Comment by nabla9

I think Nordstream is more of a special case. It was clandestine, but definitely not terrorism. It was an attack on enemy infrastructure in pursuit of an actual, real-life shooting war. One can argue that it was a bad (or good) idea, or that it was/wasn't effetive, or even that its externalities were beneficial in the long term, etc...

But it's not really in the same category as casually cutting internet lines to your peacetime competitors out of pique or whatever.

Undersea satellites? You know, like after a launch failure.

it sounds like you've probably never seen this - tanker Minerva Julie (belonging to Putin's friends) traveling through the Baltic Sea suddenly decided to hang around for a week right at the same place where couple weeks later Nord Stream exploded:

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/03/16/23/68797949-11868975...

Yes, this is why having a prompt satellite launch capability to replace attrition losses is now a strategic imperative. We need to be able to put up new ones in a matter of hours, not months.

> After the Nordstream pipeline attacked and destroyed

This happend a very, very long time ago. Destroing things years after the fact is not logical and is not longer a defensive response. Using this as justification is just trying to escalate.

> its reasonable to expect shortened lifetimes for undersea cables and sattelites

Why is this reasonable? It seems like a pointless attack that achieves little other than reminding the world that horrible, oppessive governments are dangerous to everyone. Oppression is incredibly expensive for humanity, and only benefits the few that are the oppressors.

Boarded according to: https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1859132263746744367

For an analogy, it seems like a scrappy preteen throwing around his big brother's name, knowing that if he gets into trouble, big brother will intervene...

(i.e. the European countries might be more wary about boarding a Chinese ship compared to a Russian ship, because escalating against China is scarier...).

I think China stands to gain from escalation of the war so its possible they approved. It makes Russia weaker and more dependant on them, distracts the US from the Pacific, and weakens Europe in many ways.

Similar to both Russia and China gaining from war and disruption in the Middle East.

There are many possibilities here.

Russian captain, how does the ownership history of the ship look? Could be some sanction evading ship that was owned by Russian interests anyhow.

China did not want the war in Ukraine, which has created serious problems for them including for Belt and Road. So behing closed doors China must be passed off but Russia is important to them and they can't let them collapse.

Of course Putin knows this hence him somewhat taking the p.

I doubt China will be happy, if Russia staged chinese support. But rumors have it, that the North Korean troop support for the war in Ukraine also came out of the blue for China, so Putin might make a risky gamble here, but I doubt he dares it. If China would seriously drop support for Russia, they would be srewed.

Assuming it was intentional, just trying the waters. Testing what the response is, who actually responds versus who's willing to sweep the incident under the carpet, how hard any response is and how quickly it happens, how much of the internet infrastructure is affected for how long, etc... etc... that's a lot of useful information as preparation for an actual attack.

Russia wants to end NATO without going to war with NATO.

NATO's political unity and ability to respond is tested with these attacks. Russia does them one after another gradually escalating. Russia maintains plausible deniability or does so small operations that they can always walk them back.

Eventually, some country invokes Article 4 or 5 consultations. Russia hopes that US, Hungary, or Germany waters down NATO response. The conflict continues, but between individual countries not under NATO. NATOs as a organization may continue, but raison d'être is gone.

While not directly addressing undersea cable sabotage this is a comprehensive open access article with case studies on 'hybrid warfare' which provides context to these types of actions. 'Shadows of power beneath the threshold: where covert action, organized crime and irregular warfare converge' - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02684527.2024.2...

When Trump becomes President next year he is expected to demand that Ukraine settle the war with Russia or risk losing US aid and military support. It is why Russia is throwing everything at re-taking Kursk and US is now allowing long range strikes.

If the EU decides to join the US the war is over and Russia will keep the occupied lands. If the EU decides to support Ukraine then because of the devastating sanctions there is a strong chance Russia loses.

So it's in Russia's interest to make life as difficult as possible for Europe over the coming months in order to convince them that ending the war is in their best interest.

It doesn’t even really stop anything right? Communications just have to route around it and use other cables and satellites. It just seems like Russia wants to be annoying.

The ship was sailing from Russia and the captain is Russian. Using a Chinese ship is a good trick from Putin.

As for the core of your question: there is no benefit, it's just his mentality. "The West" supports Ukraine so let's just do some harm, retaliate in some way. Burn some buildings here and there, plants some inflammable materials on airplanes etc. Pointless for you and me, meaningful for that guy.

Look up 'Grey Zone Conflict': Destroying another country's assets is generally an act of war, but obviously this incident falls short of causing a war. That is the 'grey zone', a prominent feature of current international relations and a major focus of the defense of the democratic world and international order, including in the US military.

The international order is often called the 'US-led rules-based interntional order'. Russia, China, and some others dislike the first element, of course. The second element refers to the legal, rules-based structure (rather than power-based anarchy, which led to the centuries or millennia of war before the 'order' was created post-WWII). Aggressive international warfare is outlawed, for example; if France and Germany have a dispute, there is no question of violence - they use a legal structure to resolve it, which wasn't always true!

Grey zone activities accomplish illegal things without reprocussions. And therefore they also serve the goal of undermining the international order by demonstrating its powerlessness in these situations. In some ways, it's like trolling.

Russia uses grey zone tactics heavily - for example, they used them to capture Crimea (which was before the clear act of war, their 2022 invasion). They use them to run destabilizing 'grey zone' campaigns throughout the world, including directly interfering in elections. The tactics suit Russia in particular because they cannot compete miltarily with the democratic world.

China uses them too, for example using their 'coast guard' and 'civilian' 'fishing boats' to attack (up to a point) and intimidate ships from other countries in the South China Sea. If China used their navy, it would possibly be acts of war. A Chinese coast guard ship shooting water cannon at a fishing boat, though illegal in international waters, isn't going to start a war. 'Civilian' 'fishing' boats from China blockading access to a reef won't either.

Edit:

Before you look at Russia and China and other Grey Zone actors as miscreants, understand that it's just the normal behavior of 'revisionist' powers - those who want to change the current rules. The current rules serve the interests of the 'status quo' powers, who get all self-righteous about 'illegal' activities.

In a more common situation on HN, think of IP outsiders, who break the 'rules' made by major IP holders, such as DMCA or those extending copyright for decades or restricting access to scientific knowledge - the IP holders want the status quo and call violations 'theft' and the outsiders 'criminals', etc. If the US wasn't a status quo power, they'd be doing grey zone things.

(That doesn't at all justify Russia and China's goals of stealing land, oppressing people's freedoms, and solving problems through violence.)

Ok there's all the signalling between states that breaking a cable has. That also works for false flag operations, or true flag operations while making it look like a false flag operation (etc).

But also, cutting these cables doesn't stop communications. There are other land and undersea routes, and maybe terrestrial radio/satellite routes as well. You might damage these cables so that communications travel other routes which are more observable (or less observable). Or you might damage these cables so you can modify them elsewhere to enhance observability before they're repaired (or as part of the repair process).

Or it could be a training mission for your elite squad of cable biting sharks.

Lots of potential for intrigue here.

Prof. Stephen Kotkin — an historian who wrote multiple extensive biographies on Stalin — calls the Russian regime a "gangster regime".*

Once you see them as gangsters, it's not difficult to see why they would do this.

*A full link with exact timestamp of Kotkin saying this is [1]. Here he talks about why Merkel kept making oil deals with Putin even though in hindsight this was probably not the best idea. Kotkin argues that, yes, according to econ 101 trade is good for both parties, but not when the opposite party is a gangster. Merkel thought that Putin was thinking like her, but he wasn't.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/live/jJSDdCPpbto?t=4410

This is basically Russian retaliation for US providing Ukraine with ATACMS and first Ukrainian attack using ATACMS.

Newnew shipping signed huge contract with Rosatom.

[dead]

Tit-for-tat response to the NS2 bombing.

Assuming it bears out that the Russian state is the perpetrator.

I could believe that cutting one cable was an accident. But two, by the same ship, 60 miles apart?

Absolutely no way this wasn't intentional.

>What would be the motivation for a Chinese trade ship to deliberately cut an internet cable?

Money. Russia is reportedly bribing people into doing sabotage in western nations.

There's also reports that Yi Peng 3 is captained by a Russian national, which would also be another reason for a Chinese trade ship to conduct sabotage operations beneficial to Russia.

> What would be the motivation for a Chinese trade ship to deliberately cut an internet cable?

The most charitable reason is that they don't give a fluck. Same reason why their rocket boosters just fall wherever they fall, population center or not

Edit: https://x.com/Tendar/status/1859147985424196010

> The skipper of the Chinese ship is a Russian national and the route leads from Ust-Luga (Russia) to Port Said (Egypt).

At the Baltic Sea the cables and such break mostly because of one reason only: russia. [0]

[0] https://www.csce.gov/briefings/russias-genocide-in-ukraine/