CCP's from denying access to international waters around Taiwan or Phillipines, but to Russia's advantage when scouting undersea cables in international waters.
They can field more "research" vessels than we'd typically field mil vessels, but I'd bet real money that that ratio just changed a lot in the past few weeks, as it hits the press.
> They can field more "research" vessels than...
Back during the cold war, there was very often a Soviet "fishing boat" trailing after any substantial US Navy fleet. Said fishing boat may have had far more antennas than any fisherman would expect, but far less interest in catching fish.
Fast forward - what would be the cost of having cheap western drones hanging around nearby, when suspected Russian assets were close to undersea cables, pipelines, and such?
And risk escalation!? /s
The constant Russian interference, combined with the regular escalation from the jets patrolling, and the radar jamming, really needs to be dealt with.
We're stuck between having to do timid actions and full NATO escalation. This feels like constant creep.
I have read reams of rhetoric regarding relations with Russia rehashed as "don't poke the bear".
No one ever seems to want to discuss what to do about the bear going around poking everyone else.
The bear metaphore is indeed nonsense. Russia is not a bear, you are dealing with a bunch of state level criminals.
The state of Russia is essentially better understood as a criminal gang masquerading as a country.
Those people primarily care for themselves. They know they can get away with a ton of insane and inhuman shit, as they calculate the other well-behaving party will back off. They however do not want to get nuclear consequences themselves, it is pure bluff.
Without knowing any of the individuals involve, this intuitively seems like a useful model to predict the actions of the state.
I wonder how effective the technique would be for the US government and our own oligarchs?
The "academic" term for Russia's style of governing is a kleptocracy.
Your description is 100% accurate.
Americans are about to get intimately familiar with this mode of governments anyway
> The bear metaphore is indeed nonsense. Russia is not a bear, you are dealing with a bunch of state level criminals
With nukes, which makes them pretty scary.
Those discussions are had all the time. One of downside of this bear is bear strapped with explosives that could kill us all if bear gets angry enough.
Also, once you are 12 miles offshore, technically you are in international waters and thus cannot be stopped by any Navy except your own unless there is UN Sanctions. If NATO Countries decided to violate that, it obviously opens up massive can of worms that could impact worldwide trade.
You are evidently unaware of UNCLOS and the adoption of many of its provisions into customary international law
I'm completely aware, used to be involved in this stuff. In international waters, these are UNCLOS requirements to board a ship not of your Navy Flag.
(a) the ship is engaged in piracy; (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade; (c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109; (d) the ship is without nationality; or (e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship
Which one would you like to use to board and/or force the ship to depart against Russian cable cutting ships?
> Which one would you like to use to board and/or force the ship to depart against Russian cable cutting ships?
High seas (which is what that list applies to) is not the EEZ. I don't think anybody could legally argue thar a country wouldn't have the right to board (or fire at, if it didn't comply) a foreign ship from it's coast 24 nautical miles if it suspected it was doing something illegal. Whether that right extends to the entire EEZ isn't exactly clear.
However there are no "high seas" areas in the Baltic so all of the listed items are irrelevant.
To be clear, I am not proposing boarding Russian ships. That is pointless.
But the answer to your question is a. Referring to UNCLOS 101(a)(ii) the cables are "property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State".
Also the practical reality of countries not giving a shit about any of that when someone starts breaking their shit. There is a reason Russia is knocking out European lines while leaving American ones alone.
High Seas "international water" start at after 200 nautical mile EEZ. There's a few explicit articles dealing with malicious submarine cable damage.
But IIRC the TLDR is it has to do with indemnities and putting a vessel/person up for prosecution after the fact. And it doesn't apply if cable damaged while trying to prevent injury, which RU can always claim.
More broadly I think you're correct on paper... RU damaging subsea infra is under UNCLOS is technically punishable, but after the fact. And they're not going to lol pay damages to countries that sanction them. NATO kinetically trying to prevent RU damaging subsea infra (especially in highseas), in lieu of formal UN policing mission against such acts, is closer to act of war.
NATO kinetically trying to prevent Russia from damaging subsea infrastructure WITH a formal UN policing mission is also an act of war, its just more clearly not an act of aggression.
Of course, that would also be true of NATO doing so as part of a broader collective defense operation reported to the Security Council, directed against Russia and explicitly aimed at rolling back the Russian (UNGA-condemned) aggression in Ukraine under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Fair distinction.
International law can be selectively applied for different party according to different scenarios (relative to different geopolitical power). NATO triggering art5 (self defense) won't make it valid / feasible to trigger at parallel UN art51. RU using UN art51 to target UKR a soveign territory, is also going to be different than NATO / or NATO country using art51 to do whatever they want on non-soverign / international high seas. All of which is to say while international law doesn't matter much to the motivated, not everyone is powerful enough to normalized/destablize with impunity. NATO might, but not without RU security council (trumps UNGA) approval, of course NATO can supercede from UN Charter framework which IIRC that NATO explicitly states they operate within. But then we have NATO going independant of UN, which goes back barrels of worms.
> technically you are in international waters and thus cannot be stopped by any Navy except your own unless there is UN Sanctions
What? No? How do you think we arraign pirates?
> it obviously opens up massive can of worms that could impact worldwide trade
No? Why? Worst case it would be considered an act of war. Practically, they'd just be arrested.
>What? No? How do you think we arraign pirates?
Because piracy is one of exceptions to "No stopping not your flag ships in international waters."
Here is list of exception: (a) the ship is engaged in piracy; (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade; (c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109; (d) the ship is without nationality; or (e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.
https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unc...
>No? Why? Worst case it would be considered an act of war. Practically, they'd just be arrested.
So under which clause would you like to stop Russian ships cutting cables in international waters?
UNCLOS does have this provision around submarine cables: Every State shall adopt the laws and regulations necessary to provide that the breaking or injury by a ship flying its flag or by a person subject to its jurisdiction of a submarine cable beneath the high seas done wilfully or through culpable negligence, in such a manner as to be liable to interrupt or obstruct telegraphic or telephonic communications, and similarly the breaking or injury of a submarine pipeline or high-voltage power cable, shall be a punishable offence. This provision shall apply also to conduct calculated or likely to result in such breaking or injury. However, it shall not apply to any break or injury caused by persons who acted merely with the legitimate object of saving their lives or their ships, after having taken all necessary precautions to avoid such break or injury
But Russia is obviously ignoring the rules so now what?
> So under which clause would you like to stop Russian ships cutting cables in international waters?
Piracy. Duh. That or you'd break the treaty. (Like China has been [1].)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Sea_Arbitration
That’s a good point, there’s no formal mechanism to punish any country that has ‘anchor accidents’ 12.1 nm offshore.
It’s probably not even a de jure crime, so what is there to punish on the record?
In what country is intentional property destruction not a crime? You’re not arguing that it’s really accidental, right?
I agree. Do you want to sign up and go fight in a war? Or should other people besides you die? It's easy to say it "needs to be dealt with" but it's not an easy thing to do.
Some of us live close enough that it's not really an option, surrendering to Russians don't work that great if you live in Eastern Europe. I will volunteer first day to join Polish Army.
Ditto. Even though I'm an expat right now if Poland calls to arms I'm coming home and fighting to defend my country.
I can't tell if you guys or the Finns are better at dealing with invaders, but I can't think of a higher compliment on this matter.
> Or should other people besides you die?
Yes. We literally have a country willing to do this for us if we give them the weapons.
Otherwise, a country whose population is unwilling to fight for itself isn't a country, just a convenient demarcation on a map.
I lived in Finland most of my adult life. Gladly. Freedom isn’t free, I understand that
It's never an easy thing to do or one that should come to fruition, but yes, I would contribute to the effort for my country if it was so.
Living in a country next to Russia, it basically feels more and more likely that I will actually have to participate in a war effort. Not really sure how since I have not undergone military training, but it's definitely something to keep in mind these days.
If you would have asked me while I was a young Marine I'd say, "hell yes." I recall the commandant visiting in Afghanistan and Marines were asking him where the next combat zone is because they are eager for more action.
From history: "Flexible Response" was a policy implemented by JFK in 1961, in response to previous administration's over-reliance on massive retaliation.
Of course, it dragged the United States into Vietnam as things slowly escalated.
IMO the right action is to counterattack with equal force, ideally in the same way. So cut one of their undersea cabals, fly jets near or over their airspace, etc.
That way, there's a clear line for what NATO will and won't do that Russia can understand. If attacks escalate it will be Russia that escalated every time. If Russia feels it's threatened, all they have to do is stop the attacks and NATO will stop. If Russia is going to nuclear warfare over not being able to unevenly harass NATO, because we can't read Putin and the oligarchs' minds, and what objective measure would allow that but not allow Russia to go nuclear warfare over not enslaving all of NATO, or claiming they can/others can't do everything not written unambiguously in a treaty (which would extend to new technologies like partitioning the solar system that we couldn't have thought ahead-of-time)?
But I'm no diplomat, so maybe I'm wrong and my idea would be catastrophic.
>fly jets near
It's regularly done by both sides. And not only with jets, but also with nuclear-capable strategic bombers.
>over their airspace
Shooting it down will be a no-brainer for Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident
>If attacks escalate it will be Russia that escalated every time.
So sending jets into their airspace is not an escalation, but shooting down the plain is? Yeap, you are not a diplomat.
Should I remind you how US reacted to the Soviet military presence in Cuba? On the US scale Ukraine is somewhere between Mexico and Texas in importance for Russia from the military point of view.
I don't know whether Russia is flying jets over NATO airspace. If they're not then NATO shouldn't be flying them over Russia.
In my idea it would be essential to confirm Russia is responsible for anything before the even counterattack. If there's an attack NATO can't confirm, the only thing they would do is defend and monitor more closely in case Russia tries the same attack in the future. Only the things that the Russian government definitely does to NATO, NATO would do to them.
So according to this principle, Russia can send military aid to the Syrian government to strike the US military bases on its territory and the US should not be able to retaliate?
In that case the US would be allowed to send aid to some other government to strike Russia (they're currently doing this with Ukraine but for a separate reason, for Ukraine's self-defense...)
Or in an ideal world, the US pays Syria more to not attack them, maybe even gets them to sign a treaty and commits to building Syria's economy and protecting them so they don't feel compelled to take Russian bribes. Although, it's certainly not so straightforward, prior US involvements in foreign countries have been disasters so it would have to be different somehow...
There are many other ways Russia could attack NATO that would be very hard to prove or evenly-counter. Russia could create a culture of NATO hatred and aggression, then set up "rewards" that are given out for obscure reasons, to get Russian NGOs and citizens to attack NATO in their own will. Then NATO can only encourage citizens to attack Russia, which I don't think any treaties forbid anyways, and creating a culture of hate is bad for other reasons. It's not a foolproof system.
But like for this event, there's evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the Russian government is directly involved (https://www.newsweek.com/russia-pipeline-gas-patrushev-putin...). And there are other ways NATO can weaken Russia's influence without even attacking them, like not trading with them, and (indirectly, by having a more liberal government) encouraging Russian citizens to emigrate.
So you do understand that the world can not work according to your simple tit-for-tat principle of "counterattack with equal force". It's a multi-dimensional game where each player has its own fairly opaque "reward function". "Equal force" from one point of view can become "disproportionate escalation" from another. This is where a proper understanding of your opponent becomes important.
Even worse, inside US and Russian governments there are groups with their own interests and agendas. The military-industrial complex can be interested in further escalation and fearmongering (i.e. "good war"), while civilian industry would prefer some kind of compromise as soon as possible (i.e. "poor peace").
Or station nukes in Venezuela
Best course of action at this time would be to properly arm Ukraine.
It's the right thing to do anyway, but especially as a way to respond to Russia.
Which happened and kept happening for a long time now, including the US sending billions of dollars and weapons (among other things). That did not help, did it?
> Which happened and kept happening for a long time now
We've been drip feeding and hand tying Ukraine. Practically every military expert has said this is not the way to win a war.
I heard US sent so many weapons that even US' supply of weapons were running low if and when it came to defending themselves. Is it true? I have no clue.
> heard US sent so many weapons that even US' supply of weapons were running low if and when it came to defending themselves. Is it true? I have no clue.
No, it's not. For small-scale war, we are amply stocked. For large-scale war, stocks don't matter, production does.
Surely if the US was actually in a situation where it was attacked and had to defend itself, they’d be able to do that. If nothing else, the civilians have a whole lot of guns too and attacks on the US (think Pearl Harbor, 911) have a massive rallying effect. As far as I know, the biggest thing preventing a civilian semi-automatic from being converted to an automatic firearm is the risk of a long prison stint.
The USA is a giant ocean away in any direction from any meaningful threat. No-one is invading the USA. Everyone will be nuked to oblivion before that would ever come to pass.
No, but it's a good way to put some fear in our NATO allies and it is a good way to waste a bunch of Russian resources.
> That did not help, did it?
I'm sorry, but this is the type of claim of someone who gets news from the Joe Rogan podcast.
Ukraine managed to defend its capital from annexation, liberated thousands of miles of territory, and managed to improve its protection of civilians thanks to air defense systems, has lower casualty rates than Russia, and now is starting to create a buffer zone into Russian territory.
How isn't this a sign that it didn't help?
Now... could, and should, Ukraine receive way more help, on time to help them even more? Of course. The drip feed has been one of the worse strategic decisions in this conflict, almost like there's no strategy in place.
But Ukraine needs to develop its deterrence.
What exactly would "properly" arming Ukraine look like? The entire Western world doesn't produce enough Patriot missiles to meet Ukraine's air defense needs, just as one critical example. We are aiming for a global production target of 750 missiles/year ( https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15354795 ).... Russia has fired about 6,000 missiles and large drones per year ( https://kyivindependent.com/defense-ministry-over-2-000-russ... ).
You can send Ukraine all of the F-16s in the world, it won't matter if there aren't enough Ukrainian pilots with the linguistic skills to get them through the Western training pipelines.
The reality is that the West can't make the math work at a level of commitment/investment that it is willing to accept. To say nothing of the steadily-worsening problem of "lack of living, breathing Ukrainian men willing to do the fighting in the first place"...
> What exactly would "properly" arming Ukraine look like?
More long-range offensive weapons and clearance to hit sites in Russia. Let Israel know that we wouldn't mind them taking out the Iranian drone factories supplying Russia.
Even the pentagons own assessments say this won’t make much difference.
> Even the pentagons own assessments say this won’t make much difference
I mean yes, it’s also what the press secretary has been saying. They’ve been wrong at every step to date because Biden has been wrong about this.
Can’t believe I had to scroll so for the first comment based on reality and not wishful thinking.
> really needs to be dealt with.
Ignoring the passive voice, who do you suggest should deal with that, more precisely? And how do you suggest "dealing" with one of the two nuclear hyper-powers in existence? (the other one being the Americans)
Maybe I should clarify that I am not in charge of any executive or military branch in the EU or NATO. I express my frustration with our leadership.
If you're interested in how I think it should be sorted: the cables are between Finland and Germany. I think we start with Finland and Germany: - stepping updiplomatic pressure. - Expulsion of Russian and Belarusian diplomats. - Confiscation of Russian owned properties. - Freezing bank accounts. - Increasing tariffs on their goods - Reducing overall trade. - Increasing spending on national defense - And weapons production. - Increasing aid to Ukraine.
The military leadership is seriously considering that Russia might push for the Baltics (meaning, the EU) within 4 years. The EU is not at peace with Russia. They are biding time for a war they need to prepare for.
> We're stuck between having to do timid actions and full NATO escalation
If only there were someone applying pressure to Russia we could have fight for us!
So sacrifice more Ukrainian men for the meat grinder? What has that accomplished so far?
> sacrifice more Ukrainian men for the meat grinder?
To the extent there's a meat grinder, it's of Russians [1].
> What has that accomplished so far?
Russia's disqualifying itself as a conventional military threat for at least a generation. It's not yet there yet, largely because Ukraine has been unable to target its war marchine. But the startling inefficacy of its army and technology has been made clear. Moreover, the front line has been maintained in Ukraine: that keeps them further from NATO and thus American and European boys at home.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrain...
To the extent there's a meat grinder, it's of Russians.
That seems unfair. It's more of a meat grinder for the aggressor, but it's also one for the Ukrainians, by all indications.
I don't know where people get this idea from. Losses in trench warfare-ish should be roughly proportional to number of incoming shells. Which have been lopsided the whole war, by a factor of multiple times.
It has already been acknowledged that the rates are "lopsided", i.e. that Russian loss rates are higher than Ukrainian loss rates.
But none of what you're saying means that Ukraine isn't also suffering from a very high loss rate.
Sorry. I meant that I believe the loss ratio to be the opposite of what you wrote. My reasoning is that the artillery advantage should result in a proportional loss ratio to shells fired in a more or less trench war, and that most analysis made are wishful thinking with a lot of hand-waving. I.e. 4 times more shells fired at a side, about 4 times more losses.
However, I feel like I am alone in the world to believe that. So, ye, I might be wrong. But I still feel gaslighted. Which to be honest, I quite often do fell without a good reason.
I don't understand what is happening...
>To the extent there's a meat grinder, it's of Russians
It's of both. Why deny the fact Ukrainian men are dying in droves? This is disrespectful of those that paid the ultimate sacrifice. Pretending this is not extremely costly to Ukraine in manpower is denying reality. They have been increasing the age of conscripts as they're running out of young men.
> Why deny the fact Ukrainian men are dying in droves?
Nobody is. Meat grinder means excessive loss relative to necessity. The Ukranians are being slaughtered, but not mindlessly. They're fighting efficiently in respect of manpower.
Also, had we given Ukraine all the weapons it asked for in 2022, we probably wouldn't have had a meat grinder.
And, hence, we should give them all the arms and tools they need and the freedom to use them to end it quickly. The dithering on behalf of Biden and Scholz is what's prolonging this.
What business is that of ours? It's up to the Ukrainians what they are willing to do in defense of their country.
>we could have fight for us
C'mon. Their funding is entirely US dependent. What business is that of ours? We are enabling it. How could you possibly ask the question "what business is that of ours"? Explain yourself, that question is absurd.
> What business is that of ours? We are enabling it.
They clearly want to fight! This is like arguing giving someone chemo is enabling their cancer.
Who is "they" and what is "clearly"? They are running out of men they can find to fight, and for quite a while the government and military used very aggressive methods to force men into service. There is a huge desertion problem, in the military and the country itself. A whole lot of Ukrainians do not want to fight.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ukraine-running-out-s...
> Who is "they" and what is "clearly"?
Who do you think?
> A whole lot of Ukrainians do not want to fight
Yes, there is not unanimous agreement on a big political question. Shocking. By this measure, nobody should ever fight for everything.
A whole lot of Ukrainians do not want to fight.
A whole lot of people don't want to fight in any war.
What matters is the relative portion. Though they my differ in the views as to whether the lost regions can be regained, or on what terms a cease-fire may be acceptable -- by all indications, a very solid majority of the society in non-occupied Ukraine supports the fight.
Who is "they" and what is "clearly"?
About 60-80 percent of the population. "Clearly" as in according to reliable polling data I can pull up later. Or by spending any amount of time talking to Ukrainians.
There is a huge desertion problem,
It is obviously a significant problem, but a better source is needed on the "huge" part. The link you provided does not support that view.
If I hear "desertion is a huge problem", what comes to mind it the situation in Afghanstan after the notorious Trump-Biden pullout. The situation in Ukraine is nothing like that, not even remotely.
Given that Russia is invading them and that they are showing no reluctance to stand up to them, yes? Arm them, give them everything they need without restriction and Russia will be sent home to their borders, bloodied and cowed.
Well currently ensuring happy holidays for the western-er part of Europe.
Close Oresund to Russian ships, put mines Gulf of Finland as start. Maybe a strategic nuke on Kaliningrad if any provocation happens.
> Maybe a strategic nuke on Kaliningrad if any provocation happens.
Surely you must be joking about a first-strike nuclear provocation or larger. I would think almost anything other than a border incursion could be dealt with in other ways.
Should Putin be held more accountable for his actions? Absolutely, but a nuclear response is not going to go well unless absolutely justified.
You are replying to a Russian bot, most likely.
Interesting twist…
I chose “provocation” because thats what russians often use (and call for nuking west pretty much every day for decades now).
> and call for nuking west
The number one most noticeable English mistake Russians tend to make is dropping articles all the time...
Fear is the greatest weapon. You can keep sanctioning them, but you’ll never get anywhere.
Give nukes to Ukraine, even pretend ones and war will end in minutes.
> Give nukes to Ukraine, even pretend ones and war will end in minutes
This is the wrong answer. But it's clear non-proliferation has failed. If Ukraine had kept its nukes from the 90s, this wouldn't have happened. It would have had the ability to credibly threaten that it had reverse engineered the arming mechanisms.
My understanding is that they were always in Russian control, kind of like how the US keeps nuclear assets at overseas bases.
Not only did the Russians have the codes, but they had soldiers in physical control with the ability to scuttle the devices.
> My understanding is that they were always in Russian control, kind of like how the US keeps nuclear assets at overseas bases
No. The 43rd Rocket Army "became part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine" on 6 December 1991 [1]. Unlike American warheads, which are on U.S. bases, those were Russian warheads on Ukrainian bases.
Not posting this as a definitive gotcha, but this article includes some detail on how the situation was "complex" at best
> In early 1994, after the Trilateral Agreement, "General Vitaly Radetskyi, Ukraine’s new Minister of Defence, summoned Mikhtyuk and two of his senior generals to Kyiv.[10] Without warning, General Radetskyi told them they had 15 minutes to decide whether to take Ukraine’s oath of allegiance. General Mikhtyuk and one general took the oath, while the other refused. Then, the minister ordered [Mikhtyuk] to return to his headquarters in Vinnytsia immediately, and convene all of his subordinate commanders. ..He did so explaining his personal decision to remain in Ukraine, and asking each officer to take or reject the oath. “All of my deputies,” Mikhtyuk recalled, “except one, said they would not take the oath and asked me to transfer them to the Russian Federation."
Of course it was complex. The point is if Kyiv refused to co-operate it would take Russian military strength it didn’t have at the time to seize them. That isn’t analogous to American nukes on overseas bases.
Highly doubt.
Putin is old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, when their side actually tried this and had to back down.
Imagine an enraged man ready to punch an aggressor in the face being held back by his friends.
You propose to walk up to him, have him released and give him a loaded gun.
The world would blame you, not the wound up man itching for revenge.
You know, NATO reason to exists is to unite a front against Russia. Russia uniting itself against NATO is not less noble than that. Maybe if you guys really think you are much better than Russia that it has no rights to fight back then go there and invade it. History tells that's not wise but sometimes loud people only understand when words are delivered forcefully.
Nato is a defensive alliance against any offensive act. Russia, ...as in: the mafia of the few profiteering rulers currently at the helm, is not fighting back anything. Firstly, its mad Ukrainian adventure has meant it has made its border very defence-free on its border with Nato countries. Secondly, it is constantly attacking in hybrid warfare mode, paying local lowlife to do propaganda graffiti and sabotage. The appropriate response is to hold all responsible individuals accountable. Eventually the lower ranks will understand that playing along to Old-man-putin's tune of death won't bring them closer to anything but grief.
> Nato is a defensive alliance against any offensive act.
See my response to sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42177029
Which NATO member was NATO defending when it bombed Libya into oblivion?
Are you seriously telling me that the opposing side would care about what an alliance calls themselves? Hitler could call the axis powers a defensive allience and it wouldn’t make it so. Cmon, this is basic reasoning that most 10 year olds would grasp.
NATO has engaged in a dozen wars and conflicts as aggressors.
NATO has engaged in a dozen wars and conflicts as aggressors.
A careful examination of the list below suggests that, in terms of your choice of the words "dozen" and "aggressor", the way they are usually meant in English -- you're basically making stuff up, here.
Should Russia "fight back"? Did NATO aligned countries cross multiple red lines with too much provocation? ... This has been argued to death, and I'm not wasting my time on that here.
Were it not for the nuclear concern, Russia could be dispatched by a modern military in short order. They're having enough of a challenge with Ukraine. Against a real military with SEAD/DEAD, you would witness an Iraq 1991-style collapse within weeks, perhaps less.
Of course, the problem is the nukes. Which is exactly why you see these countries work so hard to get them.
> Against a real military with SEAD/DEAD, you would witness an Iraq 1991-style collapse within weeks, perhaps less
Other than the US....can you name some "real militaries with SEAD/DEAD" that actually have deep enough ordnance stockpiles, sufficient basing/aerial refueling to support a sustained air campaign against a country as large and well-equipped as Russia, etc..?
> You know, NATO reason to exists is to unite a front against Russia
That’s not what NATO says: “NATO’s essential and enduring purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members. It does this through political and military means, ensuring the collective defence of all Allies, against all threats, from all directions. [...] NATO strives to secure a lasting peace in Europe and North America, based on its member countries’ common values of individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.”
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_68144.htm
Furthermore, I would suggest that the history of actual NATO action, particularly since “Russia” came back into existence as a sovereign entity not under the umbrella of the USSR, is more consistent with the offically-stated purpose than “to unite a front against Russia.”
It's true that in the last decade or so Russia has become, as the USSR had been for most of NATO’s existence, the primary threat to NATO’s purpose.
The only time NATO has actually gotten involved in a conflict was in Afghanistan after 911. So no, it is not only because of Russia.
> The only time NATO has actually gotten involved in a conflict was in Afghanistan after 911.
No, it's not; 9/11 was the only event that has led to invocation of the mutual defense commitments under Article 5.
It has, however, gotten involved in other conflicts, both in response to UN calls and as a result of regional security consultations under Article 4. These include, most notably, Libya beginning 2011, Kosovo beginning in 1999, and Bosnia beginning in 1992,
Ukraine?
Yugoslavia?
That was not a NATO action.
Yes, it was [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia
I’m not sure if you are referring to the NATO intervention in the first part of the wars as Yugoslavia broke up (Bosnia, primarily starting in 1992) or later (the NATO-Yugoslavia war over Kosovo, starting 1999) or layer yet (the NATO involvement in the internal conflict of then-NATO partner North Macedonia in 2001), but all three were official NATO operations (and listed as such on NATO’s website.)
It's literally on the NATO website for crying out loud.
Why do you say that?
> The only time NATO has actually gotten involved in a conflict was in Afghanistan after 911.
False. NATO Command led the bombing of Libya in 2011 (taking over from the French).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unified_Protector
You can search for "NATO Libya Lessons" and get a ton of articles by analysts, many published in US military journals and/or written by US think tanks on the subject. For example, here's one from RAND:
https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2014/11/natos-campaign-...
> Maybe if you guys really think you are much better than Russia that it has no rights to fight back then go there and invade it.
Priceless. Naturally, the only way to prove Russia wrong about NATO aggression is to prove them right about NATO aggression.
Maybe if you guys really think you are much better than Russia that it has no rights to fight back
Which absolutely no one thinks.
You seem confused about which country invaded another and kicked off a major war in Eastern Europe.
> Maybe if you guys really think you are much better than Russia that it has no rights to fight back then go there and invade it
We don't want to invade Russia. In fact, we don't think about Russia at all.
It seems that the obvious solution could be Starlink-style meshes.
Can anybody comment on how fragile the Starlink protocol would be during a war? If its line-of-sight, presumably it would be hard to jam?
Ignoring everything else, C-Lion1 has a bandwidth if 144 Tbit/sec
How much can a constellation offer say between many points in both countries? Seems unlikely it could get close but I would like to know.
The Swedish part of AMPRNet [0] has some ambitions to be a fallback in case of a crisis[1]. It seems cheaper and easier (a bit of an understatement) to deploy and repair, in case it gets attacked.
0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet
1: https://amprnet.se/images/Kriskommunikation-2014-01-27.pdf
Send some sharpnel on the same orbital altitude as Starlink and the whole constellation disappears.
True, if by "some" you mean a few thousand rocket launches worth of shrapnel.
few dozen crashed satellites quickly become shrapnel on their own, spreading in all directions. not at "shrapnel speed" but nevertheless..
At Starlink altitude there is still operationally significant volumes of air. So much so that Starlinks need to altitude raise regularly. Starlink shrapnel would drop below Starlink orbit almost immediately, and completely deorbit in a month or so.
Nuclear detonation(s) in LEO would likely cause significant harm
Elon Musk is not someone Europe feels it can rely on in a crisis when Russia attacks
Elon Musk is probably the private individual who has done most for Ukraine.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrain...
Did Russia make a threat to Elon Musk at some point that it would take down Starlink satellites?
How much of this is news and how much of it is normal occurrences due to shipping or fishing?
I've found this example of a proven sabotage: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-21963100 which involved a few guys caught in the act less than 1 km from shore, then there are a lot of "suspicious" events where intention is never publicly proven.
Thanks. I was trying to figure out if the news is reporting on every little anchor snag or if it is an abnormal occurrence.
Well, it's a major cable and entirely unoperational at the moment, so newsworthy irrespective of the reason.
Probably yet another case of fish trawlers or some dumbass freighter captain not reading the sea charts before dropping their anchor.
I'm all for finally showing the Russians a response for their covert warfare... but this is not the right opportunity. This kind of situation happens many times every year (and the causes are almost always the same, with a few cases of submarine landslides or seismic events).
Swedish telco Telia reports that the undersea internet cable between Sweden and Lithuania was also damaged on Sunday: https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/2416006/undersea-ca...
It's just practice. Locate the cables, establish a means of damaging them, deploy the means as a test and a show of force.
The western economy is almost completely built using off-prem in Cloud PaaS environments. It should be pretty fun when WW3 starts and not a single hospital, school, laboratory, or factory can operate.
It also sends two messages: "We can do this to any of your cables", and "we're willing to" – with an implied "we could easily do it to all of them at the same time".
And the last scenario is the real problem: While there are enough cable repair ships to continuously handle a normal rate of simultaneous peak failures, fixing multiple cuts can quickly exceed their capacity. (There's nothing that says an attacker can only cut the same cable in one spot!)
[flagged]
Ok, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.
The Russian oligarchs have no say in any of this, they never have, people in the West still repeating this mantra almost 3 years since the war in Ukraine has started for good is a big part of the reason why the same West is close to military defeat there, they just refuse to acknowledge how Russia really operates.
The "never have" part certainly isn't true.
They just refuse to acknowledge how Russia really operates.
By and large they have, actually, which is why one seldom hears the "oligarchs" mantra these days.
In other words -- though you're correct in response to the flagged commment, in the bigger-picture sense, you're railing against a straw man.
>acknowledge how Russia really operates.
Enlighten us then. How would suggest Russia should be treated?
while outages definitely cause big problems in hospitals and schools, neither are completely dependent on connectivity in the short term. most hospitals are required to be able to operate critical services in an outage. even a full power outage. Schools will definitely be fine. they just may have a serious backlog of entering grades, absences, and payroll once things get back online.
> once things get back online.
That would be like trying to cold start a power plant without any power.
I think you're missing my point. I'm trying to point out that there are 3 "infrastructure providers" that our economy CANNOT live without. In a world war situation, these 3 organizations are going to be the biggest targets. They are literally our crown jewels.
They will be under continuous attack from all angles. As we know with security, it is a game of time. Even the strongest bank safe has a rating in hours that it can resist direct tampering. Beyond that time rating the safe offers little to no protection. It is the layers of security that keep the safe from being tampered with beyond its rating.
What I'm saying is, no target can be secured with 100% security guarantee. Even the most secure systems will fail if met with a concerted attacker with unlimited resources.
If WW3 starts, we will lose Azure, AWS, and GCP within 5 days and it will be more or less completely destroyed within 30 days. They won't survive concerted attacks from nation state actors during war time.
Even if they can't be hacked, they will be physically destroyed with kinetic weapons. There is no Bitdefender plan that will save them from warheads.
Worry more about the power grid.
> If WW3 starts, we will lose Azure, AWS, and GCP within 5 days and it will be more or less completely destroyed within 30 days. They won't survive concerted attacks from nation state actors during war time.
The same probably applies to moist mainstream (public) datacenters. Only ones that will be safe-ish would be something like Scaleway's underground nuclear bunker/datacenter.
What a moist data center might look like: https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5uvvnrHCuRmzZzyLZUQXNU-970...
Actually seems like a hardish target.
> The western economy is almost completely built using off-prem in Cloud PaaS environments
US and lesser extent UK. Companies in France, Germany, Spain, Italy are much less likely to use public cloud providers, especially for critical (customer data, critical for the business, etc.) services. Not that it doesn't exist, one of the premier health tech startups in Europe, Doctolib, is full AWS; but it's rarer and much less prevalent.
Source: I work in a US tech company and cover EMEA, and compare notes with American colleagues.
Right but how much of that is cloud shit hosted on a different continent?
> It should be pretty fun when WW3 starts ...
Which may happen as some people just got Biden to authorize (honestly I don't think he can do that by himself), without congress approval, the use of long range missiles by Ukraine.
Some people are really hard at work trying to start WWIII.
I don't think it's the russian who severed those cables.
Russia knows that if WWIII doesn't start until a few more weeks, Trump is probably going to stop the US aiding Ukraine and stop the US giving its approval for total nonsense (like allowing these long range missiles weeks before handing over the presidency).
So why would Russia severe those cable?
I think there's a very high probability the bad actors here are the same that used Biden as a puppet to give Ukraine the greenlight to fire long range missile on to Russia.
> honestly I don't think he can do that by himself
Why not? They're not restrictions instituted by Congress. They were restrictions instituted by this and previous Presidents.
This is the typical comment of the Russian propaganda narrative, let's try to deconstruct this mystical thinking:
> I think there's a very high probability the bad actors here are the same that used Biden as a puppet to give Ukraine the greenlight to fire long range missile on to Russia.
So is more probable that: the President of the USA, Biden is a "puppet of bad actors" whom you allege are working hard to start WW3, so its probably the "bard actors" who severed the cables.
And it's less probable that Russians severed the cables, who happened to have:
- invaded and is committing genocide of a sovereign country of 40 million people, recognized by all UN members;
- threatened the world with nuclear war for almost 3 years;
- stated that Russia has no borders and that Russia needs territory to survive;
- threatened to disrupt Western infrastructure;
- sent ships to map sea cables;
At one time I believed Russia was responsible for sabotaging Nordstream. That was presented as the 'probable' and even 'obvious' conclusion. I no longer believe that.
It'd be nice to see stories about a western navy or two getting off its butt, and actually trying to discourage "accidents" which damage critical infrastructure.
Alas, some would rather let criminal governments invade sovereign countries, commit acts of global sabotage and murder dissidents all over the world rather than take any action at all to dissuade them. Peace through appeasement is likely to work as well as it has at any other point in history.
Are you referring to the US or Russia here? Hard to tell when you talk in riddles.
Right? Turns out having a spine is really annoying and inconvenient for the ruling class who now find themselves actually having to fend off interlopers.
On the other hand, I'd rather see cables get cut than watch shells get lobbed between world powers.
As the saying goes, who lets others cut cables to have peace deserves neither and will have both taken away.
There are quite a few response levels between "don't even bother monitoring the sabotage" and "start WWIII".
at these points, these cable cuts are more dangerous than actual bombs
I'm not convinced that cutting an internet cable - even a vital one - results in more actual death and human misery than actual bombs falling on urban centers.
There is a point where this kind of aggression, left unchecked, may ultimately lead to actual bombs falling on urban centers. It's already happening in the Ukraine. The global peace we all enjoy in the West is based on the idea that the price of aggression is higher than the benefits.
Also: Internet cables today, essential power distribution cables tomorrow. Infrastructure is fragile, and human lives will eventually be at stake.
I mean, you're not wrong. And in general, this is ... high-stakes bullying. And if you let them get away with this, I agree that they'll keep pushing the boundary, even more than they already have;
There is a point where this kind of aggression, left unchecked, may ultimately lead to actual bombs falling on urban centers. It's already happening in Ukraine. The global peace we all enjoy in the West is based on the idea that the price of aggression is higher than the benefits.
"this kind", "left unchecked", "may ultimately"; that's three levels of maybes used to defend a definitive "are more dangerous" claim, not exactly inspiring rigour.
I'd prefer if the devs added resilience to network outage over having navies fight each other...
Especially as navies are just fundamentally not constructed to defend extended things like a cable: starting a war over them is the best way to ensure every cable is cut.
Like it or not, somebody will have to do something about Russia, sooner or later.
Could you maybe be specific about what you mean by "somebody" doing "something"?
'Somebody' is 'the US' and 'something' is 'extended suicide'.
? Seriously?
Cables getting cut is only dangerous because it’s an escalation that may lead to bombs. There aren’t thousands of civilians dying because Finland doesn’t have high speed fibre to Germany.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65309687
Russia has a programme to sabotage wind farms and communication cables in the North Sea, according to new allegations.
The details come from a joint investigation by public broadcasters in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland.
It says Russia has a fleet of vessels disguised as fishing trawlers and research vessels in the North Sea.
They do already, but do need reinforcement.
>>"“We put in place a National Maritime Information Centre in about 2010 and we needed a Joint Maritime Operations Coordination Centre alongside it, because we said very firmly we have to take threats to our territorial seas and exclusive economic zone very, very seriously.
They are now in place, which is good, but they need to be really reinforced and the departments involved need to fully man them, because otherwise we are not going to be able to counter what is a very real and present threat and could cause major major damage to our nation.”" [0]
[0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-undersea-...
It is time to get off your high horses and realize that western military might doesn't rule the world anymore.
Btw last time they damaged the finnish cables it was a chinese merchant vessel. Not just russians doing sabotage at the baltic sea
Russians could've also been involved in that since Newnew Polar Bear was en route to Russia.
It's like 3rd or 4th submission of this news today? One of the previous discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42175676
Thanks! We've merged that thread hither.
Discussion (44 points, 5 hours ago, 43 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42172565
It's a different cable, even though they were close together.
CNN and Bloomberg mention both cables (although both articles have update times)
It seems very likely to be the same incident.
Merged hither. Thanks!
Merged hither. Thanks!
Predictable blowback and it's only going to get worse.
"Russia had a fleet of suspected spy ships operating in Nordic waters as part of a program of potential sabotage of underwater cables"
Nope.
We know who does the disrupting of undersea infrastructure, and then blames Russia for it, while scooping up their gas contracts.
If this is anything other than an actual fault or natural damage, consider that it is owned and run by China.
The company owning the cable is called „Cinia“, per article it is owned by the finish government.
Russian spy ship was escorted out of Irish waters:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/16/russian-spy-sh...
Who scoops us their gas contract, the Netherlands? Or the sneaky Belgians?
They are talking about the USA, probably
Sure, both major gas producers.
Why did Europe need Russian gas at all, when there's clearly so much right under-foot? Obviously the 'invisible hand' of the market will fetch the gas from where it's fracked.
And lol, I did misread China for Cinia. oops.
But the argument is the same. The western govts. and media are filling everyone's head with 'evil Russian saboteur spyships' when there's no evidence of history, intent, or even capability.
I highly suspect this case will be a dragged net, or other 'normal' cause, but if it's malicious, imho the culprit is far more likely that nation that has it's fingers in everyone's pie, for commercial, geopolitical or political reasons.
For example, it wouldn't at all surprise me that they first escalated the Ukrain war by sanctioning a missile attack on Russia with their missiles, then cut some cables to make it look like Russian retaliation, priming us all for further escalation. Just cutting some cables does not seem like Russian mo to me.
Someone should escort the senile old cold-warmonger out of the whitehouse before the brass pupeteer him to escalate too far. I can imagine they're keen to see some 'decisive movement' before Trump shuts the show down.
Seems like the Biden administration and Ukraine are growing desperate.
sharks. maybe even Russian sharks.
Looks like a pretty transparent hint on how response to the recent US/UK/France permission to use long-range missiles against the Russian territory could look like. The Nord Stream sabotage has opened Pandora's box almost exactly how it was predicted in Cryptonomicon.
I look forward to everybody completely missing the resolution to this mystery when it turns out it was something like a Danish sailing boat that got unlucky with their anchor...
How does the saying go? Once [1] is happenstance, twice [2] is coincidence, but thrice [3]...
[1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/finnish-governme...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-says-telecom-cab...
[3] https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/18/europe/undersea-cable-disrupt...
Wrong thrice, the third thing NewNew Polar Bear destroyed that day was a Russian telecoms cable: https://www.marinelink.com/news/russian-firm-says-baltic-tel...
Also a Russian spy ship was escorted out of Irish waters a few days ago:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/16/russian-spy-sh...
I'm surprised there's such a cable in the first place, it seems it would be easier to go on land through Denmark and Sweden. Is it for some reason easier to have an undersea cable than a land one?
You can see an undersea cable map here. I don't know about cables specifically but:
1. Anything sea based tends to be cheaper than land based, both in terms of sea transport and also lack of other interfering infrastructure, homes etc along the way
2. Shorter distance means lower latency
3. There surely is a land cable too. There's a lot of redunancy in the system
Just a note: The map doesn't even show all the cables. There are some missing, there are a lot of these cables lying around.
It's much easier to lay a cable on the bottom of the sea. There's nothing interfering there, you don't have to dig, you don't have to put up poles. If you give it some thought, you'll realize how much easier it is to have an undersea cable.
