Also: Internet cables today, essential power distribution cables tomorrow. Infrastructure is fragile, and human lives will eventually be at stake.
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.
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.
>>"“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-...
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.
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...
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.
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?
That said, satellite tracking shipping is pretty easy - It's interdicting ina timely fashion which is not.
But cheap drones can transmit "don't do that!" warnings. And also video footage of the situation. Which would seriously change both the maritime law and political situations.
If the suspicion is high enough, it's pretty standard for a US submarine or surface group to shadow whatever it is. It's free practice for the submarine crew.
This happened when the Russian ships visited cuba earlier this year.
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.
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?
And even if it works, this will only give attackers pause that are deterred by attribution.
However, another one will be along soon.
I'd assume, at the moment, that the primary goal is intimidation rather than anything else.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/16/russian-spy-sh...
[0] https://www.colt.net/resources/colt-successfully-completes-t...
Would a pair of cable sets replace all of that? That's a lot of data, routing, and redundancy gone. Sure, if they had to try to make it work, they would.
But you seem to be suggesting that because there's a couple of cables in the tunnel, it's OK if the undersea links all get cut by RU/China? If so, WTAF?; you need to explain that
Now, what the British Navy would do about this I'm not precisely sure. But even to escort the ships away would put a stop to it, and the UK wouldn't be cut off.
[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...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/16/russian-spy-sh...
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?
Getting more and more Footfall vibes these days with Spacex already having a full orbital dominance. ;-)
0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet
1: https://amprnet.se/images/Kriskommunikation-2014-01-27.pdf
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.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrain...
1: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/16/world/europe/russia-antis... 2: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/24/technology/ukraine-russia...
ping hel1-speed.hetzner.com
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.
Source?
I guess they warned in their own way, of "nice cables you've got there, it would be a shame if someone... sabotaged them".
We have it. It's almost 100%. They've been threatening WWIII and nuclear armageddon since 2022.
In my experience, the problem is also that one group of people refuses to act on what the other side actually says (because it’s inconvenient/dangerous).
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".
People have been convicted of murder on less evidence.
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.
Typical politician nonsense.
None of which means he was intending, or suggesting the idea of actually blowing it up.
It does not, and you're misreading the one sentence in the article where that word appears.
We're stuck between having to do timid actions and full NATO escalation. This feels like constant creep.
No one ever seems to want to discuss what to do about the bear going around poking everyone else.
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.
It’s probably not even a de jure crime, so what is there to punish on the record?
Edit: I’m pretty sure most, if not all, such countries don’t even ascribe any legal status to wrecked and sunken lifeboats, let alone anchors. Probably most countries don’t even have a formal penalty, of any kind, for lifeboats detached and sunken, for any reason, for anyone on the ship.
Vessel captains drop anchor all the time if they are caught out of port in a stormy area. And if it’s a big enough storm they are quite literally dragged around along with the anchor.
It literally happens every month on Earth.
It just’s implausible that dragging alone would be a crime in any flag country.
Edit: Maybe they can criminalize dragging it for a very long distance, say 10+ km, but I’m pretty sure the most popular flag countries do not, e.g. Liberia.
> In what country is intentional property destruction not a crime? You’re not arguing that it’s really accidental, right?
So you are arguing that it's an accident? Do you agree that it would be a crime if it was intentional?
I’ll repeat as clearly as possible, literally every single month on planet Earth many ship captains are intentionally putting very heavy objects into the water in areas that they know may contain some property that their anchor may hit/drag/snare/etc… on something.
This is usually done when the probability is very low, but in bad enough conditions they may just not care regardless of probability, and anchor anyways.
Why do you think your questions or assumptions even make sense?
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.
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?
Piracy. Duh. That or you'd break the treaty. (Like China has been [1].)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Sea_Arbitration
(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?
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".
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.
Of course the Baltic is very shallow so if the reactor started leaking it might be a bit more problematic than if a nuclear ship/sub was sunk in the middle of the ocean.
If only there was such thing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I wonder how effective the technique would be for the US government and our own oligarchs?
With nukes, which makes them pretty scary.
Your description is 100% accurate.
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.
So when you say, "country willing to do this for you" (how nice!), what you mean is a bunch of politicians and officers are willing to go in the street and capture random civilians to conscript them. Because that's the reality of how Ukraine is "willing to fight".
My grandfather did it the last time, I'm ready any day for a rematch.
For now I'm hoping that our brothers in Ukraine slap Russia hard enough to deter any invasion plans for a few more decades.
We've been drip feeding and hand tying Ukraine. Practically every military expert has said this is not the way to win a war.
No, it's not. For small-scale war, we are amply stocked. For large-scale war, stocks don't matter, production does.
The US has THOUSANDS of tanks and THOUSANDS of Bradleys. We have sent Ukraine 32 Abrams and 300 Bradleys. For reference, Australia was able to swing sending Ukraine 50 Abrams. The US has THOUSANDS of F16s, and is starting to build up thousands of F35s. We have full munition stockpiles for all missions for both platforms. We gave Ukraine about 1000 various "armored vehicles", like hundreds of M113s which are nearly useless on a modern battlefield except as glorified trucks. We sent Ukraine 200 "Strykers" that we considered a failure in the middle east. We sent a few hundred MRAPs. We sent 20 HIMARs systems, out of over 600 built. The US sent only a single patriot battery.
I encourage you to go look at the numbers the US put together for the various gulf wars. We sent a trickle of supplies.
The only substantial supply we offered was 3 million 155mm artillery rounds, which is a large fraction of our stockpile but the US (before Ukraine) did not care for tube artillery, preferring instead to lob JDAMs and other air launched munitions. This is also only a problem because American Industry refuses to invest in increasing production capacity unless we bribe them, you know, just like capitalism says it should work.
The people who said we were harming our weapons stocks were lying. Reconsider who shared that information with you.
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.
Something that people seem to not realize is that the Minsk Agreements refer to two accords (Minsk I in 2014 and Minsk II in 2015) aimed at ending the conflict in eastern Ukraine, specifically in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, where pro-Russian separatists had declared independence with alleged support from Russia.
That said, while Russia claimed that Ukraine failed to implement the Minsk Agreements, this does not justify a military invasion. Diplomatic mechanisms were available to resolve disputes, and both sides bore some responsibility for the lack of progress on Minsk. It can be attributed to challenges and shortcomings on all sides involved. With the election of Donald Trump, there may be an increased opportunity to revive diplomatic efforts and achieve meaningful progress, given his emphasis on unconventional approaches to negotiation and relationships with key stakeholders, potentially (and hopefully) providing a better opportunity to bring an end to the long-stalemated conflict.
> Now... could, and should, Ukraine receive way more help, on time to help them even more? Of course.
I am sorry but providing additional aid at this stage would likely prolong the war rather than bring about a resolution. This protracted conflict has already pushed global economies toward collapse, with ordinary taxpayers shouldering the financial burden of a war they never chose to participate in. It is irrational to continue pouring taxpayer money into a long-stalemated conflict without a clear path to peace or resolution, particularly when domestic priorities are being neglected in the process.
That would only give Putin time to replenish his forces and attack again. The time to act is now.
If the Russians lose, we might be looking at another USSR style dissolution of Russia: more breakaway Central Asian and Caucasus republics and maybe a break from Russian interference. Make no mistake, these are the people that Putin is grinding in this war.
This is a good opportunity for the US to weaken Russia without firing a shot and consolidate its power in Eastern Europe with reliable allies.
Have you ever considered that US giving Ukraine lots of money & weapons weaken the US, too? <conspiracy theory> Imagine if Ukraine and Russia worked together to achieve it. </conspiracy theory>
I simply stated that's the same level of shallow analysis and severe lack of understanding of what's at play, sprinkled with mystical thinking and conspiracy theories, which is prevalent in the right-wing media and amplified by Russian propaganda. I don't think it's inappropriate, it might just be a coincidence.
> (...) where pro-Russian separatists had declared independence with alleged support from Russia. That said, while Russia claimed that Ukraine failed to implement the Minsk Agreements, this does not justify a military invasion. Diplomatic mechanisms were available to resolve disputes, and both sides bore some responsibility for the lack of progress on Minsk. It can be attributed to challenges and shortcomings on all sides involved
Just to point out two red flags here:
- The separatists didn't have alleged support from Russia, there were Russian troops in both Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk. By the way, those regions were at peace until Russia sent "little green men"[0]. The same happened in Georgia by the way, in 2008. Where do you think "separatists" got a Buk 9M38 to shoot down a commercial airliner killing 300 people? [1]
- Russia did not just claim that Ukraine failed to implement UNCONSTITUTIONAL parts of the Minsk agreement, Russia itself failed to comply with the agreement - and they were the ones on sovereign Ukrainian territory, killing Ukrainians. An agreement goes both ways, so the general sense was that Russia never looked to abide by the agreement, just gradually turning Ukraine ungovernable with cancer from within, by subverting the Ukrainian constitution.
From the words of Macron in the talk with Putin before the escalation of 2022:
"They are in front of my eyes! It clearly states that Ukraineʼs proposal should be agreed with representatives of certain districts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions in a trilateral meeting. This is exactly what we propose to do. So I donʼt know where your lawyer studied law. I just look at these texts and try to apply them! And I donʼt know which lawyer could tell you that in a sovereign state, the texts of laws are made up of separatist groups, not democratically elected authorities."[2]
> With the election of Donald Trump, there may be an increased opportunity to revive diplomatic efforts and achieve meaningful progress
So your idea of a diplomatic effort is to appease a dictator with the subversion of Ukraine, a sovereign country of 40 million people, and target of genocide, that was at peace and posed a threat to no one. To the point of surrendering their nuclear arsenal in exchange for the guarantee of their sovereignty - with the signature of the USA representatives.
> It is irrational to continue pouring taxpayer money into a long-stalemated conflict without a clear path to peace or resolution, particularly when domestic priorities are being neglected in the process.
The only irrational thing is to push the Russian narrative that Ukraine should be left on its own, for the illusion of internal stability that stems mainly from propaganda.
Again, this just confirms the same ill-informed narrative Joe Rogan-type podcasts are pushing around, some of these podcasts being funded by Russia Today operations.[3] I won't claim its deliberate, but as time passes it increasingly looks like so.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukrain...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17
[2] https://babel.ua/en/news/80618-bloodbath-and-involved-zelens...
[3] https://apnews.com/article/russian-interference-presidential...
Are you in support of Israel too, by any chance?
It all began when President Yanukovych rejected an agreement he promised to sign with the EU (which was, and is, a public document with known the terms) in exchange for a deal with Russia, of unknown terms and vague promises, and framed with threats.
This was a 180 turn that led to the Maidan Revolution and the impeachment of the president. It was the decision of the President against the will of the majority of Ukrainians who voted to elect Yanukovych, who promised close ties with the EU including signing the Association Agreement.
This was followed by Russia invading Ukraine in late 2013/early 2014 with "separatists"/"little green men".
By the way - "pro-Russian" Ukrainians didn't revolt against the EU Association Agreement, it got Yanukovych elected.
So again, you have strong misinformed opinions aligned with the Russian narrative, of a subject you don't seem to know that much about. That happens to be oddly aligned with some alternative media like The Rubin Report, Tim Pool, etc.
> In the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, many residents harbored pro-Russian sentiments due to historical, linguistic, and cultural ties to Russia.
> Following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, separatist groups in Donetsk and Luhansk, supported by local pro-Russian factions, declared independence from Ukraine.
These statements are false?
> aligned with the Russian narrative
That is merely coincidental.
What matters is that it's a false and misleading narrative.
These statements are false?
Yup - either false, or misleading/irrelevant. Time is short so we'll just go over 2 of them for now:
> In the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, many residents harbored pro-Russian sentiments due to historical, linguistic, and cultural ties to Russia.
True, but irrelevant. Simply put, that wasn't was caused hostilities to happen.
> Following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, separatist groups in Donetsk and Luhansk, supported by local pro-Russian factions, declared independence from Ukraine.
Except there were no indigenous "separatist groups" driving the action. It was entirely coordinated by Russia from the very start.
In other words: a foreign invasion.
Whether or not it aligns with whatever you say it does, does not necessarily make it right or wrong.
"It is pro-Russian, therefore it is wrong" is wrong.
I do not dismiss you because your views align with the pro-Ukrainian narrative, nor do I claim that you are wrong.
In fact, I do not even claim that I am right. How would I really know? It is mostly hearsay.
It's wrong on its own merits, not on the basis of anything I say.
How would I really know? It is mostly hearsay.
Actually it's not. It's actually pretty easy to get a good sense of what's going on, just by reading whatever sources one does read with a reasonably critical eye. And if one is really bold, by taking the care to read diverse sources. What brought me to respond to you in this case is that you seemed be echoing talking points you had heard or read somewhere, but which were just not grounded in the basic reality of the situation.
Talking to people actually from the region (actual real, regular people) can be very helpful, also.
In fact to make this very simple for you: just completely forget everything you've read on the internet -- and just talk to people actually affected by the situation for a while. You'll definitely start to get a sense of what's hearsay and what's fact, very very quickly.
I wish I could provide specific sources, but my information comes partly from Wikipedia and partly from conversations with others, most of whom hold pro-Ukrainian perspectives. There is significant sentiment against Russia and China in general, and I understand why (I am pretty much in the anti-China camp myself and I admittedly hold a bias against China). I have not even heard of "The Rubin Report" or "Tim Pool". I am somewhat familiar with Joe Rogan, but I have only watched one of his popular podcasts, the one featuring Elon Musk.
The additional context I've provided (in regard to the initial causes of the conflict) is intended to be helpful, also.
Where can I find people who have lived through that situation as it unfolded? Are you one of those people by any chance?
Talking to people from the region may indeed provide valuable insights and perspective that might not come through in articles, reports, or podcasts, but it is important to remember that personal experiences, while genuine, are often shaped by individual perspectives, biases, and incomplete information. We know that people living through a situation may not have access to all the facts, may interpret events differently, or may even unknowingly perpetuate misinformation they have encountered. Even those directly affected by events might be influenced by propaganda, local media narratives, or their own personal hardships, which can influence their understanding. This does not mean their accounts are worthless, however. We need to cross-check details, separate fact from emotion-driven narratives as much as possible.
I believe it can be valuable for me to hear your personal perspective, for example.