Hacker News Reader

Comment by matthewfelgate | Hacker News Reader

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not at least for another 4 years.

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

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com