Finland detains ship and its crew after critical undersea cable damaged

https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/31/europe/finland-estonia-undersea-cable-ship-detained-intl

by wslh • 7 months ago

511 630 7 months ago

cnn.com

neuroelectron• 7 months ago

It sounds like the court will just throw it out again as not having jurisdiction over the case.

wtcactus• 7 months ago

Then countries should be able to bomb these ships and go unpunished as well.

That would pass the right message if courts keep refusing to make things right.

immibis• 7 months ago

They can. They don't want to yet. Europe always assumes too much good faith on the part of other countries.

rwyinuse3• 7 months ago

Sinking the ships and then denying knowing anything about it would probably be the best course of action. That's what Russians would do, if the roles were reversed.

Unfortunately too many Western leaders still think that it's possible to negotiate in good faith with Russians. In reality they respect only force, and see European rules based order and "fair play" as weakness. If Baltic states didn't belong to NATO and Finland didn't have such a big army, Russians would be already doing a lot worse things than cutting cables.

Over here in Finland, even during the "good" years between collapse of the Soviet Union and invasion of Crimea, Russian businessmen kept buying property that made absolutely no economic sense, but was located next to critical infrastructure. Better relations between West and Russia were largely an illusion, especially since Putin took over.

huhhuh• 7 months ago

The court threw out the previous case since there was no proof of sabotage. I understood the court ruled that they have no jurisdiction over accident cases under international law.

As far as I understand, it is totally different case if they find any proof of intent.

stefan_• 7 months ago

I don't understand how we arrived at letting "random nation crew drags their anchor making the boat extremely slow and loud and breaks $100M+ critical infrastructure" get off scot free including their boat but it clearly can't continue to go on. If not a court then government must step in, nothing less is acceptable to any voting person.

fn-mote• 7 months ago

With 10 undersea cables damaged in the Baltic 2023-2025, it’s obvious a different part of the government needs to become involved. Acting for your national security doesn’t need to (shouldn’t) mean there is no trial.

rixed• 7 months ago

Does 10 undersea cables damaged in 3 years sounds a lot to you?

theshrike79• 7 months ago

That many "accidents" with anchors kinda makes me doubt the training of the crews.

It's NOT like driving with the handbrake on, it's more like shoving your car forcibly in reverse at full speed. You WILL notice it.

csmpltn• 7 months ago

It honestly starts to sound like they just botched the design and placement of these cables - placing them in shallow and exposed passages, with no proper defense against dragged anchors.

helsinkiandrew• 7 months ago

Unfortunately the Baltic is pretty shallow and fairly featureless - the gulf of Finland - between Finland, Estonia, and Russia averages 38 metres deep

karmakurtisaani2• 7 months ago

If only they had had you in the design team back then when the cables were put in place.

I'm sorry I have no snark-free way to respond to this.

r2_pilot• 7 months ago

Real shades of "that cable shouldn't have been dressed like that, in a dark and narrow channel, clearly marked on navigation charts(to mitigate exactly this scenario, from good captains at least)" energy.

TulliusCicero10• 7 months ago

Yeah, why don't they lower the floor of the entire Baltic Sea??

mmh00002• 7 months ago

Obviously, you're joking.

But how hard could it be to get a Cat 395 excavator in there? Dig a little trench and bury it.

Sounds like a weekend project to me. Has someone told the telecoms this?

shmerl7• 7 months ago

There needs to be a blockade for these rogue ships. That's the only thing they'll understand, short of being sunk.

TulliusCicero10• 7 months ago

Just seize the ships and auction them off. Damaging one cable isn't gonna be worth losing a whole ship, generally speaking.

lawlessone• 7 months ago

Given the state some of these ships are starting to be in they might just be worth scrap..

edm0nd2• 7 months ago

nah just sink them instead imo. they arent worth much.

mmooss36• 7 months ago

Who controls these ships and what is their perspective? I don't understand how we know what they 'understand' or not?

Also, how do you identify the ships? Do you blockade all maritime traffic in the Baltic Sea? All too and from Russia? The first would destroy our own economy, the second is a certain act of war.

shmerl7• 7 months ago

Likely Russia. Their idea is to engage in war under pretense that it's not a war.

What I mean is that they will only understand counter measures that you'd take in a war, like blockade or sink them for instance.

I.e. they are already engaging in the acts of war, so it's late to worry about that, the question is what is anyone doing about it.

Ukraine sinks their fleet in the Black Sea, and they understood it very well - they don't leave their ports.

internet2000• 7 months ago

Don't even need to click to know it's the Russians.

amiga3864• 7 months ago

Every single ship in/out of St Petersburg goes via the Gulf of Finland. All those ships will be "Russian" (have stopped in Russia). It doesn't mean they're "Russian". Owner, charterer, flag, crew can all have very different nationalities.

Which part or combination makes them "Russian", in the sense of "the Russian state asked asked the ship to harm Finnish infrastructure, and they actually did it"?

You can lazily speculate about the aggressive, warmaking nation (that illegally annexed Crimea, is currently at war with Ukraine, is regularly sending submarines, ships, drones, jets into the territories of its neighbours) all you like... but if you want to be able to prosecute them, you need to be able to show evidence of the Russian state ordering this action, and that the cable damage was actually caused by that ship. Where is your evidence?

javier2• 7 months ago

The crew on these ships are usually all Russians, the ship is often registered in Cayman, Panama or somewhere else. These ships often sail under a third nationality, but when the ships are seized, only complaints are filed from Russian lawyers. Take from that what you will.

kelnos• 7 months ago

This is the court of public opinion, not a court or law. For better or worse, evidentiary standards are much lower.

nubg6• 7 months ago

Sorry but in times of war, the regular "proof beyond reasonable doubt" cannot apply anymore, or you lose said war.

nomel2• 7 months ago

I assumed it was China. They both enjoy this activity.

ronsor• 7 months ago

Yeah, but it's a bit far away for China. They prefer harassing their closer neighbors.

amarant• 7 months ago

That's what I said about nordstream.

Turns out it was the Ukrainians! I'm past even guessing at this point...

somenameforme15• 7 months ago

I never understand how people bought the propaganda on this. Why would anybody think Russia would blow up a pipeline that they spent years and billions of dollars building? It requires completely rejecting all logic. And then Western countries completely stonewalling calls for an independent international investigation at the UN - why would we do that?

I also very much doubt it was the Ukrainians in by themselves - as blowing up heavily reinforced pipes 80m under the water is a rather extreme task, but at least they would have had a reasonable motive. Russia was fueling the German economy, and Ukraine would have had a viable concern about Germany prioritizing their own economy over Ukraine. OTOH it seems somewhat obvious at this point that Russia would not have threatened to turn off the gas, so it was a terrible miscalculation by whoever did it.

jquery3• 7 months ago

It was ultimately caused by Russia either way.

TulliusCicero10• 7 months ago

It's pretty obvious what's happening here.

The response needs to be forceful: seize and auction off the ships. There needs to be sufficient deterrent to actually stop this from happening.

2OEH8eoCRo02• 7 months ago

It's geopolitical. They don't care if you seize the ships because they don't care about a return on investment.

raverbashing• 7 months ago

Good, another reason to seize them

KumaBear• 7 months ago

Even better life in prison for all on board. (This is extreme but I bet you that they'd think twice)

mullingitover• 7 months ago

There needs to be sufficient deterrent to actually stop this from happening

One ship might be considered a reasonable pawn to sacrifice. I'd go further: require that any ships passing through the strait to be bonded at some eye-watering amount like 10x the price of the ship plus the repair costs of the cable. Make it so if the cable is cut, you make a profit.

WA• 7 months ago

Only works if you find someone to pay. I listened to a lengthy (German) podcast about international maritime law. To sum it up: you can’t do that much, because you won’t find the responsible person/company/state.

colechristensen2• 7 months ago

If these ships are independent operators being influenced by Russia, seizing the ship will be a significant consequence because the next time Russia will have a harder time convincing a crew to sabotage a cable.

belter4• 7 months ago

Russia has already carried out chemical attacks on UK soil, used radioactive poisoning in London, sabotaged rail infrastructure in Poland, and launched cyberattacks against German air traffic control.[1]

The Associated Press has documented 59 Russian hybrid operations across Europe. A systematic campaign of intimidation, sabotage, and violence: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-europe-hybrid-...

Russia supplied the Buk missile system that shot down MH17, killing 298 civilians, most of them Europeans. Putin eliminates political opponents, like Alexei Navalny, who died in custody days before a possible release.

European leaders may be passive and slow, but what is making the situation truly dangerous, is the dictator-jealousy fueled encouragement and indulgence of the current U.S. administration, and all its sycophants, which got to the point of publicly applauding a dictator on U.S. soil.

That behavior legitimizes aggression, emboldens Moscow, and directly undermines European security, and is making thinks really, really, sketchy right now.

Germany accuses Russia of air traffic control cyber-attack: [1] - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgrrnylzzyo

MaxPock• 7 months ago

Europe believes that Russia is doing all sorts of bad things and there's also the belief that Moscow plans to invade the EU .

Isn't the logical action for EU to launch massive pre-emptive strikes on this big bad country that hates the western way of life ?

derbOac• 7 months ago

what is making the situation truly dangerous, is the dictator-jealousy fueled encouragement and indulgence of the current U.S. administration, and all its sycophants, which got to the point of publicly applauding a dictator on U.S. soil.

I personally think there's a more direct link between the US administration and Russia, in line with the rest of your points. I think it's more than "dictator-jealousy fueled encouragement", although what that "more" is I'm not entirely sure, and I'm not sure the differences between the possibilities matters in the end.

I really think it's hard not to read [about] Foundations of Geopolitics and the history of Viktor Yanukovych, the ties between the latter and Trump, and not conclude Russia's tendrils in the US, England, and elsewhere are far deeper than is generally acknowledged in the press.

I lost a lot of trust in most media to cover this issue appropriately when people in the UK started mysteriously dying and zipping themselves in body bags, and the coverage was a collective shrug. Why they would report something like that and then with a straight face conclude an article with "police say there's no evidence of foul play" is beyond me. But then again how the Mueller investigation got spun as an exoneration is also beyond me as well.

I know it's often seen as dismissive or shallow to blame the media for things, but I really do place a huge proportion of the blame for our current mess, at least in the US, on news outlets and media soft-pedaling what's been happening for the last 10 years. A lot of what people trust became propaganda, and a lot of the rest of it chased that audience around for clicks.

type04• 7 months ago

That's why I think Putin won't use nukes but would just load chemical weapons on drones to attack European cities and blame it on some terrorist organization. Trump might even support him in claiming that Russia is innocent and NATO shouldn't be involved. They already tested it on Poland with empty drones and said Russia didn't send any drones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Russian_drone_incursion_i...

deepsun• 7 months ago

Russia started convoying some of those vessels, especially with more advanced operation bases than cable cuts [1].

They won't be able to seize those without opening fire.

https://ioplus.nl/en/posts/how-seven-students-unmasked-russi...

alecthomas• 7 months ago

That is...disturbing.

Sabinus10• 7 months ago

That's fine. Let Russia escort ships that then break cables. It'll make it more obvious it's deliberate, and provide a reason for blockade and confrontation.

JumpCrisscross18• 7 months ago

pretty obvious what's happening here

Good start. Then turn off Russia’s cable that runs via Finland [1] and make vague threats about (a) seizing shadow-fleet vessels in the Baltics and (b) how vulnerable Russia’s cable to Kaliningrad [2] would be to careless anchors.

All the while: start setting up non-cable based back-up bandwidth for if Russia severs these cables in advance of invasion.

[1] https://www.submarinecablemap.com/submarine-cable/bcs-north-...

[2] https://www.submarinecablemap.com/submarine-cable/kingisepp-...

jojobas5• 7 months ago

They can use 30-year old handysize rust buckets that can be cheaper than some cable repairs.

Jailing crews in comfy Scandinavian prisons can hardly be a strong deterrent either.

Russia is all-in on this confrontation, Europe is much wealthier but won't commit anywhere near the effort or expense.

padjo2• 7 months ago

Russia has an immense capacity to endure suffering and sacrifice lives. It’s basically their secret weapon.

nradov9• 7 months ago

Many of the shadow fleet crew members aren't even Russians. Typically only the master and some officers are privy to the real mission. The other crew members are just random seamen hired from the usual poor countries so jailing them would be pointless.

rasz7• 7 months ago

Nothing burger incoming. Previously Finland let go of Eagle S despite evidence of cutting cables https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/02/world/europe/finland-tank...

mmooss36• 7 months ago

Escalation is a classic trap to fall into:

The other side wants escalation of tension, otherwise they wouldn't do this. And they get to choose when and where and, to a degree, the means by which it happens - you can be sure it's a time and place and means that benefits them.

The fundamental of international relations in conflict is to deter without escalation, and to act in the time, place, and manner of your choosing. You'll see leaders cite that specifically: 'We have this problem; we will respond in the time, place, and in the way we think best.'

yoavm• 7 months ago

This sounds very nice but it's unclear to me what it is that you're suggesting. Who said the place isn't the Baltic sea, the time is now, and the way is to escalate? In other words, what's a better place/time/way according to you?

MangoToupe5• 7 months ago

There's essentially nothing you can do to deter this sort of behavior short of starting a war

ekaryotic• 7 months ago

could you cut russias undersea cables in a tit for tat?

TulliusCicero10• 7 months ago

That's exactly the appeasement mentality that lets Russia get away with everything.

"We don't want to start a war doncha know, so whenever Russia attacks us we'll just take it on the chin and not fight back too hard".

It appears the world has forgotten the lessons of the Sudetenland.

icegreentea22• 7 months ago

If Russia wasn't currently locked in a land war with Ukraine, that would largely be true (assuming that you were NATO and wanted to play by both the rules of being real democracies, and also respecting international law).

But since Russia IS locked in a land war with Ukraine, in a hypothetical world, you could retaliate by upping aid through Ukraine, OR (if you were being sneaky), laundering your actions through Ukraine.

jojobas5• 7 months ago

The war has already started.

vzaliva2• 7 months ago

I suspect the price of a ship compared to economic damages caused by the cut cable is negligible. This is what russia calls "assymetric war". The response should be more economic sanctions.

colechristensen2• 7 months ago

Economic sanctions won't prevent the FSB from paying off ship captains to do these things. Seizing ships and imprisoning captains might provide some amount of deterrent. Clearly only way economic sanctions will have a behavioral impact on Russia is if the effects are so bad it triggers revolution which has its own dangers. Direct consequences for the people in the sphere of these actions is more prudent.

TulliusCicero10• 7 months ago

There's generally enough cables that cutting one doesn't completely shut down some area of web traffic, it just gets slower, so it's hard to say.

But yeah, if Russia keeps it up, just blockade the Baltic Sea for ships heading to Russian ports.

DonHopkins• 7 months ago

The crew are probably living much better and safer lives in Finnish jail than they would out of jail in Russia.

Speaking of the joy of living in Russia, check out the hilarious story of racist right wing Finnish Flat Earther anti-immigrant anti-refugee pro-Russian criminal asshole Ano Turtiainen, now living as a refugee in Russia and threatening to fight against fellow Finns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ano_Turtiainen

Ano Turtiainen is a former Finnish powerlifter turned far-right politician who managed to embarrass himself and others at every step:

He was banned for two years in 1998 for androgenic drug use -- perfect start to a "morally upright" career.

As an MP with the batshit crazy racist right-wing Finns Party, he posted a mocking tweet about George Floyd's murder ("Pink Floyd"), which was widely condemned as even too racist for the Finns Party, which got him expelled.

He set up his own splinter faction and then a tiny party, Power Belongs to the People (VKK), which became known for praising Russia and opposing sanctions and Finnish NATO membership, utterly at odds with mainstream Finnish views.

Turtiainen even refused to fire an assistant who posted racist content and had a parliamentary visitor do a Nazi salute (which he photographed himself!).

Instead of behaving like a responsible adult during the pandemic, he mocked public health measures, called them "neo-communism", refused masks, and threatened violence over mask mandates.

Meanwhile his own company manufactured masks: the ultimate hypocrisy.

Turtiainen failed to explain how he used over €30,000 in parliamentary group funds -- so the Finnish Parliament is trying to collect it back through debt enforcement.

Not only that: He's a Flat Earther, doesn't believe in space existing, and was convinced NASA interfered in the last election he was involved in so that he only got 7 votes.

Now the Ultimate Irony: the Anti-Immigrant Asshole Becomes a Hypocritical Refugee.

After losing his seat in the 2023 election (with only ~632 votes), Turtiainen moved to Russia, the country he celebrated, defended even during its invasion of Ukraine, and praised as a cultural "brother".

Russia granted him refugee status (yes, refugee status), despite his previous anti-immigrant posturing -- and he proudly accepts it.

In videos he’s now said he might fight for Russia -- even against Finns -- in the war in Ukraine. That’s right: the man who slammed refugees and immigrants is now a political asylum seeker in Russia, flirting with joining Russian troops and fighting his own countrymen.

Turtiainen's political life is a one-man case study in right-wing hypocrisy, racism, ignorance, self-harm, and irony: The guy who mocked others' suffering ends up dependent on another country’s goodwill -- the same country he championed in Finnish politics.

Former Finns Party MP granted refugee status in Russia: The pro-Russian ex-lawmaker has claimed that he would be "ready to go to the front against the Finns" if necessary:

https://yle.fi/a/74-20201812

Former Finnish MP and his wife granted refugee status in Russia: Turtiainen founded and leads the political party "Power belongs to the people":

https://fakti.bg/en/world/1024214-former-finnish-mp-and-his-...

Ano Turtiainen: the PS doesn’t love me, I love the PS – watch me now eat my words:

https://migranttales.net/ano-turtiainen-the-ps-doesnt-love-m...

Ano Turtiainen Flat Earth Anti-NASA Views:

https://murha.info/rikosfoorumi/viewtopic.php?p=1866262#:~:t...

tjpnz• 7 months ago

Fascist thugs aren't known for being ideologically consistent.

super256• 7 months ago

Europe has always been known for being governed by the rule of law. If we now start breaking laws and rights, especially regarding property/ownership, this will strongly backfire in the future. This can quickly become a slippery slope towards Willkürsjustiz. It is exactly the same as with the Russian assets held in Belgium at Clearstream. Selling them is a no-no.

thyristan7• 7 months ago

There is ample precendent for impounding the assets of hostile nations. The Soviets did it to Germany in WW2, so they cannot really claim that they are opposed to that practice.

The only reason why this seizure of russian money in Belgium might be a bad idea is reciprocity. Russia would of course then try to seize European assets in Russia.

And regarding ships, prize law is still internationally accepted and in effect. Ukraine can offer prize letters to privateers or foreign navies, allowing the seizure of Russian ships. Or they can seize ships themselves. When those ships are then in a Ukrainian or allied harbor, a Ukrainian admirality court then assigns ownership of the vessel and all goods to the ones who brought it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_(law)

lysace• 7 months ago

Two other cable cuts/"damages" happened around the same dates. Two separate Arelion-owned cables between Sweden/Estonia and Finland/Estonia.

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/JOow58/kabelbrott-mella... (Swedish)

[...] two of their submarine cables – one between Sweden and Estonia and one between Estonia and Finland – have been damaged. The first cable was damaged on December 30th and the second on December 31st.

(Arelion is AS1299/formerly known as Telia Carrier. The name change happened because it's now owned by a Swedish government-managed infrastructure-focused pension fund.)

Animats2• 7 months ago

That narrow passage is becoming a war zone. Look at a map. It's one of Russia's few outlets to the sea. Look at the history of Russia vs. Finland and Russia vs. Estonia. This is one of the world's most hostile choke points.

jacquesm9• 7 months ago

That or the Suwalki gap. They're both flashpoints.

rwyinuse3• 7 months ago

Yep, if Russia wants to expand its conflict against Europe, Narva in Estonia is most likely place for it. Over 90% of its population is ethnic Russian, and it's located right next to the Russian border. It's the perfect place to send some armed "separatists" to see how NATO responds.

My bet is that it'll happen sometime between 2029-2035, after UK, France and Germany have had their general elections, where populist parties with more pro-Russian stances are likely to gain power.

mmooss36• 7 months ago

Yes: Notice that without the Baltic Sea, which is effectively closed, and the Crimean region of Ukraine, Russia is not a European naval power, and experts have long argued (afaik) not much of a European power.

Similarly, notice how much they invested in their naval base in Syria on the Mediterranean (though I'm not sure of its status now, and they oddly seemed to abandon Assad, who provided it to them).

More critically, think of a war: How do they trade by sea by sea? Their economy could be choked off, restricted to Pacific trade and trains across Asia to the population centers. They are in a corner.

ajmurmann2• 7 months ago

I will never understand why it has to be this way and Russia cannot be a normal country that has the goal to join the EU and be prosperous instead of doing nonsense for over a hundred years now.

avidiax2• 7 months ago

Russia would first have to be a "normal country". It would need an educated populace and a non-extractive (manufacturing or services) economy. It suffers from both a resource curse and Dutch disease. It is difficult to form a middle class that's independent of state institutions and employment. It has poor demographics and brain drain. It has no independent elites (academics, journalists, judges, business people), so the only restorative force in the society is brutal punishment for non-alignment with a cult of personal power.

Even if Putin wanted to join the E.U., the economy, social structures and institutions, and uneducated voting populace wouldn't allow it to be stable enough to join.

Russia at this point can't even be a successful authoritarian state like China. It's hard to say that it will never be a democracy, but those with a memory of the 1990's find that idea traumatic. Looking far forward in time, eventually global oil independence and demographic decline may force economic reform.

jgilias• 7 months ago

Because then they’d have to recognise their failures. It’s like an alcoholic that keeps drinking in order to keep pushing back the reckoning of reality.

yks• 7 months ago

When I think about this, I often come back to thinking that the societies that underwent some conflict or difficult times, absolutely cannot have a member of an older generation in charge, because the only thing they do is to continue that conflict, completely manufacturing it again if needed, just to get their "revenge". Current Russian attempt at genociding Ukrainians is all the more tragic in that the generations, that remember the previous hostilities, were almost all gone by now. Alas, that corner of the world is again poisoned for several generations ahead.

gpm2• 7 months ago

Because that wouldn't benefit Putin personally as much as the status quo? And he's the decision maker. Dictators routinely make decisions where they hurt their country to keep a much bigger slice of the pie for themselves...

kranke1553• 7 months ago

Nations make their own Logic. The US has to control or befriend the oil producing countries to maintain the petrodollar (which really maintains the dollar, which is the lynchpin of the global economy). This leads to “wars for oil” where the US doesn’t take any oil (it just needs the country to return to the dollar market - so price their oil in dollars).

Russia is a continental state so it requires its Neighbors to be weak so they cant threaten Russia. As much as it tries to escape this logic, it can’t. Russia’s core interest is to dominate and subjugate its near abroad. It has to. It’s the only way for it to become a global power.

joe_the_user• 7 months ago

I think the reason Russia today is relentless anti-West is rooted the post-Soviet era in many ways characterized by (the alcoholic) Boris Yeltsin. Wikipedia gives the summary: "Yeltsin oversaw the transition of Russia's command economy into a capitalist market economy by implementing economic shock therapy, market exchange rate of the ruble, nationwide privatization, and lifting of price controls. Economic downturn, volatility, and inflation ensued. Amid the economic shift, a small number of oligarchs obtained most of the national property and wealth, while international monopolies dominated the market." and I'd add millions of people died (not an exageration).

The Putin regime began with Putin using military force to arrest any disloyal oligarchs while formulating his anti-Western ideology. But sequence of event explains why most Russians today have zero faith/interest in joining the Western World.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Yeltsin

abraxas• 7 months ago

A thousand years almost. As a Pole I have no faith in Russia ever becoming anything other than a savage hostile wart on this planet. It's not just their leadership. It's the nation. More accurately their culture. Their malice is a result of a rare combination of ineptitude and megalomania all in one package.

sneak2• 7 months ago

A “normal country” like the UK or Hungary or Switzerland?

Really though it’s because Russia mostly has nothing going for its millions of people except petrochemical exports.

ridiculous_leke• 7 months ago

A nation state's values should align with EU for them to be part of the group. I don't think Russia would ever choose to join the union considering that even UK(which is culturally closer to Europe) left it.

somenameforme15• 7 months ago

Russia did inquire about joining NATO multiple times, as far back as the 50s as the USSR, in the 90s after USSR collapsed, and then again by Putin in the 2000s. It was rebuffed each time.

Joining the EU would be somewhat nonsensical as they would gain very little from it and cede substantial sovereignty in exchange. It's the same reason places like Norway have no interest in joining the EU.

anigbrowl2• 7 months ago

Look at the map. It's huge. In order to maintain its territorial integrity it has to act like a super power, or it has no reason to exist in its current form.

tguvot• 7 months ago

There’s a Russian joke that Russia’s mission in the world is to show other countries how not to be.

Or if we get more serious: it's mix of imperial ambitions, feeling of been humiliated by west and desire of revenge, (cultural level) aggression, arrogance, ignorance and been sure that Russia is a special country with special pathway and superior culture and one of world superpowers (that been ignored and this is not "fair")

A couple of days after russia started war, on it's official news agency site was auto published article that was supposed to be victory lap (after all it was supposed to be 3 day special operation). It was promptly removed but not before it was archived. You can read decent translation here and it will show you some glimpses of what I wrote above https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t2vz4v/ria_news_ac...

For reference: I was born back in USSR and lived there till my early teen years. Been closely following russian media, discussion platforms, etc ever since.

exogeny• 7 months ago

The short, uncouth but Occam’s Razor answer is because Putin has a micropenis and/or his parents were incredibly abusive towards him.

NoMoreNicksLeft3• 7 months ago

For individuals, a person might ask "Why can't Rodney just behave himself" without accepting that Rodney is violently anti-social and likes to throw liquidy turds at everyone. And for species, a person might ask "Why can't spider monkeys just behave themselves" without accepting that spider monkeys are dumb animals and that's what they do.

But if I point out that this same thing applies to the Russians as a whole, then suddenly I'm racist.

lovegrenoble4• 7 months ago

btw the unification of Europe was only made possible by the unification of Germany, which took place thanks to Russia's benevolent will.

usrusr4• 7 months ago

Because the ruling gang has plenty of prosperity in their lives and "us vs the rest of the world" is the only way they know to keep the other 140+ million content with the few scraps they get. The more violent attitude they keep up against the rest of the world the less violent oppression they need at home to stay in power.

anticodon3• 7 months ago

Why would we want to join the EU?

It's a government comprised of people that weren't elected that destroys countries it supposed to govern by forcing non-rational choices that people hate but too afraid to openly criticize.

The level of life in EU is declining, while rising in Russia.

What EU can offer us? Nothing.

Gupie• 7 months ago

Is one reason that Russia is an empire, created as the same time as the British and French empires, ruling over countries with their own long histories and separate cultures that would break apart without an autocratic government?

Etheryte• 7 months ago

The error most people make on this front is thinking that Russia is just another country with regular country goals like any other. Grow the economy, make lives better for its people over the long term, that kind of thing. But this is not the case. Russia has been run by thugs for centuries in, centuries out, and they want thug things. Make the head thugs richer and fatter while everyone else suffers, both at home and abroad.

RuslanL3• 7 months ago

The majority of Russian population genuinely believes that if the country "becomes weaker", some evil Western soldiers would come and either (belief A) physically exterminate every last of them or (belief B) enslave for eternity.

From that lens, loosing a few millions in a "pre-emptive strike" to save the bulk of population looks reasonable. Don't ask me how they ended up with this picture of reality.

petre2• 7 months ago

Because they had their own union called the USSR, which collapsed due to military spending, oil price drops and centralized inneficiency. This was before Putin's mafia took over.

Maybe this could offer more insight:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/27/vladim...

sharts• 7 months ago

They did want to join the EU in the 90’s. They’ve always been rebuffed.

lukashoff• 7 months ago

the fun part is that they don't even have to join the EU - perfectly positioned and enriched by natural resources to become a northern version of a Dubai

throw-the-towel2• 7 months ago

Do you really believe the EU would have accepted a country with easily 1/3 of the population of everyone else combined (so, a third of the seats at the "European Parliament") and a huge territory requiring investment? Or that they would have risked a Russian immigration crisis? Put themselves on China's doorstep, voluntarily? With all due respect, it's extremely naïve.

drysine• 7 months ago

has the goal to join the EU

Not joining, of course, but Russia did, both the people and Putin. The West had different plans, as we learned.

'From Lisbon to Vladivostok': Putin Envisions a Russia-EU Free Trade Zone - SPIEGEL ONLINE, 2010 [0]

"We propose the creation of a harmonious economic community stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok," Putin writes. "In the future, we could even consider a free trade zone or even more advanced forms of economic integration. The result would be a unified continental market with a capacity worth trillions of euros." [0]

[0] http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/from-lisbon-to-vl...

oxag3n• 7 months ago

It's way longer than hundred years.

It started to expand to the east in 16th century, which was and is still cruel to indigenous people of Siberia (e..g highest level of current war participation per capita).

South/Caucasus expansion was brutal and was displayed in Russian literature.

European states suffered from Russia for centuries as well.

HelloUsername• 7 months ago

Related, posted a day ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46445484

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46443925

greesil• 7 months ago

Mine the Gulf of Finland, problem solved. This may create other problems but hey Finland is part of NATO now.

deliciousturkey3• 7 months ago

The fact that this area where the incident happened, Gulf of Finland, is not fully part Finnish/Estonian territorial waters, is only because of a bilateral Finnish-Estonian agreement. This was done in the 1990's purely for benevolence towards Russia.

Russia clearly hasn't acted in such way that they should enjoy these kinds of acts of benevolence. Finland and Estonia should seriously consider retreating from this agreement.

vzaliva2• 7 months ago

You saying the Finland and Estonia are guilty of russia cutting their cables because they signed an agreement?!

gpm2• 7 months ago

Pretty sure they are saying "more vulnerable to" not "guilty".

mig39• 7 months ago

No, he's saying that the area is international waters because Finland and Estonia agreed it was not either's territorial waters. It doesn't have to be international waters.

tgsovlerkhgsel• 7 months ago

I don't think it's just benevolence. Territorial waters also doesn't mean what many think it means - unlike planes, ships have the almost-universally recognized right to cross territorial waters (innocent passage).

But what's more relevant here are rules about straits - territorial waters that fully enclose a section of someone else's territorial waters. My understanding is that that is a big part of the reason why the two countries restrict their claim of territorial waters to leave a corridor of international waters: They want to avoid the area falling under the straits rules (transit passage), which would give Russia more rights than it has now inside the territorial waters.

lostlogin20• 7 months ago

ships have the almost-universally recognized right to cross territorial waters (innocent passage).

I’m far from a maritime law expert, but destroying cables doesn’t sound like innocent passage.

deliciousturkey3• 7 months ago

Yes, the right of passage through the strait would still clearly remain. This is already the case with Denmark and Sweden as these ships need to cross Öresund or Great Belt strait to reach the Atlantic.

However, this act would, in my understanding, give much more power to Finland and Estonia to detain these ships, and charge the crew for the crimes they have committed. Right now there seems to be a loophole in the legislation that Russia is actively exploiting for hybrid warfare purposes. If the strait rules would give Russia more ways to cause harm, some other way of dissuading Russia from making these acts should be done.

In general though, it feels stupid that we have to play by these rules, when the enemy makes a mockery of them and actively tries to exploit them to cause as much harm as possible. But that's the reality when bordering Russia.

petre2• 7 months ago

Innocent passage ≠ acts of negligence or sabotage. This sets an important precedent, that ships engaging in acts of sabotage could be be boarded, put under custody and their crews detained.

rasz7• 7 months ago

For one it would stop sanctioned ships dead cold. As it is russian lawyers are playing EU like a fiddle with nonsense arguments https://www.dailyfinland.fi/europe/46719/Sanctioned-Russian-...

"The Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) said there was "reasonable doubt as to the legality of the confiscation measures," as it was unclear whether the ship had had authorization to enter and leave the EU despite the sanctions, due to an exemption applicable in emergencies."

paganel• 7 months ago

1990's purely for benevolence towards Russia.

When you're a country as small and insignificant as Estonia is you're not doing anything out of "benevolence" towards a nuclear hyper-power, but what do I know?. maybe the Maja Kallas-types really do believe in their own word-blabber.

majorbugger• 7 months ago

You can't even write her name correctly

vardump• 7 months ago

Hyper-power, seriously? Russia is not even a super power, it only has some nuclear weapons, that’s all. Just like India, Pakistan, France, Israel, etc. In all likelihood most Russia’s nuclear weapons aren’t even operable anymore.

Roark66• 7 months ago

Hyper power that can't overwhelm a country that was supposed to fold in 48h? Give me a break.

While your sentiment may be correct in 2010s it certainly was not when these things were being decided in early 90s. USSR and Russia which de facto ruled it was seen as a failed state that needs "western help" and on a path to democracy. While we (here in Poland) we're quite skeptical, having the Russian WW2 occupying force leave in 1991 (yes, we didn't get freedom after WW2 until 1991). There was still a lot of hope Russia will follow in the footsteps of other central/eastern European countries like Poland/Czech/The Baltics if only we help them. So yes, there was huge resentment, but also a huge benefit of hope and benevolence too.

Was some of this calculated? Sure. No doubt someone sat in Talin and Helsinki and thought: if we treat them like post WW1 Germany it will be easier for the extremists to take power. So let's not pour sand in their fuel tank as they are desperately trying to restart the engine of their economy.

I don't even think it was a mistake at the time. It was a decent way to behave. But the moment the tide has started turning in Russia towards autocracy the screw should've been tightened. No oil and gas should fund Russian army after at least their attack on Georgia. If not before when the atrocities of the Chechen war became known.

Unfortunately corrupt politicians (that are still in power in Europe and even in my country) have continued signing deals and making money by financing what was clearly a huge enemy in the making.

Russia wasn't an eny in 1993, but it certainly was one in 2008 when it invaded Goergia. If only we acted properly in early 2000s all of this could've been prevented.

sprytny• 7 months ago

Is this runet, pikabu or y combinator I am readin? Geeez

Fairburn• 7 months ago

Lock em up, sell thier property. Rinse and repeat.

reaperducer2• 7 months ago

Lock em up, sell thier property. Rinse and repeat.

Works for small and medium-sized private companies. Doesn't work for major nations like Russia.

Doing as you suggest is like writing parking tickets for delivery trucks. They don't care. It's just a cost of doing business.

razakel• 7 months ago

Why wouldn't it work? The oligarchs would certainly be a bit upset if they lost their yachts, mansions, sports teams, and everywhere else they keep their wealth away from Putin.

Sabinus10• 7 months ago

Russia needs to work with the private sector to buy and crew the ships, and there is only so many ships they can buy and lose before it's not worth the money or hassle for either Russia or their private partners.

iambateman2• 7 months ago

Assuming it is state-sponsored sabotage…why? Whats the outcome they want? Is it just turning up the heat in the region?

jopsen3• 7 months ago

Scaring people, distraction, etc.

In the grand scheme, repairing the cables and supporting Ukraine will cost less and hurt Russia more than escalating tentions in the Baltic sea.

everfrustrated• 7 months ago

They want to test how quickly the cables get repaired and what vessels do the repairs etc.

aDyslecticCrow2• 7 months ago

Same reason they infiltrate airspace duringtraining, fly drones over airports, run submarines through ports.

Testing limits and tolerance, threatening what they could do in a real attack. Creating econocic pain in retaliation for support with a strong alibi to blame.

Boarding and detaining is a new escalation. How many cables cut before we consider military reaction? 3? 10? all of them?

dundarious3• 7 months ago

Is there a real drone issue at all? https://www.dronewatch.eu/61-european-drone-sightings-analys...

mmooss36• 7 months ago

Is it just turning up the heat in the region?

The EU and US were an unassailable bastion of freedom, peace, and prosperity, with arguably the most solid political foundations in history in democracy, and the most solid alliance in history in NATO.

How do you defeat such a place? You turn up the heat, to describe it very generally. It means, n a sense, radicalizing the population, a classic solution to Russia's problem. That's what terrorists do: How do you cause the US to shoot itself in the foot: terrorize people into thinking they are unsafe and overreacting (even though 9/11 affected on small area of one city).

One way they turn up the heat is to spread ethnic hatred, social distrust, embrace of violence, and abandonment of those things that prevent those maladies: universal human rights, democracy, rule of law, etc.

You can see it in this thread: People rooting for warfare, abandonment of the rule of law, etc. - all by some minor, cost-effective actions, like cutting a cable.

The expensive action and infinitely more consequential action - the invasion of Ukraine - remarkably doesn't create the same outrage. That outrage would trigger the obviously best solution: Guaranteeing unlimited material and political support for Ukraine until they win the war.

That is, it's remarkable if you don't appreciate information dominance, especially with social media companies either abandoning all responsibility or openly aiding the radicalization. Russia can create radicalization directly too.

officehero• 7 months ago

You turn up the heat

Agreed it's what they're doing but this looks more like "turning everyone against you". And you want your enemies to underestimate you (like Song or Kievan Rus' underestimated the Mongols) but the world doesn't underestimate Russia. Maybe it could have but WW2 and appeasement are still too fresh in memory.

ChromaticPanic• 7 months ago

Simple, they know there will be no consequences and Europe will keep buying their gas.

tordrt• 7 months ago

You realize that gas imports to Europe from Russia is down 80+% since pre invasion?

Russia is obviously having quite a hard time from sanctions caused by their actions.

icegreentea22• 7 months ago

If you want to research this, the terms to look for is something like "Russian hybrid warfare goals and objectives in Europe" (can also try greyzone warfare).

For example, here's a CSIS (American think tank) report: https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-shadow-war-against-wes...

Put simply, the goal is to add friction to anything NATO tries to do to aid Ukraine, and/or generally to improve its posture against Russia, while also trying to crack apart and erode both broad based and elite support for acting against Russia.

fennecbutt2• 7 months ago

Just like Trump's tariff bs, I'm starting to think that for Putin's M.O. that we should be fighting fire with fire.

Why not send a couple ships to drag anchors across Russia's cables? "Oh we are but innocent fishermen" is still valid going the other way.

Then when Russia inevitably seizes and imprisons the crew, the international community can do the same for every Russian controlled ship with the bare minimum of suspicion.

Would be a pretty sucky mission though, so many risks of capture. But the Russian government does it because they don't care about their people and also the rest of the world is too toothless to do anything about it (until this occurrence at least, go Finland - but then they know Russia's tactics very well).

Russia has been doing a "stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself" to the world for too long, abusing the "nice" way we desperately try to see things, pretending even when it's obvious. Like they'll do something egregious and then when the West calls them out, suddenly their political mouthpieces are all "we can't believe that the West is making this shocking and provocative accusation which is of course completely false, EU are bullies!" and then the world responds by taking a step back, pretty much every single time.

tosapple2• 7 months ago

-- Why not send a couple ships to drag anchors across Russia's cables? "Oh we are but innocent fishermen" is still valid going the other way.

-- Then when Russia inevitably seizes and imprisons the crew

Are you volunteering yourself for a vacation in a Russian gulag?

fennecbutt2• 7 months ago

Oh, not at all. I don't have the balls or the skills for that.

Though perhaps we could test some autonomous trawling vessels, you know, big tech company stuff. But as we know, software can sometimes be difficult and have...bugs... ;3

actionfromafar10• 7 months ago

Hire some Russians to do it. Cruel, but…

aziaziazi4• 7 months ago

the Ukrainian already destroyed a pipeline in the same region, is it worth an internet cable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream_pipelines_sabotage

aDyslecticCrow2• 7 months ago

It's still not confirmed who did that. Self sabotage by some European nation or even Russian is still up in the air.

Destroying that pipeline pushed Germany to act more against Russia (being officially unable to continue buying gas).

Historically anti russian states like Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Estonia or even NATO would have liked that.

Russia could have blown it up themselves to pin it on Ukraine to decrease support, but that doesn't seem to be the outcome.

Even germany could have blown it up to pivot their own politics.

It's a massive game of clue. It may become declassified in 20 years by whoever did it.

cosmicgadget11• 7 months ago

Would you say there are material differences between Nordstream and this?

leobg2• 7 months ago

He who fights monsters should take care not to become one in the process.

That you guys had presidents that didn’t fall into this trap is the reason you and I are ariund today.

William Inboden, The Peacemaker:

In America’s last fight against totalitarianism, President Franklin Roosevelt had demanded the unconditional surrender of both Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. In the context of total war, against implacable dictators such as Adolf Hitler and Hideki Tojo, Roosevelt’s insistence on unconditional surrender made strategic sense. Such a demand did not fit the Cold War. Much as Reagan looked to Roosevelt and World War II as a model for how the free world should confront dictatorships in thrall to evil ideologies, in the case of the Cold War and the Soviet Union, calling for “unconditional surrender” from Moscow would have been delusional and foolhardy—especially since Reagan remained desperate to prevent the Cold War from turning hot and ending in nuclear apocalypse.

itsthecourier• 7 months ago

it's like Putin decided his job is to test the limits of modern international politics

mmooss36• 7 months ago

It is: Look up the theory of status quo and 'revisionist* powers, and how they interact. Russia is acting as the revisionist, very predictably in many ways. And many in the West act predictably as status quo - including not being able to fathom why anyone would revise their happy power structure (with them on top).

You can see the same thing in many areas, such as race relations. The status quo is outraged and can't believe that other groups may be unhappy - after all, things work well in the status quo person's experience!

nephihaha• 7 months ago

"not being able to fathom why"

I see what you did there!

mosst• 7 months ago

Too many warmongering, aggressive people in the comments. This is not how we get the good ending. Cooler heads prevail. You don't understand this. That's okay. It's not your fault.

davidguetta• 7 months ago

we have winston churchill, specialist of international relation and war here

lovich8• 7 months ago

Russia is already in a state of armed aggression against Ukraine, and committing sabotage against other countries throughout Europe.

Cooler heads in this case are idiotic heads. It doesn’t take two partners to start a war, it only takes one and Russia already decided.

Someone in the other comments linked an article stating that Europe was doing the “unthinkable” of planning to retaliate and I was agog reading it if true. Not because Europe was going to retaliate but that they hadn’t even come up with plans over the past decade of increasing aggression from Russia.

You don’t have war plans for every crazy situation your analysts and strategists can conceive of because you’re excited to use them. You have them so your state apparatus is prepared and ready to go in an unlikely emergency instead of needing to take the months to years that any large bureaucracy needs to be ready to take action.

mmooss36• 7 months ago

That seems to contradict itself? Cooler heads plan carefully; hotheads act out - seek immediate emotional satisfaction without thinking of the consequences.

It doesn’t take two partners to start a war, it only takes one and Russia already decided.

Wars are not acts, but the conseuqences of long chains - large graphs - of decisions often lasting decades or more. Wars come from situations where there is no other choice.

The main goal of international relations policy is to create optimal scenarios, to not get caught in a situation where you have bad options or no options. Russia's 'grey zone' actions, including of course online propaganda campaigns (seriously, why wouldn't they?), are trying to create the scenarios that suit Russia best. They are preparing the political ground, and warfare is fundamentally politics (the most widely accepted maxim of warfare - see Clausewitz).

For an example, people emotionally and aggressively advocating for warfare, like on this page, if widespread can set the political ground.

It takes two (or more) to get into that position. It's a game of chess - checkmate isn't the result of one move.

m4ck_2• 7 months ago

Yes, we must submit and capitulate to Russia at every turn, or face war. Good plan.

Russia would deny any involvement, right? So throwing the crew in prison for a few decades and scrapping the ship aren't actions against Russia. They're not a party to this at all.

mmooss36• 7 months ago

That's the classic warmonger argument: Call people who disagree 'chicken' and 'coward', like high school taunts.

There are many other solutions, and if you read the experts, that's what rational governments pursue. It's not as emotionally satisfying as starting a war, but it's far more satisfying than what comes after that start.

Warfare, as anyone who has experienced it, is a catastrophe win or lose or stalemate. The victors of WWII put extraordinary effort into preventing future wars, including outlawing it, creating the UN and EU, rebuilding their former enemy's economies, etc.

What do you know about warfare that they don't? Were they cowards? Naive or innocent about evil?

kbelder• 7 months ago

Cooler heads prevail. You don't understand this. That's okay. It's not your fault.

You don't understand that your comment is incredibly aggressive and insulting? That's ok. You just don't understand that. Might not even be your fault you don't.

msie• 7 months ago

Effin' Russian govt, the rest of the world is too easy on them. They'll break ceasefires, they'll target non-military sites, they'll interfere with elections, they'll spread misinformation on social media, they'll lie to everyone and especially to their own citizens.

aziaziazi4• 7 months ago

To be fair every gouvernement does that.

kranke1553• 7 months ago

Scale changes quality.

SergeAx4• 7 months ago

Let's play war game. Here's a life-like scenario:

- Russian ship damages another cable - EU deploys military ships and planes on Baltic/North sea - Russia deploys military ships and planes of their own - EU tries to stop and seize another RU shadow fleet vessel - EU vessel denies EU demands - EU attack a vessel, trying to immobilize it - RU ships and planes attacks EU ships and planes - casualties from both sides - RU drops 10-15 MRBMs with conventional (non-nuclear) warheads onto key EU naval bases - orange clown in the White House says "this is not our war"

Your move.

rasz7• 7 months ago

my moves

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/25/russian-cargo-...

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/ukraine-h...

nlitened• 7 months ago

Your move is sinking a civil cargo ship in response to an attack on naval bases? Ok

SergeAx4• 7 months ago

Unfortunately, you lose.

LunaSea9• 7 months ago

My move: The EU airforces destroy all Russian siloes, air bases, naval bases and oil / gas infrastructure.

Your move.

SergeAx4• 7 months ago

The EU currently has about 450 Typhoons, 230 Rafales, and 140 Gripens. It also has about 160 F-35s; let's assume that the orange clown will not shut them down remotely. They also have some older Tornadoes, Mirages, and F-16 and F/A-18. All those aircraft are fighters, not strategic bombers. Their impact is limited; their range is about 700km.

The EU doesn't have a plan for how to fight without the US. Today's airstrikes should be carefully planned: planes, pilots, munitions, targets, engagement trajectories, and return trajectories. They will need time to figure out those plans. In their shoes, I would have started drafting those plans four years ago, but they still didn't.

The EU will not attack nuclear siloes, for fear of nuclear retaliation. Even if they try, most of those siloes are much farther than 700 km from Russia's borders. Those siloes were built by the USSR, and the USSR knew better.

The EU will use Storm Shadows/SCALPs/Tauruses. There aren't many of those in arsenals. Trying to use smart planning bombs with sub-100 km range will only make casualties 10-20 fold.

The EU strikes may reach Baltic and Black Sea naval bases, some energy infrastructure (port Primorsk being the first), and some airfields. They will not get the North Sea and Pacific bases, airfields near Murmansk, Saratov, and Irkutsk, which are used now to attack Ukraine.

Russia has integrated air defence, anв the shit is real, it is fight-proven, it works day and night for the last 3 years. Ask Ukrainians.

EU strikes will not be very effective and will not last. I estimate it in 1500-2000 sorties, and about half of those will reach the targets. The EU will lose about 100 planes and 50 pilots. Russia will receive a blow, but will not be devastated.

Russia will retaliate with new conventional MRBM strikes on the military and double-use airfields, and also factories of Gripen, Rafale, Airbus, etc. With those strikes, the EU will lose another 200 planes and most of its capacity to produce and repair them. Russia will also strike one large natural gas storage, one LPG from the Gulf comes into. Russian diversants will deliver several hits to the EU energy system, probably to large distribution hubs.

The EU stocks will drop to 70%-50% of their current value. The euro will fall by 20%-30% against global currencies. Electricity, gas, and heat prices will rise 2-3 times; gasoline and diesel prices will increase 1.5-2 times.

Your move.

renewiltord• 7 months ago

Europe can militarily fight Russia. That’s not really the problem. It’s more that Europeans don’t have the heart for it. They are too prosperous and don’t want to risk their lives. Russia is poor so the tradeoff is simpler.

You’re not going to get young German to go to the front. He is more interested in domestic interest-generational conflict.

HPsquared• 7 months ago

I wonder how the insurance works in this situation.

SubiculumCode2• 7 months ago

Maybe it's time to cut Russia out of the West's internet altogether.

thomassmith652• 7 months ago

The half that Russia hasn't already blocked, anyways.

jojobas5• 7 months ago

Russians are blocked, Russia isn't.

bjelkeman-again2• 7 months ago

I was thinking that too, but is it even possible? Russia must have interconnects via Belarus and other countries like Turkey. Maybe China?

SubiculumCode2• 7 months ago

Well, I am thinking more on the lines of only our allies.aka, in territories that we could investigate if we suspect a foreign influence campaign.

lovegrenoble4• 7 months ago

Deja vu (Nord Stream)

motbus3• 7 months ago

I understand the basics of the current conflicts, but what would be the advantage of sabotaging those cables at this moment?

benterix6• 7 months ago

Well, Putin doesn't always follow logic. Logically, all these provocations make Europe more united. But in his mind he's probably doing some kind of force projection and punishment for supporting Ukraine.

aembleton• 7 months ago

Testing the response.

thyristan7• 7 months ago

I can see a few advantages:

Internal Propaganda. You show to your own people, that you can cut off the enemies' communication lines easily.

External Propaganda. You show to the enemies that they are vulnerable, spreading fear and doubt in their own strength.

Exercises for larger operations. You train ships' crews for those kinds of maneuvers, in case you need to to it a large number of times, e.g. to cut off all baltic cables at once, cut all transatlantic cables, cut all cables to some important island like Iceland, etc.

Internal Normalisation. You get the ships' crews, your population and your governance structures used to a more aggressive mode of operations.

External Normalisation. You get the enemies' population and governance structures used to those kinds of pinpricks. So when the large-scale operation starts, they will ignore the first signs as "just the usual irrelevant pinpricks".

Testing and mapping connectivity. When the cable goes down, you can have your spies look at which relevant infrastructure goes down at the same time.

The_Double• 7 months ago

This is one of the best, succinct lists of motivations for hybrid warfare i've seen.

But i could suggest another potential benefit for russia: If russia already operates under the assumption that they are in a (cold) war with EU/NATO, and they don't care about the effects on the relationship with Finland. Then this may simply be a really low cost, high damage operation. That not only imposes the replacement cost of the cable, but also forces countries to invest in counter measures.

kranke1553• 7 months ago

One day they might send 20 ships all at once to cut all overseas cables in one go, and it won’t seem like the preparation for an invasion but just another provocation.

By that same morning they start the invasion of Estonia / the Baltics and separated them from the world through communications jamming and cutting all overseas cables. Without NATO support the Baltics are ocuppied by the same afternoon. In 12-16 hours Rússia has essentially re-occupied them.

These normalisation exercises are a part of it.

indubioprorubik• 7 months ago

I find it hilarious, that a land-empire, trying to undo the rule of law internationally, so the rule of the strongest returns, benefits from one side upholding the rule of law- and even gets to cry about it (venezuella) and mimicry mock the international order by presenting papers with signatures (as if they mean anything to somebody who would invade another nation at whim).

This self-hypnosis of walking on water while going to Takatuka, is falling apart faster then it can repair itself.

bogzz• 7 months ago

I'm trying to parse this, I presume you're talking about Russia? It's a more fitting comment about USA, to the point where I am in disbelief.

tim333• 7 months ago

I guess it's low level warfare - Europe supplies arms to Ukraine, Russia damages European stuff.

jgalt212• 7 months ago

They should build microwave towers between the Nordics and the Baltics.

Finland detains ship and its crew after critical undersea cable damaged

Related Stories