Sweden Seizes Ship Suspected of Baltic Sea 'Sabotage'(barrons.com)
barrons.com
Sweden Seizes Ship Suspected of Baltic Sea 'Sabotage'
https://www.barrons.com/news/sweden-says-has-seized-ship-suspected-of-baltic-sea-sabotage-13ff82f2
231 comments
How are there suddenly lots of these kind of accidents out of nowhere?
I understand pro-Russian outlets want people to believe that, but I find it very hard to believe that intelligence agencies would honestly believe that.
Personally I think nations on the Baltic should simply ban Russian or Russian-originating ships from their waters. And if they really want to pretend these "accidents" are caused by a sudden use of inexperienced crews, set some standards for crew training and expertise for ships sailing through their waters. Require them to hire experienced crew that know these waters well. Inspect them at the very least.
Just allowing the sabotage to continue is a bad idea.
I understand pro-Russian outlets want people to believe that, but I find it very hard to believe that intelligence agencies would honestly believe that.
Personally I think nations on the Baltic should simply ban Russian or Russian-originating ships from their waters. And if they really want to pretend these "accidents" are caused by a sudden use of inexperienced crews, set some standards for crew training and expertise for ships sailing through their waters. Require them to hire experienced crew that know these waters well. Inspect them at the very least.
Just allowing the sabotage to continue is a bad idea.
It turns out that these incidents are actually incredibly common [1], about once every 3 days. But 'undersea line disrupted temporarily in mundane way' wasn't exactly international news until it could be tied into geopolitics.
[1] - https://blog.telegeography.com/what-happens-when-submarine-c... (telecoms intel service/site)
[1] - https://blog.telegeography.com/what-happens-when-submarine-c... (telecoms intel service/site)
25 a year due to 'Anchorage' according to the image in your source.
That's once every 14.6 days, worldwide.
That's once every 14.6 days, worldwide.
This is a fair point. Turns out dragging anchors are a lot more common than I expected. I guess what matters is whether these cable breaks in the Baltic are statistically significant.
I have to think that some areas are more impacted than others. Say, shallow china sea area in asia with lot of small fisherman using drag nets and anchors and ignoring cable locations..
It'd be good to know what the frequency is in the baltic area and if this is abnormal. Seems the locals think it is.
It'd be good to know what the frequency is in the baltic area and if this is abnormal. Seems the locals think it is.
Yeah I was considering all issues rather than just anchor. Another source [1] gives 100-200 incidents per year with 16% as anchorage, so 25 a year (from anchors alone) is probably a safe estimate.
I think most of us thought these incidents were exceptionally rare, so a recurring pattern of incidents itself would be suggestive of nefarious behavior. 'Oddly' enough the frequency datum was omitted from seemingly every single article on this topic.
[1] - https://www.iscpc.org/publications/submarine-cable-protectio...
I think most of us thought these incidents were exceptionally rare, so a recurring pattern of incidents itself would be suggestive of nefarious behavior. 'Oddly' enough the frequency datum was omitted from seemingly every single article on this topic.
[1] - https://www.iscpc.org/publications/submarine-cable-protectio...
The reason for these accidents to happen more frequently is explained in the WaPo article linked by the parent: Russia is smuggling oil out via the Baltic to fund the war, and it's hard to find experienced crews for these smuggling operations:
> A Nordic official briefed on the investigation said conditions on the tanker were abysmal. “We’ve always gone out with the assumption that shadow fleet vessels are in bad shape,” the official said. “But this was even worse than we thought.”
The last thing Russia wants is to draw attention to the boats it's using to keep its economy afloat. These seamen really didn't know what they were doing.
> A Nordic official briefed on the investigation said conditions on the tanker were abysmal. “We’ve always gone out with the assumption that shadow fleet vessels are in bad shape,” the official said. “But this was even worse than we thought.”
The last thing Russia wants is to draw attention to the boats it's using to keep its economy afloat. These seamen really didn't know what they were doing.
That is not a plausible explanation. Even inexperienced crews don't accidentally drop anchor. This requires a specific set of actions by a crewman on the bow. It's not like just pushing a button.
> This requires a specific set of actions by a crewman on the bow.
That's not true. While well maintained equipment would require a specific action, it is not uncommon for accidental anchor drops to happen, typically due to poorly or improperly maintained equipment. It's also common that ship is unaware that it has dropped the anchor (depending on the depth of the water, the anchor may not even have much effect, but even if it does it's not always identified).
For example, here's a report from a US based ship accidentally dragging anchor for a couple days: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...
That's not true. While well maintained equipment would require a specific action, it is not uncommon for accidental anchor drops to happen, typically due to poorly or improperly maintained equipment. It's also common that ship is unaware that it has dropped the anchor (depending on the depth of the water, the anchor may not even have much effect, but even if it does it's not always identified).
For example, here's a report from a US based ship accidentally dragging anchor for a couple days: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...
I thought so too, but apparently anchors are a significant cause of cable damage, and were so well before the war in Ukraine. I don't know why anchors are such a problem, but apparently they are.
Near anchorages there are lots of signs showing where cables land so boats can avoid dropping their anchors on them. Yet still it happens.
Anchors are something you drop when stationary or nearly stationary in order to stay stationary. They aren't something you drop accidentally as you are going along.
So legitimate accidental anchor damage is generally close shore.
Anchors are something you drop when stationary or nearly stationary in order to stay stationary. They aren't something you drop accidentally as you are going along.
So legitimate accidental anchor damage is generally close shore.
Some context. Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia electric grids, as of now, still connected to (part of) Russian grids due to soviet era infrastructure. This is coming to the end as Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia grids should detach from Russian grids on February 8th and synchronise with Western Europe grids. The main link is land cable to Poland. But underwater power cables to Sweden and Finland are quite important too.
Does it still look like just a coincidence that suddenly there're many more accidents in this region? :)
Does it still look like just a coincidence that suddenly there're many more accidents in this region? :)
The national waters are a few hundred nautical miles wide, they do not cover all of the sea. I guess international waters is where the incidents happen.
The territorial sea is 12nmi (22km) from the coast. Even where this covers the whole distance (e.g. Denmark and Sweden) foreign ships still have the right to pass through.
You are thinking of the EEZ, exclusive economic zone, but that's only the rights for fishing and mining and so on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters
You are thinking of the EEZ, exclusive economic zone, but that's only the rights for fishing and mining and so on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters
The rights that UN provide for international waters is under the condition that nations, for which the ship flags under, protects undersea cables (among other things). International waters are not a free-for-all space where anything goes.
Would you know if, when the conditions are not respected, the owner of the cables could actively counter the activities? It would be a ship of a country vs a ship of another country on international waters. (I am wondering about that in the context of the international law.)
Well that's more of a political question. Nothing in the treaty explicitly states what a nation can do if another nation's merchant vessel appears to be intentionally damaging property. So then it becomes a matter of whether they want to escalate the situation, or pursue an international legal case, or retaliate clandestinely, or some other option.
Yeah, but ships can't get to the center of the Baltic without passing through the national waters of Denmark, Finland or Estonia. Current treaties allow all ships through those waters, but if that access is abused for sabotage, maybe it's time to revisit the treaties.
Be careful what you wish for. Blocking the waterways would provide Russia with a legitimate reason for war or at least lead to a resolution of the blockade with force. That is insane. Nobody even considered that during the Cold War. If the damage to the cables wasn't an accident, the damage was pretty minor. This is in no way comparable to the blowing up of the Nord Stream gas pipeline, which was certainly not an accident.
What legitimate reason they had in Ukraine?
The Cold War was, well, cold. The war in Ukraine isn't.
May be, but Ukraine does not control the straits, is not a member of the European Union, and is not yet the 51st US state. Other European countries are unfortunately or fortunately only in a state of cold war for the time being.
I don't think we could comment on HN if that was not the case.
I'm not sure legitimacy matters here. Their war in Ukraine is not legitimate, but that's not stopping them. And a legitimate reason to attack a NATO country does not mean they will. Keep in mind that Russia has also blocked sea traffic to and from Ukraine.
And it is kinda weird to sanction a country because of its illegitimate war, while still letting their ships through your waters. And it's not like Russia has no other access to the sea.
And it is kinda weird to sanction a country because of its illegitimate war, while still letting their ships through your waters. And it's not like Russia has no other access to the sea.
jajko(1)
> Personally I think nations on the Baltic should simply ban Russian or Russian-originating ships from their waters
Last incident involved a Bulgarian ship that was Maltese-flagged. Before that it was a Chinese ship I think. I don't even Russia would be stupid enough to send Russian ships to do Russian sabotage, but maybe I underestimate their willingness to "show off".
> Just allowing the sabotage to continue is a bad idea.
Plenty of information to learn by not run into situations without observing the behavior first. It seems like the last incident they were watching on standby as soon as they dropped their anchor, but they were standing by and observing until they tried to dock.
Last incident involved a Bulgarian ship that was Maltese-flagged. Before that it was a Chinese ship I think. I don't even Russia would be stupid enough to send Russian ships to do Russian sabotage, but maybe I underestimate their willingness to "show off".
> Just allowing the sabotage to continue is a bad idea.
Plenty of information to learn by not run into situations without observing the behavior first. It seems like the last incident they were watching on standby as soon as they dropped their anchor, but they were standing by and observing until they tried to dock.
Why don’t they bill the repairs plus a fine to the ship’s owner. If they don’t pay, sell the the ship to cover it.
I bet it will stop real quick.
I bet it will stop real quick.
It's entirely possible that the owner of the ship is some fake company that only exists to own this particular ship, and the company will vanish if there are fines to be paid. There's still a lot of shadiness in international shipping.
I guess that would be a seize and sell the ship outcome then
Nobody would buy it, except maybe some anonymous shell company…
… who will tell the crew that their past wages are the responsibility of the old owner, who they’ve never heard of. The fact that their new destination is exactly the same is a complete coincidence.
… who will tell the crew that their past wages are the responsibility of the old owner, who they’ve never heard of. The fact that their new destination is exactly the same is a complete coincidence.
Then you sell it for scrap.
Sure, why not?
It will have to be towed/sailed to some suitable location and then people have to actually go about the process of scrapping it. Unfortunately the cost of all of this exceeds what you can sell the scrap for, so again, nobody is going to buy the ship.
It will have to be towed/sailed to some suitable location and then people have to actually go about the process of scrapping it. Unfortunately the cost of all of this exceeds what you can sell the scrap for, so again, nobody is going to buy the ship.
I disagree that things you assert would be true, but even if you lose money doing it, you should do it.
The point is not to recover losses, although ideally it would help. The point is to have severe financial consequences so it stops happening.
The point is not to recover losses, although ideally it would help. The point is to have severe financial consequences so it stops happening.
That's a dangerous precedent to set.
The initial claims might be legitimate but I worry that trumped up claims would soon escalate into an excuse for state sponsored piracy from other parties.
The initial claims might be legitimate but I worry that trumped up claims would soon escalate into an excuse for state sponsored piracy from other parties.
That happens anyway. The claim is legitimate, so objections would be half hearted. It may well invite the aggressor country to return the favor though (in that case stop trading with them completely)
I am not a shipping lawyer, but, assuming this happened in international waters, my guess is that there is probably already some set-in-stone maritime law in place that covers scenarios like this, and one that probably isn't modifiable by mere national governments. This is complete speculation though.
That wouldn’t surprise me.
Doesn’t mean you can’t do it, just that people will object - but not likely with actions, just words, which can be ignored.
Doesn’t mean you can’t do it, just that people will object - but not likely with actions, just words, which can be ignored.
> How are there suddenly lots of these kind of accidents out of nowhere?
Two things to temper this mentality:
1) It is possible that we are seeing more news of this because it’s politicised, even if it is as common as before.
2) It is possible that there are more ships using this route as land traffic is stymied by sanctions from the Eurozone.
Not making any statement, just steelmanning opposition to the statement you made.
Two things to temper this mentality:
1) It is possible that we are seeing more news of this because it’s politicised, even if it is as common as before.
2) It is possible that there are more ships using this route as land traffic is stymied by sanctions from the Eurozone.
Not making any statement, just steelmanning opposition to the statement you made.
Those cables are becoming more interesting as Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia are about to switch from soviet-era electric grids network controlled in Russia to european grids network.
> simply
I honestly think anyone using the words "simply" or "just" doesn't know enough about a situation.
> ban Russian
Do you mean the nationality of the ship's flag state, owner, beneficiary owner, constructor, charterer, captain, any of the crew, the origin of any of its cargo?
I'm not an expert in shipping and I've probably missed a few other sources of nationality. The point I'd like to get across is that merchant ships are very international. Unlike warships, which are built, owned and operated by a specific nation's navy, there is rarely a specific nationality merchant ship.
If your nation bans merchant ships (based on some specific criteria), all it means is they get fewer goods by sea and they'll be more expensive.
A specific nation's maritime interests are chiefly that any merchant ships get to and from them, as well as their explicit warships having passage.
This issue is about cable damage by the Chinese-owned, currently (but not formerly) Chinese-flagged, Chinese-built, Chinese-captained merchant ship the Yi Peng 3. Some nations accuse it of committing sabotage, for which they don't have hard evidence, and they don't accuse China, they accuse Russia, and they claim that somehow the evil Russians influenced the Chinese captain, or one of the crew, to drag their anchor on the seabed. But only after they departed a Russian port... even though these nations' evidence is supposedly encrypted transmissions between the ship and Russia, which could also have been sent before docking in Russia... or even sent to any ship in the area, including ones not docking in Russia. Any nation can send messages to any ship, regardless of who owns, runs or hires it.
> or Russian-originating ships
Do you mean a full naval blockade of Kaliningrad and Leningrad oblasts? By who? All of Denmark, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Sweden and Finland? That'd be enormous, hard to enforce, and would almost certainly be taken as a declaration of war.
Or were you imagining just a blockade of the Baltic Straits by Denmark, in violation of the Copenhagen Convention of 1857? The last time the straits were shut was by the Nazis when they occupied Denmark, because they were at war with most other nations.
Or do you mean, by "Russian-originating", any ship that has docked at any Russian port in its recent history? Merchant shipping is the Amazon delivery of the sea, they just keep going, taking on cargo and offloading it in different countries on the most cost-effective route possible.
> set some standards for crew training and expertise
Already exists: the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STCW_Convention
> Inspect them at the very least
Already the power and duty of harbourmasters, and a ship can already be stopped or escorted by a nation's navy if it's in their exclusive economic area or territorial waters.
I honestly think anyone using the words "simply" or "just" doesn't know enough about a situation.
> ban Russian
Do you mean the nationality of the ship's flag state, owner, beneficiary owner, constructor, charterer, captain, any of the crew, the origin of any of its cargo?
I'm not an expert in shipping and I've probably missed a few other sources of nationality. The point I'd like to get across is that merchant ships are very international. Unlike warships, which are built, owned and operated by a specific nation's navy, there is rarely a specific nationality merchant ship.
If your nation bans merchant ships (based on some specific criteria), all it means is they get fewer goods by sea and they'll be more expensive.
A specific nation's maritime interests are chiefly that any merchant ships get to and from them, as well as their explicit warships having passage.
This issue is about cable damage by the Chinese-owned, currently (but not formerly) Chinese-flagged, Chinese-built, Chinese-captained merchant ship the Yi Peng 3. Some nations accuse it of committing sabotage, for which they don't have hard evidence, and they don't accuse China, they accuse Russia, and they claim that somehow the evil Russians influenced the Chinese captain, or one of the crew, to drag their anchor on the seabed. But only after they departed a Russian port... even though these nations' evidence is supposedly encrypted transmissions between the ship and Russia, which could also have been sent before docking in Russia... or even sent to any ship in the area, including ones not docking in Russia. Any nation can send messages to any ship, regardless of who owns, runs or hires it.
> or Russian-originating ships
Do you mean a full naval blockade of Kaliningrad and Leningrad oblasts? By who? All of Denmark, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Sweden and Finland? That'd be enormous, hard to enforce, and would almost certainly be taken as a declaration of war.
Or were you imagining just a blockade of the Baltic Straits by Denmark, in violation of the Copenhagen Convention of 1857? The last time the straits were shut was by the Nazis when they occupied Denmark, because they were at war with most other nations.
Or do you mean, by "Russian-originating", any ship that has docked at any Russian port in its recent history? Merchant shipping is the Amazon delivery of the sea, they just keep going, taking on cargo and offloading it in different countries on the most cost-effective route possible.
> set some standards for crew training and expertise
Already exists: the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STCW_Convention
> Inspect them at the very least
Already the power and duty of harbourmasters, and a ship can already be stopped or escorted by a nation's navy if it's in their exclusive economic area or territorial waters.
> they accuse Russia, and they claim that somehow the evil Russians influenced the Chinese captain, or one of the crew, to drag their anchor on the seabed. But only after they departed a Russian port... even though these nations' evidence is supposedly encrypted transmissions between the ship and Russia, which could also have been sent before docking in Russia... or even sent to any ship in the area, including ones not docking in Russia
Dropping the anchor could have been done by any one of the crew, bribed by Russia after meeting with Russian intelligence officers at a Russian port. A randon crew member probably wouldn't know exactly when to drop the anchor though, so receiving a message shortly before it was time would make sense.
Dropping the anchor could have been done by any one of the crew, bribed by Russia after meeting with Russian intelligence officers at a Russian port. A randon crew member probably wouldn't know exactly when to drop the anchor though, so receiving a message shortly before it was time would make sense.
Why does it have to be a Russian port? If they're trying to be sneaky, why would Russia deliberately choose a merchant ship entering or leaving one of _its own_ ports?
You can get Russian intelligence officers in many other country's ports. Russia is more than capable of doing this same supposed bribe elsewhere. Let's imagine it was Latakia or Tartus in Syria. They can then track the ship and deliver a message. They don't need to use Russian ships to deliver the message.
Any nation deliberately causing sabotage would not want to be blamed, and would want any "clues" to mislead and point in the direction of of their enemies.
All we know for sure is that we believe the Yi Peng 3 likely damaged two submarine cables, and it was boarded and its crew were interviewed on 18 December 2024. The rest is speculation.
It's similar to the Nordstream pipeline sabotage. It was already deactivated due to European nations agreeing not to buy Russian gas because of their invasion of Ukraine, but it was then, we believe, deliberately sabotaged. Russia was accused (by nations that don't like Russia and support Ukraine). The US/UK were accused (by Russia). Ukraine was accused. 2 years later and the current status is: we're fairly confident it was sabotage, but we're still not sure who did it. Everyone denies doing it. Everyone fingers their main enemy as the one who did it. Does that sound familiar here?
You can get Russian intelligence officers in many other country's ports. Russia is more than capable of doing this same supposed bribe elsewhere. Let's imagine it was Latakia or Tartus in Syria. They can then track the ship and deliver a message. They don't need to use Russian ships to deliver the message.
Any nation deliberately causing sabotage would not want to be blamed, and would want any "clues" to mislead and point in the direction of of their enemies.
All we know for sure is that we believe the Yi Peng 3 likely damaged two submarine cables, and it was boarded and its crew were interviewed on 18 December 2024. The rest is speculation.
It's similar to the Nordstream pipeline sabotage. It was already deactivated due to European nations agreeing not to buy Russian gas because of their invasion of Ukraine, but it was then, we believe, deliberately sabotaged. Russia was accused (by nations that don't like Russia and support Ukraine). The US/UK were accused (by Russia). Ukraine was accused. 2 years later and the current status is: we're fairly confident it was sabotage, but we're still not sure who did it. Everyone denies doing it. Everyone fingers their main enemy as the one who did it. Does that sound familiar here?
It doesn't have to be a Russian port, but these have been.
This, I feel, is along the same lines as CIA suddenly preferring the lab leak argument as soon as the admin changed [0]. Clearly the cable breaks are not accidents when previously there weren't any for years and now in the last year we've had so many that I've lost count. I think we're now up to six or seven times cables have been broken with an anchor?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42823385
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42823385
> Clearly the cable breaks are not accidents when previously there weren't any for years and now in the last year we've had so many that I've lost count.
Has there really been no other accidents like these? It feels like this is something that been happening for a long time, but not until recently the news started reporting on it.
I seem to remember some event back in 2022 already, around Bornholm I think. I'm sure there are more as well, damaged communication lines seems to happen all the time.
Has there really been no other accidents like these? It feels like this is something that been happening for a long time, but not until recently the news started reporting on it.
I seem to remember some event back in 2022 already, around Bornholm I think. I'm sure there are more as well, damaged communication lines seems to happen all the time.
There have been accidents like this, but they were few and far between. There have not been this many accidents in such a short timespan, limited to such a small geographical area. There have been ships that have lost their anchors doing this, they've been shown to drag their anchors over the cables multiple times. These are deliberate actions.
> These are deliberate actions.
Have any of them actually been confirmed to be deliberate actions, or is this your hypothesis? Last time I checked on older incidents, they seem to all have been proper accidents, but I haven't checked on the last ones.
> There have not been this many accidents in such a short timespan, limited to such a small geographical area.
Yeah, ~7 events in the last 12 months (or what it is) does sound like a lot. I'm having a hard time finding some credible source listing all incidents though, so we could compare year-by-year, because I'm sure the news also reports a lot more about it, than before.
Have any of them actually been confirmed to be deliberate actions, or is this your hypothesis? Last time I checked on older incidents, they seem to all have been proper accidents, but I haven't checked on the last ones.
> There have not been this many accidents in such a short timespan, limited to such a small geographical area.
Yeah, ~7 events in the last 12 months (or what it is) does sound like a lot. I'm having a hard time finding some credible source listing all incidents though, so we could compare year-by-year, because I'm sure the news also reports a lot more about it, than before.
Have we gotten captains to confess as to why they dragged the anchor at specific times over the cables? No.
We do have records showing that the ships have sailed across the cables multiple times, slowing down every time they have passed them.
I think it happens a lot more often than you think, and current news reporting also skews the perspective one get.
Linked from another comment: https://blog.telegeography.com/what-happens-when-submarine-c...
> Cable faults are common. On average, there are over 100 each year. [...] Unintentional damage from fishing vessels and ships dragging anchors account for two-thirds of all cable faults.
100 each year would be one every three days, but of course you don't read about all them in the news.
I'm not saying none of the cable breakages are sabotage, I/we don't know. As far as we know, I don't think we have any cases (with or without confession) where we can be 100% it's intentional, at least yet.
Linked from another comment: https://blog.telegeography.com/what-happens-when-submarine-c...
> Cable faults are common. On average, there are over 100 each year. [...] Unintentional damage from fishing vessels and ships dragging anchors account for two-thirds of all cable faults.
100 each year would be one every three days, but of course you don't read about all them in the news.
I'm not saying none of the cable breakages are sabotage, I/we don't know. As far as we know, I don't think we have any cases (with or without confession) where we can be 100% it's intentional, at least yet.
100 cable "faults", but only 2/3-rd are from ships.
And, then, how many of those have been in the Baltic Sea in prior years?
66 incidents per year sounds like a lot, but there are so many cables and shipping lanes all over the world.
Read the linked page, and its infographic. 38% + 25% = 63% ~ "two thirds". There are another 11% caused by "human activity", it's just neither "fishing" (trawler nets) nor "anchorage", but "other", which could even be a keel severing the cable close to shore.
https://blog.telegeography.com/hs-fs/hubfs/2017/submarine-ca...
74% human caused (38% fishing, 25% anchorage, 11% other)
14% environmental (8% natural, 6% abrasion)
12% neither human nor environmental (6% component failure, 6% other)
"Deliberate sabotage and shark bites are exceedingly rare"
https://blog.telegeography.com/hs-fs/hubfs/2017/submarine-ca...
74% human caused (38% fishing, 25% anchorage, 11% other)
14% environmental (8% natural, 6% abrasion)
12% neither human nor environmental (6% component failure, 6% other)
"Deliberate sabotage and shark bites are exceedingly rare"
I always think back to the Iraq war and "WMD" intelligence that was used to justify two decades of expensive disaster. Publicly released intelligence statements are always at risk of being political. Heck, so are the internal ones; it's always risky putting out a report your boss doesn't like, even if it's true and important and done in the relative safety of being classified.
Some European countries are very aware of the Russian threat. Germany is very much dragging behind on this, possibly due to Russian money.
(also thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair - US "burned" the cover of one of their own spies as retribution for making a politically unacceptable statement)
Some European countries are very aware of the Russian threat. Germany is very much dragging behind on this, possibly due to Russian money.
(also thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair - US "burned" the cover of one of their own spies as retribution for making a politically unacceptable statement)
It was a interesting project though, the attempt to "implant" a democratic state into a culture that has brought us 1.4 billion people unable to form working states and institutions. Still failed.
But why must it fail here, when it worked in germany? Why must it fail in syria, egypt, libya, over and over?
But why must it fail here, when it worked in germany? Why must it fail in syria, egypt, libya, over and over?
Change has to come from within. Germany worked because it was a democracy before the war; arguably having the constant threat of the Soviet Union rolling over Germany forced a certain amount of unity on them.
Japan and South Korea ended up as "one and a half party states": peaceful, not a lot of overt oppression, but not exactly diverse democracies either.
I could write an essay on how Iraq failed, but I'm sure others have done a better job out there.
Japan and South Korea ended up as "one and a half party states": peaceful, not a lot of overt oppression, but not exactly diverse democracies either.
I could write an essay on how Iraq failed, but I'm sure others have done a better job out there.
State building in Germany was competently done and the Iraq venture started off by creating a power vacuum by firing basically most competent and entrenched people from their jobs, including the Army.
One difference between Iraq and the previous success of West Germany and Japan were that Axis countries occupied by the US were very aware that, if they didn't get on America's side, they were going to be gobbled up by Stalin. Their incentives were aligned to become pro-American in a very quick hurry!
It’s probably less partisan than that, just a realization that ignoring Russia’s misbehavior will not make them stop, and appeasement doesn’t help. And Europe doesn’t need the nat gas any more, and the Baltic is now a NATO lake. The geopolitics has finally aligned for Europe to be more forceful, even as the US is pulling away.
As if. The ship Finland seized some time ago was loaded with spy equipment [0].
If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is a Russian spy.
[0] https://www.lloydslist.com/LL1151955/Russia-linked-cable-cut...
If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is a Russian spy.
[0] https://www.lloydslist.com/LL1151955/Russia-linked-cable-cut...
Finnish authorities denied those reports in Lloyds List FWIW: https://www.iltalehti.fi/kotimaa/a/3fa30bba-6925-49ac-8c49-c...
But also yeah, the opinion of authorities I see quoted in Swedish and Finnish press has been very clear they don’t think this is accidental.
I’ve lived by the Baltic for much of my life, had many many years of nothing like this, then suddenly every week Russian ships “accidentally” cuts critical cables.
No reason to spread rumours, that’s how seeds of doubt are sown; the evidence is plain as day without manufactured stories
But also yeah, the opinion of authorities I see quoted in Swedish and Finnish press has been very clear they don’t think this is accidental.
I’ve lived by the Baltic for much of my life, had many many years of nothing like this, then suddenly every week Russian ships “accidentally” cuts critical cables.
No reason to spread rumours, that’s how seeds of doubt are sown; the evidence is plain as day without manufactured stories
Shrug at HN.
This comment is correct & shouldn't be downvoted.
This comment is correct & shouldn't be downvoted.
The Lloyds List article says that there had been sailings with spooks aboard (including, confusingly, Turkish intelligence agents?).
It did not say that the trip where the ship was seized was one of those sailings.
It did not say that the trip where the ship was seized was one of those sailings.
Sounds more like a way to not call it an act of war, but why would a ship drag an anchor like that? And why does this happen so frequently at a time of hostility between Russia and Europe?
It is the show of power.
Same as with Musk doing nazi salute and no official can call him out on this.
Russia can break cables, and no official can call them out on what they are doing.
Same as with Musk doing nazi salute and no official can call him out on this.
Russia can break cables, and no official can call them out on what they are doing.
> The Post's report was received with skepticism by some in Finland. Pekka Toveri, former head of Finland's military intelligence agency, told the paper that the accidental-damage theory was "total B.S."
> "The most important thing in any hybrid operation is deniability," Toveri said, explaining how the incidents might have an accidental appearance. He pointed to the ships' anomalous movements and the well-funded, decadal Russian intelligence effort to map out NATO's seabed infrastructure vulnerabilities.
> Finnish National Bureau of Investigation inspector Sami Liimatainen, who is involved in the ongoing inquiry aboard Eagle S, gave a dismissive reply when asked about the Post's accidental-damage explanation. "I'm not even going to comment on that, I'll leave the information from foreign newspapers at their own value. The Finnish National Police is investigating the crime," Liimatainen told YLE. "Crimes are being investigated and solved. Nothing has changed."
https://maritime-executive.com/article/report-u-s-convinced-...
> "The most important thing in any hybrid operation is deniability," Toveri said, explaining how the incidents might have an accidental appearance. He pointed to the ships' anomalous movements and the well-funded, decadal Russian intelligence effort to map out NATO's seabed infrastructure vulnerabilities.
> Finnish National Bureau of Investigation inspector Sami Liimatainen, who is involved in the ongoing inquiry aboard Eagle S, gave a dismissive reply when asked about the Post's accidental-damage explanation. "I'm not even going to comment on that, I'll leave the information from foreign newspapers at their own value. The Finnish National Police is investigating the crime," Liimatainen told YLE. "Crimes are being investigated and solved. Nothing has changed."
https://maritime-executive.com/article/report-u-s-convinced-...
The statements from the Finnish law enforcement agencies are basically that there is no evidence that the cables were intentionally cut. Then there’s reports citing “sources” in agencies that the incidents are thought to be accidental.
Basically, I’m not sure the reporting is properly distinguishing between “no evidence of wrongdoing” and “it was an accident”. It wouldn’t be surprising that it would be very difficult to find evidence that an anchor was intentionally dragged across a cable vs. accidentally.
Basically, I’m not sure the reporting is properly distinguishing between “no evidence of wrongdoing” and “it was an accident”. It wouldn’t be surprising that it would be very difficult to find evidence that an anchor was intentionally dragged across a cable vs. accidentally.
Then there's China filing a patent for an underwater cable cutting technology. This can't be just a coincidence. Cable and pipeline cutting near the Baltics have increased sharply since the war started in 2022.
I absolutely don't understand the point of doing this but this much "accident's" in such a short time doing harm for enemies of russia are very suspicious.
Read that too, but then I wonder how a ship goes slow, dragging an anchor for miles, not near a port, not near an anchoring point, but at sea, and it is an accident? How?
It didn't sound plausible to me either, but then I found stories like these:
https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-environment-watch/report-t...
So what sounds to me like an unbelievable level of incompetence is not that unlikely.
https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-environment-watch/report-t...
So what sounds to me like an unbelievable level of incompetence is not that unlikely.
Thanks!
My personal theory is that the cable owners don't want this to be an "act of war" because then their insurance doesn't pay.
Washington Post is simply eating up Russian propaganda.
Don't be so gullible.
Don't be so gullible.
These cables are the new "hackers from X".
Nonsense. There have been 3 or 4 major cable cuttings by anchor dragging in just a few weeks. All connected to Russia.
> The Washington Post cited anonymous US intelligence officials
That sounds like a reliable source from a reputable publication. /s Once is an accident. Twice is carelessness. Three times is enemy action. What are we up to now? 4 or 5 in as many months?
That sounds like a reliable source from a reputable publication. /s Once is an accident. Twice is carelessness. Three times is enemy action. What are we up to now? 4 or 5 in as many months?
Washington Post is not a reliable source because it's owned by Jeff Bezos, and billionaires should be mistrusted. And the "source" is worthless as they could be completely made up.
Anonymous US intelligence officials have told me that I am the greatest and most attractive person ever to have existed.
Anonymous US intelligence officials have told me that I am the greatest and most attractive person ever to have existed.
Then let's "accident" and not sabotage those ships until they learn to take care of their anchors.
They tend to be loaded with oil, you don't want them to "accident".
There have been several incidents of underwater sabotage in recent years, and I can't recall any previous action being taken, so this is a welcome change.
The UK just used a nuclear-powered sub to escort a Russian spy ship out of its waters and away from undersea infrastructure:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqjv7qgpw28o
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqjv7qgpw28o
Hey, see this spy ship loaded to the brim with sensors? I want you to surface Nuclear Sub real close and let them take some good readings.
> this spy ship loaded to the brim with sensors?
And yet they still didn't see them. I suspect HM Naval Service knows what it's upto and what its limits are.
And yet they still didn't see them. I suspect HM Naval Service knows what it's upto and what its limits are.
UK QRA forces have to deal with a lot of Russian aircraft, e.g. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/raf-jets-intercept-21-rus... (2023)
I spent some time in Lossiemouth as an engineering officer in the RAF. There was a period during the start of the Crimea War (2014/15~) when Russian fighter aircraft were circling the edges of our airspace almost every day for months on end - it's been going on for over a decade now if not longer. Russia and the UK have a much deeper adversarial relationship than any other European nation outside of the ex-Soviet states. This is in part due to the complex relationship between Russian oligarchs and London (it's often considered a haven for them from the Putin regime), and the active resistance the UK intelligence service puts up to Russian interference in the West. We're seeing that play out again in the substantial support that's been provided by the UK since the start of the full invasion of Ukraine.
Is this just a case where they can string along and claim lack of proof or do they claim it was just an accident etc?
Which government is failing to uphold their property rights basically?
Which government is failing to uphold their property rights basically?
The ships owner / crew will of course claim it was an accident, but Sweden is investigating it as a crime. That investigation hasn't run its course yet.
It could be both? If I am driving my car, and I hit a person due to not paying attention, isn't that both an accident and a crime.
I am not saying that it is an accident; personally I very much doubt it. But they're not exclusive. You don't have to rule out "accident" before you investigate "crime".
I am not saying that it is an accident; personally I very much doubt it. But they're not exclusive. You don't have to rule out "accident" before you investigate "crime".
This is the fourth incident in a short period of time, so it being a deliberate act of sabotage is very likely. However it may have been done by a small number of crew, maybe just one guy, paid to do it while the rest were oblivious.
> so it being a deliberate act of sabotage is very likely.
I agree, that's why I very much doubt that they're really accidents. Isn't the captain responsible for the ship regardless of what they intended or what they personally knew?
I agree, that's why I very much doubt that they're really accidents. Isn't the captain responsible for the ship regardless of what they intended or what they personally knew?
More or less, yeah. The ship itself could be forfeit even though the owners probably knew nothing of this.
In the most recent incident the ship was also detained, forgot which country it was.
Finland, in December
> Russia-linked dark fleet tanker Eagle S, seized by Finland on December 25 2024
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42524174
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42516864
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42520563
> Russia-linked dark fleet tanker Eagle S, seized by Finland on December 25 2024
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42524174
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42516864
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42520563
Finland seized the Eagle S in late December.
But I suspect you cannot win this war like that, because fixing a cable is more expensive than sacrificing a vessel.
I'd love some references to back this claim up. I have no idea what it costs to fix an undersea cable, but ships can go for many millions.
It's a different class of vessel than I expect is used in these types of incidents, but I recently read an article about the Coast Guard's purchase of a $125m icebreaker[1].
[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/aiviq-icebreaker-military...
It's a different class of vessel than I expect is used in these types of incidents, but I recently read an article about the Coast Guard's purchase of a $125m icebreaker[1].
[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/aiviq-icebreaker-military...
> estimated costs ranging from $7 to $12 million per cable https://www.perplexity.ai/page/baltic-sea-cable-sabotage-ZPH...
I suppose you'd use __old__ vessels for this purpose. Ones you'd bring to the ship-scrapyard anyway.
Still hurts. They are not owned by the state, this is not how it works. Someone was granted to buy and operate them, and possibly promised to keep the vessels later. Even for scraping. So, still a loss.
Edited: grammar.
Edited: grammar.
All this is Russian hybrid-warfare.[1] The previous cable-cutting ship that was seized by Finland had so much radio equipment that it generators couldn't keep up. "RUSSIA-LINKED dark fleet tanker Eagle S (IMO: 9329760), seized by Finland on December 25 for damaging an undersea cable, had transmitting and receiving devices installed that effectively allowed it to become a “spy ship” for Russia, Lloyd’s List has learnt.
The hi-tech equipment on board was abnormal for a merchant ship and consumed more power from the ship’s generator, leading to repeated blackouts, a source familiar with the vessel who provided commercial maritime services to it as recently as seven months ago."[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_warfare [2] https://www.lloydslist.com/LL1151955/Russia-linked-cable-cut...
The hi-tech equipment on board was abnormal for a merchant ship and consumed more power from the ship’s generator, leading to repeated blackouts, a source familiar with the vessel who provided commercial maritime services to it as recently as seven months ago."[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_warfare [2] https://www.lloydslist.com/LL1151955/Russia-linked-cable-cut...
Totally agree. No incidents before the war (or at least not so many). Half a dozen incidents during last 2-3 years. Just after the sanctions were placed by the EU, the US etc. I'm really doubt these are the accidents.
I think people will need to rethinking having their electricity grid relying on undersea cables. Like there are projects to make the UK dependent on solar energy from Morocco, and northern europe on Scandinavian dams.
At least in Norway, the underwater electricity cables are extremely controversial - to the point that the sitting gov. might lose the upcoming election partly due to how they’ve handled it the past years.
Skyrocketing electricity bills is something ordinary people feel.
Skyrocketing electricity bills is something ordinary people feel.
Really? It's an export industry for Norway, selling electricity to other countries.
Norway is divided into 5 power zones/regions (south, east, west, mid, north).
The northern zone is not completely detached from the rest, but the the transfer capacity is very poor, and thus lots of power that goes to the northern zones actually gets imported from Sweden. The northern zone has sort of been shielded from the export cable, and still pay rates which are close to the "old days".
Now, when the gov. planned for these cables, a big selling point was that IF Norway was to need extra energy, these cables would make it easier to import from other countries.
Wat has happened, though, is that the energy crisis in Europe has made it very profitable to sell our energy to them, and make Norwegian households/customers compete against the foreign buyers. So say in the west region, where people were used to pay on average 0.12 NOK / kWh one year, suddenly they faced bills with 2.6 NOK /kWh - or a 20x increase.
Of course the gov. did implement programs to subsidize the bills ("strømstøtte"), but they were still high enough for people to feel it in their pocketbooks.
Another factor which MAY have played a role in the increased demand, is that we've had lots of green projects which have been quite energy expensive, like making our oil rigs electric (rather than using gas to produce electricity). I'm honestly not too much in the loop on that though, but it is a popular populist argument you see all the time, often in combination with the export cables.
But in either case, it has become such a hot potato, and the populist party/parties have embraced the anti-export cables stance.
The northern zone is not completely detached from the rest, but the the transfer capacity is very poor, and thus lots of power that goes to the northern zones actually gets imported from Sweden. The northern zone has sort of been shielded from the export cable, and still pay rates which are close to the "old days".
Now, when the gov. planned for these cables, a big selling point was that IF Norway was to need extra energy, these cables would make it easier to import from other countries.
Wat has happened, though, is that the energy crisis in Europe has made it very profitable to sell our energy to them, and make Norwegian households/customers compete against the foreign buyers. So say in the west region, where people were used to pay on average 0.12 NOK / kWh one year, suddenly they faced bills with 2.6 NOK /kWh - or a 20x increase.
Of course the gov. did implement programs to subsidize the bills ("strømstøtte"), but they were still high enough for people to feel it in their pocketbooks.
Another factor which MAY have played a role in the increased demand, is that we've had lots of green projects which have been quite energy expensive, like making our oil rigs electric (rather than using gas to produce electricity). I'm honestly not too much in the loop on that though, but it is a popular populist argument you see all the time, often in combination with the export cables.
But in either case, it has become such a hot potato, and the populist party/parties have embraced the anti-export cables stance.
It's very lucrative for the Norweigan energy producers, because it allows them them sell electricity at much higher prices on international markets, but voters hate it because they used to be in a small closed market with an abundance of electricity (low prices), but now they're in a large european market bidding for household electricity against Brits (directly) and Germans (indirectly), causing higher prices.
The increased demand (from abroad) causes local prices to increase.
It looks like Norway has about 8.5GW of export capacity, vs about 13GW of production.
Overall, exports significantly outweigh imports, but the times Norway is importing mean lower prices in Norway. The average price for Norwegians will have increased, but the variation in price will have reduced.
It looks like Norway has about 8.5GW of export capacity, vs about 13GW of production.
Overall, exports significantly outweigh imports, but the times Norway is importing mean lower prices in Norway. The average price for Norwegians will have increased, but the variation in price will have reduced.
Keep in mind it's not as straight forward as that. Almost all of our energy comes from hydro, and hence when "excess" is exported we might be reducing stored energy, causing higher prices later if we don't get expected rainfall.
Particularly a couple of years ago we had record low levels of water in our storage lakes, causing very high prices for a long time. Had we not exported energy earlier prices would not have gotten so high.
Of course, saving and then having massive rainfall means you could have exported but didn't so yeah.
Just saying things are a bit different than say France which gets a lot from nuclear which has very different price dynamics.
Particularly a couple of years ago we had record low levels of water in our storage lakes, causing very high prices for a long time. Had we not exported energy earlier prices would not have gotten so high.
Of course, saving and then having massive rainfall means you could have exported but didn't so yeah.
Just saying things are a bit different than say France which gets a lot from nuclear which has very different price dynamics.
One paid for by the inhabitants through higher electricity prices, so not exactly like other goods.
You can be an exporter of energy and at the same time be dependent on energy imports. Trade union deals can also dictate that rather than saving up and keeping capacity in hydroelectric dams, they must export energy, which then later create a shortage.
I think Sweden had the intent, a few years back, to get to free electricity and export it.
I did not know Norway was looking at exporting it too
I did not know Norway was looking at exporting it too
https://www.iea.org/countries/norway/electricity : 11% exported.
Bringing in money to those who sell and raising prices to those who buy.
The Baltic countries will soon disconnect their electricity grids from Russia, this would probably be much harder without cables to Finland and Sweden. If we can get Russia to stop cutting cables it's still a good solution.
I think people need to rethink destroying long term human survival with stupid wars. Coal is reliable. And the costs are not to be paid immediately. But in the long term we would far way better with projects like Desertec.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec
Because yes, their main disadvantage are instable human societies. Some terrorists longing for stonge age, are enough to destroy it.
And sure, nuclear also works. But the more nuclear there is, the more targets you also have for the idiots.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec
Because yes, their main disadvantage are instable human societies. Some terrorists longing for stonge age, are enough to destroy it.
And sure, nuclear also works. But the more nuclear there is, the more targets you also have for the idiots.
I wonder if they could be buried under the sea floor, deep enough that they couldn’t be damaged accidentally.
This cable was buried 1 meter under the sea floor to protect it against trawlers.
I don't understand the point of doing this. The cable just gets fixed and before thet the internet goes the other way for a while. They're just gonna piss everybody off. Can you think of any logical reason, or is it just Russia's indomitable desire to do harm?
Just feeling how far they can go. No-one wants to sound the war or article 5 horn. Also, seeing if the White House has any opinion on the matter - now there is a new person in charge that Russia really desired to have there.
At least for power cables, the point is Lithuanian/Latvian/Estonian grids. Currently they're still connected to Russian grids and frequency is controlled by Russians. But this is about to end on February 8th. On this day Lithuanian/Latvian/Estonian grids should completely disconnect from the soviet-era grids network and start keeping frequency on their own synchronised with central european grids.
[deleted]
Prompted by this incident, here's a description of how to drop an anchor on a ship like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrT1Pl3pR6Y&t=268s
Earlier in the video is a quote from Finnish authorities calling the reports of these incidents being accidental BS. Later is a walkthrough of the telling variations in speed of the ship after leaving port in Russia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrT1Pl3pR6Y&t=268s
Earlier in the video is a quote from Finnish authorities calling the reports of these incidents being accidental BS. Later is a walkthrough of the telling variations in speed of the ship after leaving port in Russia.
Earlier:
Another undersea cable damaged in Baltic Sea
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42833491
Another undersea cable damaged in Baltic Sea
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42833491
When is the West going to start standing up to Russia on these cable sabotages?
I highly recommend this video "A new stage of Russian hybrid warfare" from military analyst
Anders Puck Nielsen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yabwyb14-BQ
Basically, Russia's goal is not so much to cut some cables but rather to create fear in order to reduce support for Ukraine. A loud public response is not necessarily in our interest because it makes their attacks more effective.
Basically, Russia's goal is not so much to cut some cables but rather to create fear in order to reduce support for Ukraine. A loud public response is not necessarily in our interest because it makes their attacks more effective.
Intimidation has been their modus operandi for a while. Assassinations which they only half-heartedly deny is another example of that.
But it feels like this has become the new normal and isn't particularly effective anymore.
But it feels like this has become the new normal and isn't particularly effective anymore.
You've got to wonder if it'll work out well for them. They basically want to take control of Ukraine and this sort of stuff is just going to have Europe saying sod that.
Arguably this is exactly an example of that? There is also a sanctioning scheme on oil and various other goods. Not saying these are perfect, or even sufficient. But which measures do you have in mind?
The article shows Sweden doing exactly that, following Finland doing same in December. So The Russia-adjacent Baltic states got the message late last year.
Are these sabotages considered an offense worth of NATO response? If not, what is the standard there or has it not been tested with this because it's just an "Internet cable"?
I'm not an expert but I don't think it is, because they took place in international waters and unless there's proof to the contrary, they're done by civilian vessels. And it being done by dragging anchors makes it plausible deniability of being accidents.
It's really annoying to be honest. Makes me wish for stricter laws for international waters when it comes to undersea infrastructure.
It's really annoying to be honest. Makes me wish for stricter laws for international waters when it comes to undersea infrastructure.
One of the Swedish politicians seem to think so: https://swedenherald.com/article/hultqvist-on-the-baltic-sea...
No, I don't think so. Or rather, what kind of response? Invoking Article 5 and then what?
It seems like just another chapter in the hybrid warfare. NATO countries can respond in other ways, more sanctions, more military support for Ukraine, undercover actions, restricting Russian vessel movement in the Baltic Sea etc.
It seems like just another chapter in the hybrid warfare. NATO countries can respond in other ways, more sanctions, more military support for Ukraine, undercover actions, restricting Russian vessel movement in the Baltic Sea etc.
Not at least for another 4 years.
guappa(2)
When is the Russia going to start standing up to West on the North Stream sabotages?
It was most likely Ukraine. Russia and Ukraine are at war.
Didn't they already by forcing people to pay in rubles? Anyway it's not like Russia has any negotiating powers with the rest of europe at the moment, we're not buying their gas until they withdraw and repatriate.
rip germany
I think undersea infrastructure has been a bit of a free-for-all since Sep 26th, 2022.
Whilst the blowing up of the nordstream pipelines was a very well known example, there were prior damage by ships to undersea infrastructure.
For example, on Jan 7th 2022 the undersea cable between Spitsbergen and Norway was severed. https://www.twz.com/43828/undersea-cable-connecting-norway-w... Turns out a Russian trawler had gone back and forth over the cable until it broke. This was covered in a nordic languages documentary called skuggkriget ('shadow wars') https://www.svtplay.se/uppdrag-granskning-skuggkriget
Of course history of this goes all the way back to the very first thing the British did in WW1 was to cut the telegraph cables between Europe and America https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42367551
For example, on Jan 7th 2022 the undersea cable between Spitsbergen and Norway was severed. https://www.twz.com/43828/undersea-cable-connecting-norway-w... Turns out a Russian trawler had gone back and forth over the cable until it broke. This was covered in a nordic languages documentary called skuggkriget ('shadow wars') https://www.svtplay.se/uppdrag-granskning-skuggkriget
Of course history of this goes all the way back to the very first thing the British did in WW1 was to cut the telegraph cables between Europe and America https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42367551
And all land is free-to-take since Feb 24th, 2022.
Ultimately, international law has to be enforced by someone. Russia broke it many times before NS2 blew up, it's not like they were holding up before.
Ultimately, international law has to be enforced by someone. Russia broke it many times before NS2 blew up, it's not like they were holding up before.
If you think taking some Russian land in recompense is a good idea, go ahead, nobody is stopping you, there is no world police.
Just let me know in advance, so that I can be on a one-way flight to Argentina, or some other southern nation.
Just let me know in advance, so that I can be on a one-way flight to Argentina, or some other southern nation.
You didn't understand my comment.
My point is that the calculus for Russia isn't "is there a precedent for breaking this type of international law?", it's rather "can we get away with it?". NS2 didn't figure in the Russia's calculus when planning the undersea cable interruption.
My point is that the calculus for Russia isn't "is there a precedent for breaking this type of international law?", it's rather "can we get away with it?". NS2 didn't figure in the Russia's calculus when planning the undersea cable interruption.
> Ultimately, international law has to be enforced by someone
And who has more moral right to do that than the superpower that supports a genocide, invaded iraq for no actual reason (and the whistleblower who called it "suicided")?
USA doesn't enforce "law", they enforce oppression and the interests of a few rich guys.
And who has more moral right to do that than the superpower that supports a genocide, invaded iraq for no actual reason (and the whistleblower who called it "suicided")?
USA doesn't enforce "law", they enforce oppression and the interests of a few rich guys.
You don't need to be a moral actor to enforce a law.
Even a murderer can, and should, stop another murderer from killing people.
Even a murderer can, and should, stop another murderer from killing people.
I find it weird how some people think that the country who illegally invaded Iraq on a whim enabled a genocide in Gaza could possibly be trusted to enforce international law on any other matter.
There was a period when a law based international order theoretically could have been implemented by the US but since 1991 it's always just followed the principle of "fuck you my guns are bigger than yours" with some bullshit legalistic pretext.
There was a period when a law based international order theoretically could have been implemented by the US but since 1991 it's always just followed the principle of "fuck you my guns are bigger than yours" with some bullshit legalistic pretext.
You don't need to be a just actor to enforce international law if you're strong enough to pull it off and it aligns with your interests.
So much S's a nice tongue twister
Seeing Sweden seize suspected sea sabotage ships.
Seeing Sweden seize suspected sea sabotage ships.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Over the last 20 years, 100-200 such cables globally have been damaged annually.
This is only news now because Russia is the current bogeyman, and the claims of Russia doing it fit the propaganda.
If I were Ukraine, I'd cut such cables to encourage my Western sponsors into more action, but that narrative is a bitter pill to swallow for the Western taxpayer's funding conflict.
Still, in 50 years, we may well be reading about exactly that.
This is only news now because Russia is the current bogeyman, and the claims of Russia doing it fit the propaganda.
If I were Ukraine, I'd cut such cables to encourage my Western sponsors into more action, but that narrative is a bitter pill to swallow for the Western taxpayer's funding conflict.
Still, in 50 years, we may well be reading about exactly that.
"Over the last 20 years, 100-200 such cables globally have been damaged annually." I read this also all the time, what I don't hear: How do they break? At high sea? By anchors? In a port? By nature? We don't know?
I'm open to the argument, but then someone would need to show some numbers, some trends, reasons and that the current cable breaking is just the same as in the last 20 years.
I'm open to the argument, but then someone would need to show some numbers, some trends, reasons and that the current cable breaking is just the same as in the last 20 years.
https://www2.telegeography.com/submarine-cable-faqs-frequent...
https://www.submarinenetworks.com/en/nv/insights/itu-launche...
https://www.submarinenetworks.com/en/nv/insights/itu-launche...
I can't find anything of what I mentioned in those links.
Just the same numbers "with an average of 150 to 200 faults occurring globally each year" thrown around again - again with no source.
I would wish for
etc.
Just the same numbers "with an average of 150 to 200 faults occurring globally each year" thrown around again - again with no source.
I would wish for
Year Number Fishing Anchor Earthquake ...
2022 128 15 2 5
2021 133 22 8 2
etc.
This does not show evidence to refute the claim.
You're conveniently omitting the fact that the cables have been damaged a lot more recently than before.
And that Russia has a long history of doing these types of sabotage (including assassinations!).
And that these boats have incriminating circumstances.
And that Russia has a long history of doing these types of sabotage (including assassinations!).
And that these boats have incriminating circumstances.
Nope, it's about normal.
Nope, there is no conclusive evidence to support your claims.
It's just as likely to be NATO ships doing the damage as it is <insert NATO adversary>.
https://www2.telegeography.com/submarine-cable-faqs-frequent...
https://www.submarinenetworks.com/en/nv/insights/itu-launche...
Nope, there is no conclusive evidence to support your claims.
It's just as likely to be NATO ships doing the damage as it is <insert NATO adversary>.
https://www2.telegeography.com/submarine-cable-faqs-frequent...
https://www.submarinenetworks.com/en/nv/insights/itu-launche...
If Ukraine did it, they'd lose support - that would be silly.
Damage is normal, sure, but multiple ships dragging anchors for many miles is not. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.
Damage is normal, sure, but multiple ships dragging anchors for many miles is not. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.
It is normal
https://www2.telegeography.com/submarine-cable-faqs-frequent...
https://www.submarinenetworks.com/en/nv/insights/itu-launche...
https://www.submarinenetworks.com/en/nv/insights/itu-launche...
...but is it normal among countries adjacent to Russia?
> Over the last 20 years, 100-200 such cables globally have been damaged annually.
[Citation Needed]
[Citation Needed]
Do you have statistics for the Baltic Sea? The amount of shipping in that area is much lower than in the major international shipping lanes like the English Channel.
Not a good comparison. The English Channel is the most busy maritime route in the world. The Baltic Sea accounts for 15 % of the world's maritime transportation so is also busy, even if less than the English Channel by no means "much lower",
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bornholm_Cable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Baltic_Sea_submarine_cabl...
Given the increase in cables plus the increase in shipping, it is no surprise to find an increase in cable damage.
Given the increase in cables plus the increase in shipping, it is no surprise to find an increase in cable damage.
You give no actual evidence.
Q: Show baltic sea incidents
Me: Here ya go have a complete list
You: <spurious nonsense>
Is there an increase in shipping in the baltic?
Is there an increase in cables in the baltic?
You demonstrate neither.
This is very much at odds with the government stances in the Baltic.
So what is the political messaging happening in the US and why?